Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Telly addicts

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Adolescence: The Netflix drama that will have every parent talking - Join our watch thread plus Q&A with producer and cast

432 replies

CeriMumsnet · 12/03/2025 13:58

Premieres 13th March 2025

Read Hannah and Christine's answers to your questions here.

If you’re after a gripping new series to get stuck into, Adolescence is set to be the show of the year - and it’s one that will chill parents to the core. This tense British crime drama begins with the shocking arrest of 13-year-old Jamie Miller for the murder of a classmate. But as the investigation unfolds, the series delves into the unsettling realities of modern masculinity, online radicalisation, and the pressures facing today’s teenagers.

Filmed in South Kirby with a raw, unflinching realism, Adolescence isn’t just another crime drama - it’s a conversation starter. If you were lucky enough to catch the Mumsnet exclusive preview, you’ll know just how haunting and thought-provoking it is, with themes that resonate long after you finish watching.

Watch the trailer here:

Q&A
Adolescence Executive Producer Hannah Walters and actress Christine Tremarco who plays Jamie’s Mum will be joining us for a Q&A in the next couple of weeks, so make sure to share your questions about the show for them below.

  • Hannah Walters is an actress, producer and co-founder of Matriarch Productions, an entertainment production company who aims to provide a much-needed platform for underrepresented voices and stories in the UK. Their credits include BOILING POINT (2021) and most recent TV series for the BBC. Hannah has two children with her husband Stephen Graham.
  • Christine Tremarco is a British actress who along with playing Jamie’s Mum in Adolescence can also currently be seen in Channel 4’s drama series, The Gathering and in the BBC’s Kidnapped: The Chloe Ayling Story, directed by Al Mackay. Other screen credits include the BBC’s Responder opposite Martin Freeman, a series regular in Sky’s Wolfe, and Shane Meadows’ BAFTA winning series The Virtues opposite Stephen Graham.

So, what do we think? Will you be watching? Does the premise resonate with you? Let’s chat below! 👇

Adolescence: The Netflix drama that will have every parent talking - Join our watch thread plus Q&A with producer and cast
Adolescence: The Netflix drama that will have every parent talking - Join our watch thread plus Q&A with producer and cast
sashh · 22/03/2025 04:56

Blubellsarehere · 21/03/2025 23:36

Wow
this is really interesting @ntmdino
thankyou

so given all this information ( which I genuinely consider helpful and informative )
and given the fact it’s a default in teenagers often ( not always ) not to listen to their parents advice ( I didn’t myself )

I would argue we need stronger legislation over social media for our children
these are not small tragedies occurring and they are far from isolated

Just adding to what @ntmdino said.

The online world is just that, a world. But anyone can travel it in seconds.

We need to teach our children and young people about that world in an age appropriate way.

We teach children how to cross the road by holding an adult's hand but teens will still run across the road. The important thing is they know the risks.

You wouldn't choose to take your child to a war zone or to a beheading but they can go there online.

We also need to be open and not just talk but to listen to what they are telling us.

@Blubellsarehere Thank you for sharing.

Is there anything any of us can do? Tell you a bad joke? Offer a virtual hug?

User32459 · 22/03/2025 09:05

Other factor regarding the Dad was he was beaten mercilessly by his own father (which stored up anger issues). But the point was that he'd never hit his own son.

Summergarden · 22/03/2025 10:54

CatsLikeBoxes · 15/03/2025 21:48

I haven't read all the posts, so sorry if someone else has said this.

But think it is interesting how much the males were prioritised in the story telling - was that intentional as reflection of the underlying concept of patriarchy / incel culture.

The woman sergeant mentioned how she hated that everyone would remember Jamie's name rather than Katie. And in fact we learned very little about her. The policewoman barely contributed, the psychologist had to put up with the guy in the detention centre looming over her, Jamie only focused on his dad, we never knew what was happening to Jade...

Although I found it powerful, I would have liked to see it from other perspectives too.

That’s an excellent point, that I hadn’t fully digested while watching. The men were indeed prioritised far more. Probably to emphasise the way that incel culture seeks to do exactly that.

Fanacapan · 22/03/2025 17:30

I binged this last night and I’m undecided as to whether it is as fantastic as the critics think. I found myself focusing on entirely the wrong things, I must have watched too many true crime documentaries! How did they identify him so quickly? Why did they go in so heavy handed, given he was so young? Why did no one ask who he was supposed to have murdered? If I was the parent I’m sure that would have been the first thing I’d have asked. The production and acting was great but I was left feeling a bit meh. I didn’t think it addressed the issues very well either. My big takeaway was that I had no idea what all those emojis mean!

suah · 22/03/2025 23:43

needmorecoffee7 · 22/03/2025 00:49

@suahI just looked this case up and it sounds as though one of his killers was well known to children's services and his schools had repeatedly flagged up concerns about his violent tendencies, and the danger he posed to others.
I think it is highly doubtful that a child would kill like this without any kind of prior history of violence/ some sort of huge trauma

his violence was put down to the presentation of his autism, not a traumatic event from his upbringing

CapybaraInMyGardenOhIWish · 23/03/2025 01:33

needmorecoffee7 · 19/03/2025 20:13

I finished it last night. Amazing acting. I think the message is an important one but I do wonder how realistic it is. Have there been any cases of child murderers from loving functional families like this one? It doesn’t seem like a child would turn to murder on the reasoning provided in the program. My understanding is that they are likely to be from an abusive background and/ or experienced some major trauma

I don't know though, look at the Southport killer.

PalmTreeAngel · 23/03/2025 06:47

I disagree that murderers only come from certain backgrounds or have experienced abuse or trauma. In fact - I think the show was highlighting the risk to young boys of being radicalised online. This is also what happened with the Southport killer… the killers of Brianna Ghey also came from seemingly good families/backgrounds. I think it’s shining a light on the risks posed by the internet intersecting with the difficulties that come with being an adolescent.

needmorecoffee7 · 23/03/2025 08:49

I absolutely agree that it is sending a strong message about the risks posed by the internet for adolescents. It was an excellent show and has been brilliant it starting this conversation. However I do not feel that it is remotely realistic that a 13 year old child ( Southport killer was 19 so an adult) is going to murder someone without any prior signs, be that a history of violence, bad home life, past trauma etc. Whereas I think parents of 13 year olds need to be worried about what their children are exposed to online, I don’t think we all need to become concerned that our children are suddenly going to become killers.

BrainFogus · 23/03/2025 09:19

Fanacapan · 22/03/2025 17:30

I binged this last night and I’m undecided as to whether it is as fantastic as the critics think. I found myself focusing on entirely the wrong things, I must have watched too many true crime documentaries! How did they identify him so quickly? Why did they go in so heavy handed, given he was so young? Why did no one ask who he was supposed to have murdered? If I was the parent I’m sure that would have been the first thing I’d have asked. The production and acting was great but I was left feeling a bit meh. I didn’t think it addressed the issues very well either. My big takeaway was that I had no idea what all those emojis mean!

I did think it was very strange that they all sat around in the police station and the “who has been murdered?” conversation never came up! It was the first thing I’ve had asked too, as soon as the police came to the house.

Thuja · 23/03/2025 11:36

ntmdino · 21/03/2025 22:47

If you think it's possible to do what you're asking, you really don't understand the technology involved. It's not magic.

Any on-device content blocks - as you seem to believe Apple should do for you - are compromised right from the start, because if someone has physical access to a device they already have full control; that's basic security principles at work. There was an experiment done a few years ago, where a countermeasure for a fairly advanced content restriction application was found, and by lunchtime that very same day it had been implemented by around 70% of the children in a school.

On the other hand, you could demand that the networks implement it. Unfortunately, there are two problems with that - first is that the device doesn't need to access their network, and phones can just attach to any hotspot via wi-fi (eg another child's phone which runs through another network) to completely defeat the block. Second is that such blocks have to do deep packet inspection on encrypted data without the keys (everything runs through HTTPS these days). That means a) compromising everybody's security, safety privacy online, and b) everybody's Internet connections will simultaneously double in price and get slower, because hardware capable of doing that at scale is incredibly expensive.

The battle is lost from the off; if you believe otherwise, then you really are kidding yourself. And, of course, none of that would even begin to protect children from the events of Adolescence.

The only thing that will do that is teaching children to be responsible online.

Yes it is possible - smart phones could be banned for kids, even more so if, as you say, Apple cannot implement proper parental controls. It’s also unethical of Apple, if this is indeed the case, not to flag this up to parents when buying who are lulled into a false sense of security. As a solicitor I have worked in implementing legislation and it’s possible if there is the demand for change. Other countries have adopted other approaches which mitigates some of this. In Spain some schools are mobile phone free which means at least from 8am to 5pm kids don’t have phones. In Australia they are banning social media for under 16yrs. In China there are huge controls on social media/gaming for kids although yes it’s a different system. Banning smart phones may actually easier. We do it with cigarettes and alcohol. If children can easily have access to content that they are not allowed access to in real life then this is a basis for looking at legislation.

PalmTreeAngel · 23/03/2025 15:49

Thuja · 23/03/2025 11:36

Yes it is possible - smart phones could be banned for kids, even more so if, as you say, Apple cannot implement proper parental controls. It’s also unethical of Apple, if this is indeed the case, not to flag this up to parents when buying who are lulled into a false sense of security. As a solicitor I have worked in implementing legislation and it’s possible if there is the demand for change. Other countries have adopted other approaches which mitigates some of this. In Spain some schools are mobile phone free which means at least from 8am to 5pm kids don’t have phones. In Australia they are banning social media for under 16yrs. In China there are huge controls on social media/gaming for kids although yes it’s a different system. Banning smart phones may actually easier. We do it with cigarettes and alcohol. If children can easily have access to content that they are not allowed access to in real life then this is a basis for looking at legislation.

I agree.

PalmTreeAngel · 23/03/2025 15:51

needmorecoffee7 · 23/03/2025 08:49

I absolutely agree that it is sending a strong message about the risks posed by the internet for adolescents. It was an excellent show and has been brilliant it starting this conversation. However I do not feel that it is remotely realistic that a 13 year old child ( Southport killer was 19 so an adult) is going to murder someone without any prior signs, be that a history of violence, bad home life, past trauma etc. Whereas I think parents of 13 year olds need to be worried about what their children are exposed to online, I don’t think we all need to become concerned that our children are suddenly going to become killers.

Well, it’s fiction not a documentary. It’s not meant to be representative of something that’s happened. It’s meant to be a warning sign of the risks posed. Now it’s not overly realistic of a 13 year old boy with no prior signs yes, but that’s not the point.

HappydaysArehere · 23/03/2025 16:17

one of the best dramas ever seen on TV. Other channels would have given their eye teeth for the reviews given to Netflix.

Blubellsarehere · 23/03/2025 16:27

I 100% agree

ntmdino · 23/03/2025 16:30

Thuja · 23/03/2025 11:36

Yes it is possible - smart phones could be banned for kids, even more so if, as you say, Apple cannot implement proper parental controls. It’s also unethical of Apple, if this is indeed the case, not to flag this up to parents when buying who are lulled into a false sense of security. As a solicitor I have worked in implementing legislation and it’s possible if there is the demand for change. Other countries have adopted other approaches which mitigates some of this. In Spain some schools are mobile phone free which means at least from 8am to 5pm kids don’t have phones. In Australia they are banning social media for under 16yrs. In China there are huge controls on social media/gaming for kids although yes it’s a different system. Banning smart phones may actually easier. We do it with cigarettes and alcohol. If children can easily have access to content that they are not allowed access to in real life then this is a basis for looking at legislation.

It's not possible to do what the post I was responding to was asking, and I explained why.

If you think banning smartphones for kids is the solution, then that's similarly delusional; phones aren't the only method of online communication, they're just currently the most convenient. Computers, games consoles, tablets, smart watches...all are capable of running browsers and chat apps. Are you going to ban them all too? We're in a world where a 14yr old can build a portable touchscreen device with a Pi Zero for about £50, which will do everything a smartphone can do (and more) except make cellular phone calls. If smartphones are banned for children, I guarantee devices like that will pop up for sale everywhere...and they're not smartphones, so they completely evade the ban.

The social media ban for 16yr olds...see my comment about how quickly kids come up with countermeasures. These little brats are practically lawyers in how they can find ways around the definitions of things like "social media".

As for schools being phone-free, that's the least effective solution to the bullying problem, because they can do it face-to-face there and continue online when they get home.

But...y'know...it's amazing the lengths people will to go in order to avoid actually teaching their kids how to be responsible and not assholes.

mikado1 · 23/03/2025 16:52

ntmdino · 23/03/2025 16:30

It's not possible to do what the post I was responding to was asking, and I explained why.

If you think banning smartphones for kids is the solution, then that's similarly delusional; phones aren't the only method of online communication, they're just currently the most convenient. Computers, games consoles, tablets, smart watches...all are capable of running browsers and chat apps. Are you going to ban them all too? We're in a world where a 14yr old can build a portable touchscreen device with a Pi Zero for about £50, which will do everything a smartphone can do (and more) except make cellular phone calls. If smartphones are banned for children, I guarantee devices like that will pop up for sale everywhere...and they're not smartphones, so they completely evade the ban.

The social media ban for 16yr olds...see my comment about how quickly kids come up with countermeasures. These little brats are practically lawyers in how they can find ways around the definitions of things like "social media".

As for schools being phone-free, that's the least effective solution to the bullying problem, because they can do it face-to-face there and continue online when they get home.

But...y'know...it's amazing the lengths people will to go in order to avoid actually teaching their kids how to be responsible and not assholes.

Right, I've been reading your posts and insights and take it all on board. Instead of the 'Don't be silly, you can't,' what are your suggestions? What would you do now with a pre-phone child? Talk to them, prepare them, keep the communication open, but I'd appreciate some detail if you'd give your opinion on it? I have a great relationship with my 13dc, about to be a phone owner.. we have boundaries agreed on etc I want to do this as well as possible.

kinkytoes · 23/03/2025 16:59

Brilliant tv, the gritty realism heightened by the stories being told in real time.

The takeaway message for me was that, just like when we get a car, we take on a potentially dangerous weapon when we have a child. On a day to day basis, we don't see our cars or our children as being dangerous but of course we have to take precautions with both to ensure they are safe.

I don't think many people think of their children as potentially dangerous, but they are and we need to do our very best to make them as safe as we can.

Thuja · 23/03/2025 17:04

ntmdino · 23/03/2025 16:30

It's not possible to do what the post I was responding to was asking, and I explained why.

If you think banning smartphones for kids is the solution, then that's similarly delusional; phones aren't the only method of online communication, they're just currently the most convenient. Computers, games consoles, tablets, smart watches...all are capable of running browsers and chat apps. Are you going to ban them all too? We're in a world where a 14yr old can build a portable touchscreen device with a Pi Zero for about £50, which will do everything a smartphone can do (and more) except make cellular phone calls. If smartphones are banned for children, I guarantee devices like that will pop up for sale everywhere...and they're not smartphones, so they completely evade the ban.

The social media ban for 16yr olds...see my comment about how quickly kids come up with countermeasures. These little brats are practically lawyers in how they can find ways around the definitions of things like "social media".

As for schools being phone-free, that's the least effective solution to the bullying problem, because they can do it face-to-face there and continue online when they get home.

But...y'know...it's amazing the lengths people will to go in order to avoid actually teaching their kids how to be responsible and not assholes.

I understand where you are coming from but it’s like saying we shouldn’t ban cigarettes and alcohol for children as they’ll get it anyway. If you restrict devices and the actual time they can spend developing addictions to tech, whilst their brains are developing, then it will reduce some of the harms. My daughter has gone to a new school where phones are completely banned up to 18yrs. They can’t even bring them into school. Her experience is that the teens there have better social skills, more friendly, they all chat to each other at lunch break rather than stare at screens and she’s noticed her attention has improved and my daughter is a teen who loves her phone. By the time she gets home, she hasn’t looked at her phone once. This has really reduced screen time and if you factor in activities and homework, she’s hardly on her phone in the week. Many teens by nature aren’t interested in listening to a word their parents have to say about an online world of which parents have no experience. There are alternatives to just handing them a device and saying good luck.

PalmTreeAngel · 23/03/2025 18:55

HappydaysArehere · 23/03/2025 16:17

one of the best dramas ever seen on TV. Other channels would have given their eye teeth for the reviews given to Netflix.

Agreed — so powerful & impactful. I hope it wins an award of sorts.

SundayMorningLoafing · 23/03/2025 21:02

Fanacapan · 22/03/2025 17:30

I binged this last night and I’m undecided as to whether it is as fantastic as the critics think. I found myself focusing on entirely the wrong things, I must have watched too many true crime documentaries! How did they identify him so quickly? Why did they go in so heavy handed, given he was so young? Why did no one ask who he was supposed to have murdered? If I was the parent I’m sure that would have been the first thing I’d have asked. The production and acting was great but I was left feeling a bit meh. I didn’t think it addressed the issues very well either. My big takeaway was that I had no idea what all those emojis mean!

I agree entirely. I’m not getting the hype at all.

TheaBrandt1 · 24/03/2025 06:13

Really? Odd. We go to the theatre a lot it reminded me more of a play. In a different league from most tv dramas.

HappydaysArehere · 24/03/2025 10:03

TheaBrandt1 · 24/03/2025 06:13

Really? Odd. We go to the theatre a lot it reminded me more of a play. In a different league from most tv dramas.

Apparently each episode was filmed in one take so like watching theatre.

RainbowZebraWarrior · 24/03/2025 10:09

ntmdino · 20/03/2025 17:02

Quite amazing how many people have missed one of the biggest points of the show: older generations' ignorance of teenage and online culture, and dismissal of it as irrelevant or deviant, is how its grows right under their noses.

And then, when the worst elements of it intrude on their world with shocking results, they act as though it couldn't possibly have been predicted.

How much of it could've been prevented by the parents having good, two-way conversations with their kids about how they use the Internet from an early age, understanding how it all fits together in a young person's world and talking them through how to best deal with what it throws at them? And what about the police and the teachers, who were equally oblivious because they had no idea either, whether as parents or investigators?

That's the message I took from it; remaining stuck in a world that was left behind a couple of decades ago means that you'll be forever unable to cope with or affect the one that you live in now.

Edited

Just catching up with the thread and wanted to come back to this point.

This is the absolute crux of it.

However, it also reminds me of how my aunt and her daughter (both entirely tech savvy and intelligent) are minimising my uncles far right extreme views which are fuelled by him disappearing down YouTube rabbit warrens - and no doubt worse - and now meeting up with similarly minded thugs. Of course, back in the day he was 'just' your common or garden football hooligan. The Internet allows people to share their bile and fuel their hate 24/7. They don't need to wait to get to the pub on a match day any more.

Strangely enough, a little bit The Walk In which Stephen Graham also starred in back in 2022.

It's a cancer within our society, and there is no stopping it. The will has always been there.

Amaouttahere · 24/03/2025 16:33

It’s not just teens. My dc uses the iPad at home but it’s on my account. She’s in Year 6 at Primary school and a large number of kids have got phones - some had their own when they were 7.

They have added my dc onto group chats on messages (which is actually my number). Different kids just create multiple chat groups and add everyone they know onto there. My dc left most of them because they didn’t want to be talking to people that weren’t her friends in real life. I’ve turned off notifications but keep an eye on what’s going on.
What I’ve observed is many have no idea of etiquette or boundaries. For example someone decides to group call the entire chat (around 30 people) and when nobody answers they continue spamming. I see messages from some at around 11:30pm on a weeknight which is probably not great for a 10/11 year old to be getting used to. Many say they are on TikTok/Instagram which they are not meant to have at their age.

My dc watches family channels on YouTube and I can’t stand it but all their friends watch them. We have a talk about how most of the content is staged and made to be entertaining, it’s not real.

It’s an ongoing battle but I can already see how some kids are totally unregulated using their devices.

SundayMorningLoafing · 24/03/2025 16:34

I go to the theatre a lot, have NT Live on subscription. I didn't find this like theatre.