In the last year since Together’s last event we’ve all had 3 major victories 1 We all saw off mandatory Digital ID for work in that form. Starmer’s albatross. (We still face massive issues One Login Social media ban ) BUT if no fightback we’d have that in place now 2. Farmers IHT U turn 3. Assisted Suicide Bill This shows what can happen when we all campaign, leaflet, lobby, do events, protests, activations and press as a concerted combined active force with the public at the front and centre We’ve got much more work to do on free speech, privacy & ongoing attempts to force digtial id so come along on Sat 7 Nov @Togetherdec Link below👇

I’d like to expose the lack of technical expertise behind British online child safety policies, challenge Ofcom’s credibility, and explain why existing parental controls should be prioritised over compulsory identity verification. To anyone with expertise in online child safety, this is more word soup from another British MP. I’ve advised the British government on these matters, and I can say with confidence that despite their confident statements, politicians demonstrate a lack of basic technical knowledge. The same applies to Ofcom. After multiple meetings with Ofcom and the British Home Office about SMS fraud, I was told the Home Office would write to Ofcom asking it to stop misleading the public about SMS fraud because it was siding with mobile operators instead of the public. During my final meeting with Ofcom, I asked why it continued to repeat claims I’d already demonstrated were technically false, including through testing that involved every UK mobile network operator. My experience has left me convinced that Ofcom is causing more harm than good. The same problem is evident in the debate about online child safety. Smartphones already have excellent parental controls that millions of parents and schools use to block unsuitable apps, websites and services, restrict content and set time limits. Yet politicians and Ofcom continue to demand that tech companies redesign their services for children while pushing compulsory identity verification. They ignore existing parental controls that allow parents to protect their children without forcing everyone else to surrender their privacy and online anonymity. If child safety was really a top priority, why aren’t they teaching parents how to use these controls? Journalists should be asking politicians and regulators two simple questions. Why aren’t you educating parents about the parental controls already built into smartphones, which independent technical experts in child safety and mobile security consider highly effective? And why are you demanding that social media and other companies make their content safe for children while simultaneously arguing that children should be banned from those same services? You need to pick one. Making every adult service safe for every child is technically impossible. Preventing children from accessing unsuitable services is already possible through smartphone parental controls. Parents can decide what’s appropriate for their own children without forcing an entire country to surrender its privacy and online anonymity. The relentless push for compulsory identity verification, while ignoring existing parental controls, tells me that protecting children isn’t the real priority.