Violence Against Women & Girls (VAWG): Labour Party strategy

 To put it bluntly, I don't agree with the Labour Party on much, and I don't agree with them on the VAWG strategy that they announced on 18th December 2025.

It would be easier to write a short list of good things that the Labour Government has done (free breakfast for children) rather than the long list of things they do that leave me shaking my head.

Before I even read it, the Violence Against Women & Girls (VAWG) strategy has me shaking my head.

There is so much wrong with the title!

It's such a terrible message to send out.

Having a government launch something with this title seems like a huge blow. 

Feminists have been fighting to be seen as equals in society for a long time, and things are so much better now than when I was a child. 

And it doesn't reflect the reality of the world we live in (further evidence that the people in the government live in a bubble that is separate from the real world).

Here's the announcement:

"The next generation of girls will be better protected from violence and young boys steered away from harmful misogynistic influences, under sweeping new measures announced by the Prime Minister." 

I want to stand up and shout: it's not just GIRLS that need protecting, it is all our children.

Boys are vulnerable.

Men are more likely than women to be victims of violence (with or without injury) where the perpetrator is a stranger.

As a mother, I'm well aware that BOYs are at great risk of violence.

FACT: boys are more often victims of stranger violence in public (physical assault, robbery, weapons), while girls face higher risks of sexual assault and relationship/domestic abuse.

Feminists have been fighting to be seen as equals in society for a long time, and things are so much better now than when I was a child. Having a government launch something with this title seems like a huge blow. 

Even in those areas where the risk is greater for girls and women, men and boys still suffer from domestic violence and stalkers in significant numbers. To make this a "women's issue" is terrible for all of us. 

• It reinforces the idea that these crimes are about our biology. 
• It makes it harder to accept that men can be victims of domestic violence and women can be perpetrators.
• It makes it harder to tackle the causes of these crimes.

The Government says:

"The plans unveiled today will focus on prevention and tackling the root causes of abuse, and come as the latest stats show that nearly 40% of teenagers in relationships are a victim of relationship abuse and over 40% of young men hold a positive view of Andrew Tate."

Well, I'll agree that young people shouldn't see Andrew Tate as a role model!

But I think as long as you frame the problem in this men V women way that the government is doing, then you can't tackle the root causes of abuse.

Now, there is a problem.

I agree with the government about that. 

We can all see that young people face big problems.

I suspect the biggest problems young people face are lack of money, lack of opportunities, and lack of affordable homes. How bad are the prospects? 

When we are talking about school-aged kids, what are we showing when 1/5th of them live in absolute poverty? And their schools are falling down. 

Respect for other people and kindness must have some connection to the experience those kids have of the world.

How much do you think these BIG issues contribute to the violence and misery among young people?

The world is great for those who get a job and get on with their careers; it's really not great for others.

Of course, the government could and should be making sure people don't live in poverty and do have jobs to do and they can tackle other things too.

They have announced:

"Teachers will get specialist training on how to talk to pupils about issues like consent and the dangers of sharing intimate images, with experts brought in to pilot new approaches. This will be backed by pioneering research identifying the most effective way of teaching young people these crucial lessons."

This sounds like a good thing. I'm just saying, if we are going to improve the lives of young people, it has to be more than just lessons in school; it has to be about building a better society in which people can afford to meet their needs with dignity. 

It has to use language that does not demonise boys and men. 

It has to recognise that boys and men are victims too.

 Who doesn't want a safer society for women and girls? 

I want a safer society for everyone, including boys and men. 

Men are more likely to be victims of violence by strangers in public places.

Having a strategy that is JUST about Violence Against Women and Girls is the wrong way to approach the problem.

I'm not saying there isn't a problem. There is.

Domestic Abuse: 

A couple of women every week are murdered by men who are close to them, husbands and boyfriends.

Men constitute the vast majority of those prosecuted for domestic abuse. In the year ending March 2024, 91.3% of defendants in these cases were male, while only 8.5% were female

Women can be vile too, but they are far less likely to murder anyone or commit violent crimes.

Instead of exclusively focusing on women and girls as victims, when men and boys are often victims of violence too, we should be focusing on the prevention of violent crime by looking at who perpetrates it and why.

MEN... 

But not all men. 

Why some men and not others?

Peak Offending Age

• The peak age for male criminal convictions is consistently between 21 and 25 years old.
• Young Adult Concentration: More recent evidence suggests the average peak for all crimes among men is 23 years old. Men aged 15–29 are currently identified as the group most likely to commit "the worst" violent crimes, including stabbings.

It's not just a small peak, men who commit violent crimes are almost always in their late teens or early 20s. 

 Over three-quarters (75%+) of convicted homicide suspects are aged between 13 and 27 years old. For the three-year period ending March 2024, 92% of all convicted homicide suspects were male.

• Serious Youth Violence: Children (under 18) are increasingly involved in serious violence. In 2022/23, there were 14,298 proven violent offences committed by 10–17-year-olds. For teenage homicides, 87% of the accused had previous contact with the police.
• Domestic Abuse: While domestic abuse occurs across all ages, the highest prevalence of experiencing it is among those aged 16–24, often with perpetrators in a similar age bracket.

***

So, we know most violent crime is committed by men, but not all men. Now we know it is most often committed by young men.

Why? We could jump to the conclusion that it has something to do with hormones gone mad. 

As parents, we know boys change into men, and there's a lot going on. But I wonder how male violence among young men relates to stressful life changes as they leave the parental home and take on responsibilities. I don't know, it's just a thought. But still, we all have those stresses. 

Here's more interesting data on male violence:

Poverty and Economic Deprivation

Poverty is a primary risk factor for violent crime in the UK. Research indicates that violence is concentrated in areas of high deprivation: 

Concentration of Violence: In London, violence, robbery, and sexual offences are 3.5 times more prevalent in the 10% most income-deprived neighbourhoods compared to the 10% least deprived.

• Childhood Poverty: Exposure to poverty during childhood significantly increases the risk of an individual becoming involved in violence and the criminal justice system during their teenage years.
• Deprived Backgrounds: Approximately 93% of prison leavers in recent cohorts grew up in the 20% most deprived areas of the country. 

Unemployment and Financial Strain 

Perpetrators often experience long-term detachment from the workforce before their conviction:

• Employment Status: In the month prior to entering custody, only 30% to 38% of prisoners were in paid employment.
• Correlation: Statistical analysis shows a positive correlation between male unemployment and various crimes, including robbery and criminal damage.
• Financial Distress: Survey data reveals that 15% of offenders cited financial difficulties and 16% cited unemployment as factors that directly contributed to their offending behaviour. 

Educational Qualifications and Attainment

Low academic achievement is one of the most stark indicators of the prison population: 

• Lack of Qualifications: Nearly half (47%) of newly sentenced prisoners report having no academic qualifications at all upon entering prison.
• Literacy Levels: An estimated 57% of adult prisoners have literacy levels below those expected of an 11-year-old child.
• School Experience: Educational exclusion is a major precursor; 43% to 44% of prisoners have been permanently excluded from school, and 59% were eligible for free school meals during their education.
• GCSE Attainment: Only 9% of adult offenders released from custody in 2024 had achieved 5 or more GCSEs at grades A*-C (or 9-4) during their school years.

In the UK, male perpetrators of violence are overwhelmingly characterized by backgrounds of significant socio-economic disadvantage. Statistics show that poverty, unemployment, and low educational attainment are common markers among those who enter the criminal justice system for violent offenses.

Of course, as teenagers reach the age when they would like to enter the workforce, their poor education will hold them back. 

Key Socio-Economic Linkages for Men

• The "Undeserving Poor" Label: Policy and social attitudes often treat young, unemployed men as the "most undeserving" group, worsening their economic conditions and increasing their risk of criminalisation.
• School to Prison Pipeline: When young men disengage from education early, they lose the "connectedness" that protects against violence. Without qualifications, they face a job market where they cannot legally attain the status or goods they aspire to, making illegal, violent pathways more attractive.

Addressing the material conditions of men's lives is critical to reducing violence.

Young men from deprived backgrounds who have underachieved in school commit most of the violent crime.

Look, here's an idea: 

can society could intervene earlier in lives to give people a better start? 

The data suggests that greater investment to: 

* help families out of poverty and to 

* help children who are struggling in school

* ensure there is work and money for young people aged 16-26 

would have a significant impact on the rates of violent crimes committed by young men. 

Poverty and Education Are Key

Violence is predominantly a male crime, whereas girls also suffer from poverty and poor education. 

We do need to look at another factor: it is TOXIC MASCULINITY.

However, I don't think Toxic Masculinity can be solved by special education programmes without solving the basic problems of poverty that I mentioned above. 

In fact, "masculinity" is a learned behaviour and an idea about gender...  our learned behaviours and ideas about gender come from the society around us, so we absolutely have to tackle society first.

I’m Against An Under-16 Social Media Ban

 I was born in the 1960s, long before the internet—or anything like social media—existed. 

My childhood was completely offline and involved a lot of time in the library. I had (and still have) endless curiosity. Now, I barely have time to sleep because... have you seen how many lectures and documentaries are on YouTube?

The world changes, technology evolves, and each generation grows up with tools the previous one could never have imagined.

Now, as a mother of three (with my eldest already 23), I feel qualified to speak about social media (phones and the internet) and the role it plays in young people’s lives. My children have grown up with unlimited access — shock, gasp, horror! 

Their world didn't fall apart. They have all excelled at school — I could do proud-mum boasting, but no one likes that. 

Unlimited access meant they overindulged for a day or so (we've all done it), and then the novelty wore off. 

My kids read books (for fun). They study. They have hobbies and ambitions. They know how to find educational content on YouTube, and there is a lot of it aimed at school kids.

Smartphone. The internet. Social media. These are the tools of the modern age, which are essential in most workplaces. Kids should have access at an early age.

TBH, when my children got (second-hand) iPhones as they started secondary school, most of their peers already had phones. I have no idea why such a young child needs their own phone. And I don't think children should take phones to school. I think kids should get a good night's sleep and read a book at bedtime, not a phone screen. 

I'm not a complete libertarian.

But at no point, not for a single minute, have I ever wished the government would step in and control my children’s access to social media.

If the government could step in and make them empty the dishwasher without me having to nag, that would be a big help. 

Even more than that, I could create a really long list of the ways the government could help parents raise their kids. Universal free breakfast clubs are a great start. Thank you!

Social media didn’t exist when I was young—but it has enriched my children’s lives.

Because I grew up without it, I’m perhaps more aware than my kids of just how much social media and online communities offer.

Education, creativity, connection, humour, skills development, and global awareness.

My children have been able to learn about the world, build communities, find inspiration, and express themselves in ways my generation could barely imagine.

Social media isn’t perfect—but it has brought significant benefits to our lives. I suspect more kids benefit from it than are disadvantaged by it. 

Support systems online matter—especially for isolated young people

Especially those who are LGBTQ+, neurodivergent, dealing with mental-health issues, or simply different from the majority around them—thrive when they find spaces online where they can safely connect with others who understand them.

Some children and teens grow up in households or communities where they cannot openly share who they are. Online platforms can be the one place where they feel seen, validated, and supported.

Removing that is not protecting them. It’s isolating them.

Teens are not toddlers—they’re emerging adults.

As a parent, I understand that teenagers can make mistakes. All of us did at that age. But teens are also capable, thoughtful individuals who deserve to be treated as such.

This ban sends a message I fundamentally reject: that everyone under 16 is too immature to navigate the online world and cannot be trusted to make reasonable decisions. That simply isn’t true.

My own children learned responsibility precisely because they were given responsibility—not because someone forced restrictions upon them.

Punishing everyone for the struggles of a few is not a good policy

Of course, social media can become problematic for some young people. But when a child excessively uses social media, that’s usually a symptom of a deeper issue—loneliness, anxiety, bullying, lack of support—not the cause.

Banning all teens from all platforms because a minority struggles with overuse is a blanket solution that solves nothing. It simply removes access for everyone, including those who use these platforms in healthy, productive, and meaningful ways.

You don’t fix a societal problem by removing tools. 

You fix it by addressing the underlying issues.

The government micro-managing family life is not welcome

I have raised three children from infancy. At no point did I ever feel the need for the government to intervene in their social media use. Not once. Because that is a family’s responsibility—not the state’s.

Parents who want stricter controls can implement them at home. There is no shortage of tools, settings, or strategies for monitoring or limiting online use if a parent believes it’s necessary.

But the idea that the government should swoop in and enforce a one-size-fits-all ban—regardless of the child, the family, or the context—is deeply troubling.

This isn’t protection. This is micromanagement. And once governments start micromanaging one aspect of family life, they rarely stop at just one.

This ban removes rights, support, and opportunities—without solving the real problems

In the rush to “do something,” the government has chosen the bluntest instrument possible: remove social media from every under-16-year-old, regardless of whether they use it safely, educationally, socially, or responsibly.

It will not fix the complexities of modern childhood.
It will not solve mental-health issues.
It will not make unkind communities kinder.
It will not eliminate the need for real investment in youth support services.

All it will do is take away connection, learning, creativity, and support networks that many young people rely on.

We should guide teens—not shut them out

I grew up in a different world, but one thing hasn’t changed: young people need trust, guidance, and respect. They don’t need to be cut off from the digital spaces where their lives unfold.

I practically lived in the library as a kid (yeah, I was strange), but libraries have been cut back across the country. Even where they still exist, they have shorter opening hours and fewer books. 

If kids are to be more sociable, please tell me how to make it happen? I mentioned already that we are stranded by the buses. And as is true for many families. The teenagers don't have any more to go out and meet their friends, and there is nowhere for them to go for free. Times have really changed. I think wealthy MPs who are my age need to come out and meet families with teenagers at home who are struggling to make ends meet, and they will see that access to social media is a real boon for kids who could feel isolated, stuck at home.

If this government truly wants to help young people, it should invest in education, mental-health resources, digital literacy, and platform accountability—not force millions of teenagers out of the online communities that have become fundamental to modern life.

From where I stand, as someone who raised children through the rise of social media, this ban is not protection.

It is overreach.

And I cannot support it.

Not only that but many experts agree with me.

LSE Media and Communications Department / EU Kids Online

• In a statement titled “Protecting, not excluding: why banning children from social media undermines their rights”, the authors argue that outright bans risk doing more harm than good. They point out that digital spaces have become an integral part of childhood, allowing children to learn, connect, express themselves and build social skills. 

• The statement warns that bans may push children into unregulated and unsafe corners of the internet where there are even fewer safeguards, undermining the original aim of protection.

• It also argues that decisions about access should balance children’s rights to participation and expression with protection, rather than default to exclusion.

Internet Matters (UK internet-safety organisation)

• Protection should come from better design of platforms, stronger safety features, education, and support rather than shutting out an entire age group.

NSPCC (National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children)

• The NSPCC, while listing potential harms from social media (e.g. exposure to harmful content, pressure from likes/comments, cyber-bullying), does not call for a blanket ban. Instead, it recommends active parental engagement, use of privacy/safety settings, open communication, and helping children build resilience and digital literacy.

• Their guidance emphasises that children’s online use should be managed with care, not criminalised or broadly restricted.

***

MPs who want to bring in similar restrictions in the UK:

Gregor Poynton (Labour MP, Livingston)

• Speaking in 2025: he has “urged the UK Government to introduce an Australia-style ban on social-media accounts for children.”

Josh MacAlister (Labour MP, Whitehaven & Workington)

• He introduced a Private Member’s Bill in 2025 originally aimed at raising the “digital age of consent” to 16 — effectively restricting social-media access for under-16s.

Jess Asato (Labour MP)

• As co-chair of the cross-party “Children’s Online Safety” group, she has publicly called for raising the “online age of consent” from 13 to 16, and supported an “Australia-style ban” on social media for under-16s.

Joani Reid (Labour MP, former chair of the APPG on Children’s Online Safety)

• As of early 2025, she said the UK should at least “look at replicating” the under-16 social media ban recently introduced in Australia — if the Australian model “proves successful.”

Tony Vaughan (Conservative MP, Folkestone & Hythe)

• During the 24 Feb 2025 petition debate, he opened the discussion by saying:

“I asked my two boys, aged 14 and 10 … whether social media should be banned for children. Their answer … was ‘No!’ But when we ask the same question of UK adults … 75% of them … responded ‘Yes.’”

***

Government Response to 2025 Petition: “No ban planned”

• After a public petition in 2025 calling for a minimum social-media age of 16, the official government response said plainly that they are “not currently minded to support a ban for children under 16.”

Peter Kyle (Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology) emphasized that social media also carries educational and supportive value, for example, as a vital connection and support tool for vulnerable children.

 The Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA)

• Instead of banning under-16s wholesale, the government seems to prefer regulation through the OSA, which mandates safer internet standards, age verification for harmful content, stronger moderation, and duties on platforms.

• I suspect everyone agrees children shouldn't be exposed to harmful and adult content via the internet and social media. This is a different issue.