Yesterday, I thought we were back in Covid times when I saw the Prime Minister of the UK, Keir Starmer — from whom I wouldn’t even buy a used car! — standing at the official government pulpit (complete with the coat of arms) in front of two huge union jack flags delivering what seemed to be some kind of sermon. I thought I’d better turn up the volume to see what was coming out of his mouth. (I felt like Bobby Lee Swagger in the excellent film “Shooter”, when he turned on his computer first thing in the morning, saying, “Let’s see what lies they’re trying to sell us today”)!

What I heard from this government pulpit was one of the biggest examples of hypocrisy and duplicity since the 2020-2022 Covid psyop. For he was announcing the government’s intention to ban under-16-year-olds from being on social media — specifically involving Snapchat, TikTok, YouTube, Instagram, “X” and Facebook. Starmer said:

“I fundamentally believe that we must harness the power of technology to build a stronger, fairer Britain. But we must also protect our children. And so, I want this message to be heard loud and clear. I am not prepared to compromise on the safety and happiness of our children. That is why this ban must happen. That is why this ban will happen”.

Anyone who imagines that government is heavily invested in protecting children is living in cloud-cuckoo-land. Let me give a couple of revealing examples. For more than thirty years in the UK, the powers-that-be have done everything possible to suppress any proper investigation into so-called “Grooming Gangs”, the most high-profile and notorious of which were — most notably in the towns of Rotherham, Rochdale, and Telford — overwhelmingly carried out for years by British men of South Asian, predominantly Pakistani, heritage. They were drugging, sexually enslaving and abusing vulnerable young English girls aged from 10 to 15 years old. However, for a number of years since then, grooming gangs are just as likely to be from Romania as they are from South Asia, and this has been officially recorded as happening in at least fifty towns and cities in the UK. Even more darkly, the victims now say that it is happening in every single town and city in the UK. (Just do a Google/AI search on these words: “Victim says grooming gangs operating in every town in the UK”). Finally, just a couple of months ago in April 2026, after continued enormous pressure, the government has conceded that an Inquiry will be conducted which will likely take years and will most likely just wind up (as usual) saying, “lessons must be learned” (yawn). Protecting children? I don’t think so.

The cheap slogan by Starmer, “We must protect our children”, is also coming from a mouth which has consistently — when asked to do so — refused to admit that a genocide has been perpetrated by Israel in Gaza, killing well over 20,000 children in the last 2½ years. Keen on protecting children? I don’t think so.

He has also, when asked to do so, refused point blank to call the February 2026 US Tomahawk Cruise Missile (triple-tap!) bombing of a primary school in Minab in Iran a warcrime, when it killed 120 children aged 6 – 13. Keen on protecting children? I don’t think so.

Apparently, 9 out of 10 parents in the UK are said to approve of the government’s plan to implement this ban on under-16s from having access to social media. This highlights how the average person in the street so easily falls for government stealth operations, especially where highly emotive issues are concerned. They fell for the government Covid blackmail and now they fall for this social media ban because it has similar emotive content as children have been damaged and even, in a few cases, tragically died because of their involvement on social media. But how telling it is that so many parents would rather have the government control their children than them doing so, which is what should really be happening.

So, what can be deduced from this government ban on under-16s from accessing social media? Let’s bullet point some deductions:

  • This proposed ban on under-16’s access to social media demonstrates that many parents have failed to police their own under-16’s access to evil on the internet, not only by liberally buying them mobile phones at a tender and impressionable age but also by not putting failsafe strategies of connection in place on all the family devices. Many parents are more concerned about being chummy with their kids than about exerting discipline when necessary.
  • This proposed ban on under-16’s access to social media shows that this is a communist-style “nanny-state” heavy-handedly intruding into personal family matters. It is the parents’ role to police their children NOT the government’s.
  • This proposed ban on under-16’s access to social media fails to take account of the fact that youngsters are very tech-savvy and will find a way round this legislation, as indeed the majority have done in that other “nanny-state” country, Australia, which has already implemented a similar ban.
  • The social media moguls have not been slow to respond. Meta, which owns Facebook and Instagram, said: “As we’ve seen in Australia, bans risk isolating teens from online communities and information, and driving them to unregulated alternatives that lack built-in protections and parental controls”. YouTube said: “Blanket bans push kids out of such curated, supervised, beneficial experiences and towards anonymous, less-safe services”. While Snapchat said: “Because the majority of time spent on Snapchat is in private messaging between friends and family, an outright ban that disconnects teens from those relationships doesn’t make them safer – it may simply push them to less safe platforms”. Although the social media moguls can be expected to object, in this case their objections are valid, as I highlight in the final bullet-point below.
  • Interestingly, the government has not included WhatsApp in the list of banned apps, yet around 60% of children and teens in the UK use WhatsApp! On WhatsApp, countless children have admitted receiving unsolicited contact from strangers (as have I), joined toxic group chats, been sent crude images, been cyberbullied and some have even received death threats. So there is nothing comprehensive about this ban.
  • The unspoken element which lies behind this proposed ban for under-16s is that in order to ascertain who is eligible to have access to social media, the entire population of the UK of all ages will have to submit identity information in order to prove their age and thereby gain access to social media. This will apparently involve what the government is calling “highly effective age assurance” using facial age estimation technology, uploading a form of ID (photo-ID-matching via passport, etc.), a credit card, or the use of a digital identity service. Many see all this as the concealed reason for implementing this ban. It is all talked-up by governments as being about the banning of under-16s, which acts as the visible distraction agent, whereas it is really all about getting identity information about everyone who goes online — a kind of “backdoor digital ID”. In other words, this banning of under-16s really has serious privacy implications for everyone who uses the internet in the UK.
  • Will this proposed ban on under-16’s access to social media mean that children will thus be steered onto more sinister channels such as the ‘Dark Web’, and thus be even more prone to danger? I would think that is a real possibility.

Only a deeply deceived person would see this proposed ban on under-16-year-olds as anything other than the thin end of the wedge of increasing government intrusion into the lives of the people. Well, you can easily check everything that I have written in this piece so far, and you will see that it is all true. I have not provided links because there would be so many of them and I didn’t want to clutter up the text. But I’m sure that you are big boys and girls and can do your own research. Indeed, you should! Never just take anyone’s views for granted, including mine. Always check ’em out!

These have been just a few preliminary observations. One last point I will make is this: The fact is that a huge amount of social media is toxic for everyone, not just for children. The amount of sheer falsehood, urban legends accepted as truth, myths posing as reality, unsubstantiated rumours masquerading as fact, and outright misinformation on social media is absolutely phenomenal. I see so many posts on social media which are full of nonsense, and the comments beneath them show that huge numbers are bamboozled by this nonsense. They love it! They are addicted to it! And these are grown men and women! This is not good for anybody. But governments do not mind their adult populations soaking up bullshit. In fact, it is desirable for those governments that they do, because a population which is drenched in bullshit, and accepts it as real, means that it will be much easier to manipulate, as governments ply them with more of the same diet!

Frankly, for some time I have been a hair’s-breadth away from removing myself from all elements of social media and solely maintaining my website. The only thing which has stopped me is that I have a responsible educative role to play through my writings and there are some people who seem to appreciate what I communicate. But if there does come the time when government via its surveillance-state ambitions becomes over-intrusive on the internet, I have already created an email list so that I will still be able to communicate exclusively on that when I opt out of having any kind of internet presence whatsoever, which will no doubt come.

I have this underlying suspicion (well, more than a suspicion really) that the Internet has secretly been developed over the years by intelligence agencies as a mass-surveillance machine disguised as “freedom of information for all”. After all, it was originally created as a research and development project in 1969, with the name “ARPANET”, funded by the U.S. Department of Defense! (Even Facebook has some shady origins which are certainly plausible, see https://whyy.org/segments/facebook-a-computing-pioneer-a-secret-government-program-and-a-strange-coincidence/ ). Now the Internet has grown into a medium which contains the life-story of every citizen on earth who plugs into it. How very convenient for the powers-that-be. If you say, “Well, I’ve got nothing to hide”, then that demonstrates your naïvety. The state is not concerned about whether you have anything to hide or not. You can’t hide anything from them anyway. They are tentacular. They have the technology to find a golf ball in the Sahara from thousands of kilometres up in space! The state is only interested in you as a portfolio of information which it can use to manipulate you, control you, and if it so wishes, “neutralize” you (in more ways than one 😉). If George Orwell were alive today, because of the huge development of technology (much of it potentially harmful), if he rewrote his book entitled “1984”, it would likely be as thick as Tolstoy’s “War and Peace” (1400 pages) rather than the more modest 350+ pages of the original!

Anyway, that’s just a few thoughts for now. As I frequently say, “We live in interesting times”. Those times are only going to increase in “interestingness” as this is just the beginning of all this global super-surveillance and AI dedvelopment. For the word “interesting” read “challenging” or even “harrowing”, but only so for the ill-informed and those unfamiliar with Bible prophecy. For one can so easily learn where all this is heading. How many more years until government will be global and unified? That will definitely be a history milestone of great note, in fact denoting the beginning of the end of history. In the meantime, maintain a great sense of humour and don’t forget to hone your discernment capabilities and to polish your personal antenna!📡 Watch this space. More later…

Blessings & Best Wishes from me…💖

.

.

.

© Copyright, Alan Morrison, 2026
[The copyright on my works is merely to protect them from any wanton plagiarism which could result in undesirable changes (as has actually happened!). Readers are free to reproduce my work, so long as it is in the same format and with the exact same content and its origin is acknowledged]

.