Re: Online Safety Bill
 

Seems like a cop out unless you're also saying Scotland was immune to Westminster budget cuts and iirc 3000 officer and admin staff jobs were under threat from redundancy at the end of last year something Unison said resulted in police officers filling the civilian roles 10 years ago

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

And that sounds like you’re shifting the goalposts while hoping nobody notices that the total funding settlement from Westminster to Holyrood is not the same thing as ‘Tories have sacked 23,500 police admin staff’. Just admit you got the wrong end of the stick and move on. ;)

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

I suspect that the number of complaints about two individuals to be part of an organised campaign to make a point as opposed to true complaints made in good faith.

I expect that civilian staff are making decisions that would at one time have been made by police ifficers, yes. In an effort to deal with spending cuts or staff shortages, many organisations these days use lesser qualified staff to do the job that at one time was once done higher up the hierarchy.

It is happening at the NHS (Nurse Practitioners) and in frontline policing (Police Community Support Officers).

Even going to an Ombudsman these days is likely to be dealt with by admin staff and only goes to an actual Ombudsman if the complainant objects to the decision.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

It doesnt matter who is dealing with them, someone is having to.
Thats clearly going to have an effect on whatever else they were supposed to be doing.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

https://www.theguardian.com/technoog...s-to-under-16s

The Town that banned children using smartphones':

https://www.itv.com/thismorning/arti...ng-smartphones

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

Be interesting to know how many parents have their kids on contracts in their name.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

On the contrary .....


Post edited.
Its very clearly been pointed out that the party you are referring to had no involvement, or even the power, to make changes to Scottish policing in the last 25+ years.
Therefore I can only conclude you are deliberately trolling now (since I dont believe you to be dumb and thus not comprehend) - either way, move on, its getting off topic.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

I dont think under 18's can have contracts in their own name.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

Well yes, my suspicion is that rather than pay £800 for a new iPhone for a teenager parents would be more likely to take out a contract with a spend cap. This would have to be in the name of a parent making a ban on the sale of smartphones to teenagers pointless.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

All 3 of my kids have* contract phones. They are secondary phones on an account in my name. Some phone providers actively encourage this by giving discounts for multiple phones on the same account. A ban on smartphones for under 18s is unworkable.

*I should say ‘had’, as 2 of them are now over 18 and one of them has now taken on paying for the phone himself. But they all started out on a single family account.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

I’m no expert in the handset market for under 18s but I suspect the “hand me down” premium handset from when a parent gets a new phone is also a thing.

The number of kids saving up their pocket money and walking into Currys themselves - less than 10%? 20%?

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

Each of our kids got their first phone as a hand-me-down from their grandmother who used to get a mid-range one from her provider whenever it was offered to her as an incentive to re-contract.

Game (as in the computer game store) is where all our kids phones came from, second hand, once they were old enough not to want gran’s cast-off Samsungs. They have been iPhone-only ever since. The contract I have is SIM only from BT.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

And in the midst of all this Meta thought it a good idea to lower the age for WhatsApp from 16 to 13:

https://news.sky.com/story/meta-crit...to-13-13113483

A discussion on Channel 5 earlier revealed that WhatsApp is currently the second most popular platform for children aged 3 to 17.

Some contributors said that it was down to parents to police this and not social media platforms or the Government, whilst others believed that children of irresponsible parents deserved protection.

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

And why should responsible children with responsible parents be the victims of arbitrary regulation?

Re: Online Safety Bill
 

Why not, Facebook is 13, Tiktok is 13, Snapchat is 13, Instagram is 13 ... Seeing the pattern yet ?