Tag: United Kingdom

The UK’s consumer prices index (CPI) dropped to 4.6 per cent in October, down from 6.7 per cent in September, according to figures released by the Office for National Statistics (ONS).

It is the lowest rate of price increases in two years, and means inflation has more than halved since late last year.

In a statement released this morning, prime minister Rishi Sunak said: “In January I made halving inflation this year my top priority. I did that because it is, without a doubt, the best way to ease the cost of living and give families financial security.

“Today, we have delivered on that pledge.”

He argued that “hard decisions and fiscal discipline” from his government had contributed to the fall in inflation.

“Inflation works like a tax. It eats into the pound in your pocket, affecting the price of your food shop, your mortgage, the size of your pension pot”, the prime minister said.

“This is why halving inflation has been my number one priority. Getting it down has involved hard decisions and fiscal discipline. Official figures released this morning confirm we have halved inflation, meeting the first of the five priorities I set out at the beginning of this year.

“While it is welcome news that prices are no longer rising as quickly, we know many people are continuing to struggle, which is why we must stay the course to continue to get inflation all the way back down to 2%.”

CPI was 10.7 per cent when Sunak vowed to half inflation in January — meaning the prime minister had to reduce the rate of price rises to 5.3 per cent.

The dramatic inflation fall comes after the latest Ofgem price cap came into effect, limiting typical household energy bills to £1,834.

Shadow chancellor Rachel Reeves has warned the government not to start “popping champagne corks” about the fall in the rate of inflation.

She said: “The fall in inflation will come as some relief for families struggling with the cost of living.

“But now is not the time for Conservative ministers to be popping champagne corks and patting themselves on the back.

“After 13 years of economic failure under the Conservatives, working people are worse off with higher mortgage bills, prices still rising in the shops and inflation twice as high as the Bank of England’s target.

“Rishi Sunak is too out of touch and his party is too divided to help people who are worried about the cost of living.

“A Labour government’s priority would be making working people better off by boosting wages, cutting people’s bills and getting the economy growing again.”

Liberal Democrat Treasury spokesperson Sarah Olney has said Sunak meeting his inflation target is “cold comfort” for working people.

She said: “Rishi Sunak congratulating himself over today’s figures will be cold comfort for all the hard-working people still bearing the brunt of this Conservative chaos.

“For months on end, people across the country have been watching as their pay cheque gets squeezed from all sides, draining every spare penny. From the ever-increasing cost of the weekly shop to skyrocketing mortgage payments.

“Enough is enough. With next week’s autumn statement, the Government must properly help families and pensioners struggling with the cost-of-living crisis and give our NHS the funding it desperately needs”.

Grant Fitzner, chief economist at the Office for National Statistics, said: “Inflation fell substantially on the month as last year’s steep rise in energy costs has been followed by a small reduction in the energy price cap this year.

“Food prices were little changed on the month, after rising this time last year, while hotel prices fell, both helping to push inflation to its lowest rate for two years.”

Alpesh Paleja, CBI Lead Economist, said: “A big drop in inflation was always expected in October, with last year’s energy price cap rise falling out of the annual comparison. But even taking this into account, inflation is heading in the right direction and the Government’s pledge to halve inflation by the end of the year has been met”.

Source

In his press conference today reacting to the Supreme Court’s ruling on the government’s Rwanda policy, the prime minister was questioned on the comments of Conservative Party deputy chair Lee Anderson. 

Anderson today urged ministers to “ignore” the court’s ruling on the Rwanda policy.

Asked if he will sack his deputy party chairman, the PM replied that Anderson’s comments “reflect the strength of feeling in the country on this issue and I absolutely share, actually, in the frustrations that my colleagues and people across the country have”.

Speaking to reporters after a meeting of the New Conservatives caucus of right-wing MPs, Anderson said: “I think the British people have been very patient, I’ve been very patient, and now they’re demanding action.

“And this has sort of forced our hand a little bit now. My take is we should just put the planes in the air now and send them to Rwanda and show strength.

“It’s time for the Government to show real leadership and send them back, same day”

He added: “I think we should ignore the laws and send them straight back the same day.”

Earlier today, Downing Street declined to rebuke Anderson for his suggestion that the government should act in defiance of the law.

But justice secretary Alex Chalk took to X (formerly Twitter) to issue an apparent response to Anderson.

“Respecting the rule of law means respecting the impartial judgments of our independent courts”, he wrote, adding: “Judges apply the law without fear or favour – a longstanding principle of our democratic constitution”.

“This government is absolutely committed to stopping the boats, and we will continue to work to deliver on this promise for the British people”.

In his press conference this afternoon, Rishi Sunak said he did “not agree with the decision” of the Supreme Court, but that he “respects” and “accepts” it. 

He said that the UK has been working on a new treaty with Rwanda to prevent people being deported after being removed there from the UK.

He also announced that the government will introduce “emergency legislation” to confirm that Rwanda is safe.

Turning to the European Court of Human Rights, Sunak said: “If the Strasbourg court chooses to intervene against the express wishes of parliament, I am prepared to do what is necessary to get flights off”.

He declared: “I will not allow a foreign court to block these flights”.

Questioned by reporters, the prime minister confirmed the government’s stated position that flights to Rwanda should take off by Spring. 

“We will clear the remaining barriers and flights will be heading off in the spring as planned”, he said. 

Source

Suella Braverman has been accused of having a “hissy fit” in her letter to Rishi Sunak, which followed her sacking as home secretary on Monday. 

Philip Davies, a Conservative MP associated with right-wing Common Sense Group caucus, told GB News: “I think Suella has fallen victim, as some people do, which is when they get sacked, they can have a hissy fit about it and start thrashing around”

He said the letter does not do Braverman “any credit at all”.

He added: “And I say that as somebody who likes Suella, and who agrees with virtually everything. But this is not a very edifying letter to send”

“All I would say is if Suella felt so strongly about all of these things, why didn’t she resign and send this letter.

“She was there clinging on to her job and this is now somebody who’s basically bitter because she has been sacked”

Philip Davies is married to newly-appointed cabinet minister Esther McVey, who is touted to be Rishi Sunak’s “minister for common sense” or “tsar for wokedom”.

Jacob Rees-Mogg says appointment of Esther McVey as ‘tsar for wokedom’ is ‘tokenistic flimflam’

In a scathing letter to the prime minister yesterday, Suella Braverman said Sunak had repeatedly failed on key policies and broken pledges over immigration.

The prime minister had adopted “wishful thinking” to “avoid having to make hard choices”, she wrote.

Looking ahead to the Supreme Court’s ruling on the government’s flagship deportations plan, Braverman argued the Illegal Migration Act had left the policy “vulnerable” to legal challenges under the European Convention of Human Rights.

If the ruling goes against the government, she added, he would have “wasted a year” on the flagship law to stop small boat crossings, “only to arrive back at square one”.

“Worse than this, your magical thinking – believing that you can will your way through this without upsetting polite opinion – has meant you have failed to prepare any sort of credible Plan B,” she wrote.

Addressing the policing debate and controversial comments she made in a recent Times article which preceded her sacking as home secretary, Braverman said she had urged Sunak to consider legislation to ban pro-Palestinian marches in the UK in order to “stem the rising tide of racism, intimidation and terrorist glorification threatening community cohesion.”

“I regret to say that your response has been uncertain, weak and lacking in the qualities of leadership that this country needs. Rather than fully acknowledge the severity of this threat, your team disagreed with me for weeks that the law needed changing”, she said.

She added: “Someone needs to be honest: your plan is not working, we have endured record election defeats, your resets have failed and we are running out of time”.

“You need to change course urgently.”

‘You have manifestly and repeatedly failed to deliver’ – Braverman’s letter to Sunak in full

Source

The austere setting of the Supreme Court became the latest forum to intensify the prime minister’s political woes this morning as it declared that the government’s flagship Rwanda deportations plan is “unlawful”. 

The rationale behind the ruling was plain: Lord Reed explained that there are “substantial grounds” to believe that refugees sent to Rwanda by the UK would be at risk of return to their countries of origin.

The prime minister responded quickly in a statement. “This was not the outcome we wanted”, he explained.

The court’s ruling is disaster for the government on its own terms: so much money has been splurged on the soon-to-be-ripe fruits of the Rwanda policy — and, worse for Sunak, since becoming PM he has consistently stoked expectations over the plan.

Of course, when the negotiations on the Rwanda plan were completed in Spring 2022, it was Priti Patel — home secretary under Boris Johnson — who jet-setted to Kigali to sign the new asylum accord. Well over a year later and Patel languishes in the Conservative Party wilderness; Johnson has fared even worse — he now scribbles a weekly column for the Daily Mail in his parliamentary exile. But Sunak believed their deportations policy was his generous inheritance.

Still, the political rationale behind the Rwanda scheme operates no matter who the revolving door of Conservative governance has swivelled into No 10. The scheme works by signalling the government’s intent on “stopping the boats” — since January, one-fifth of the prime minister’s pre-election offering (and rather more salient than halving inflation). The plan is deliberately controversial; indeed, for the purest practitioners of the “stop the small boats” creed, the more opponents howl, the more virtuous the quest becomes.

But the scheme’s new noble dissenters — who this morning issued a stunning judgement on the policy on purely legal terms — are five opponents the PM did not want.

And the political tumult that now flows from the verdict has been heightened by Suella Braverman’s sacking as home secretary on Monday and her subsequent scathing missive.

In her letter, Braverman accused Sunak of “magical thinking” over the policy. She said the PM had “failed to prepare any sort of credible ‘Plan B’”, adding: “I wrote to you on multiple occasions setting out what a credible Plan B would entail, and making clear that unless you pursue these proposals, in the event of defeat, there is no hope of flights this side of an election. I received no reply from you”.

Braverman’s conclusion? The PM has “no appetite for doing what is necessary” and “no real intention of fulfilling [his] pledge to the British people”.

Lord Reed had barely left the Supreme Court chamber before the New Conservatives, a collection of MPs from the party right elected since the Brexit referendum and associated with Braverman, entered a meeting to discuss their response. Miriam Cates, the group’s co-chair and Sir Bill Cash, a leading figure in the European Research Group, were present — and it heard from Lord Frost, Boris Johnson’s Brexit negotiator and perennial critic of Rishi Sunak. 

The meeting came after the group issued their own scathing rebuke of Monday’s rishuffle. 

“The Conservative Party now looks like it is deliberately walking away from the coalition of voters who brought us into power with a large majority in 2019”, read a joint statement by New Conservative co-chairs Miriam Cates and Danny Kruger. This is the context into which the Supreme court’s Rwanda ruling has been received.

The anger on the Conservative right is visible, too, in Brendan Clarke-Smith MP’s tweet reacting to the verdict, as he shared a photo of a notorious Daily Mail front page splash printed after the same court ruled on the question of whether ministers could use the royal prerogative to begin the Brexit process. “ENEMIES OF THE PEOPLE”, it read.

Lee Anderson, the Conservative deputy chair who at the last minute reneged on his plan to become a founding member of the New Conservatives because of his Party role, told reporters that the government should send illegal immigrants “straight back”. 

“Put the planes in the air. Ignore the laws and send them straight back”, is his proposed “Plan B”.

As for Dominic Cummings, who has had run-ins with the court in the past after it blocked his masterplan to prorogue parliament to enable a “no deal” Brexit, he tweeted: “A serious government will … have to rewrite the primary legislation to remove the Supreme Court’s power to block the first role of government — security from violence”.

The knee-jerk responses of Cummings, Anderson, Kruger, Cates and Clarke-Smith are one thing. But, more substantively, calls for the government to quit the European Convention on Human Rights will now undoubtedly escalate in the wake of the Court’s ruling. Indeed, speaking after New Conservative MPs’ post-ruling conclave, Danny Kruger said the government needed to bring in legislation to override the ECHR, or leave it altogether.

He said: “We need to introduce legislation to insist that… the principle of the Rwanda policy is legitimate and shall have immediate effect”

“Either by through a notwithstanding clause, the general application not just of the ECHR… or through a series of legislative measures to withdraw us from the ECHR and to insist on British sovereignty.”

Former cabinet minister Sir Simon Clarke echoed Kruger’s concerns: “I think we are going to have to pass emergency legislation at a minimum to set out that the will of parliament will apply notwithstanding the ECHR and the associated conventions that the justices referenced”.

“But we may also need to consider, if that is not legally viable, withdrawal from the ECHR.I think we are going to have to pass emergency legislation at a minimum to set out that the will of parliament will apply notwithstanding the ECHR and the associated conventions that the justices referenced”.

“But we may also need to consider, if that is not legally viable, withdrawal from the ECHR”.

However, as Lord Reed outlined in detail and at pains today, simply quitting the convention would not see planes leave UK soil bound for Rwanda. He said that his court’s verdict was based not only on the provisions of the ECHR, but also various UN treaties. 

There are other soberer takes, of course. Natalie Elphicke, whose opinion is taken seriously on “stopping the boats” because of her status as the MP for Dover and Deal, tweeted: “The Supreme’s Court decision on Rwanda means the policy is effectively at an end. No planes will be leaving and we now need to move forward”.

And Sunder Katwala, Director of British Future, wrote for politics.co.uk in a piece published ahead of the verdict this morning: 

If the government loses this case, it is unlikely that Britain will deport any asylum seekers to Rwanda before the General Election. Yet the government may challenge that assumption. If the headline “COURT DEFEAT LEAVES GOVERNMENT RWANDA PLAN IN TATTERS” is unattractive, a well-briefed, sympathetic newspaper may be willing to run “I CAN RESCUE RWANDA PLAN, SAYS DEFIANT PM” to declare that a fightback is already underway. 

This offers a potential way forward for the prime minister rhetorically, at least. And at prime minister’s questions this afternoon, he hinted at the outline of a new policy approach: a renegotiated deal with Rwanda — to be bolstered by his newly-discovered willingness to “revisit domestic legal frameworks” and the UK’s international relationships.

But it is far from clear that any statement from Sunak, who as chancellor was reported to have questioned the effectiveness of the policy, will quiet his post-Rwanda ruling psychodrama. 

Thus, the prime minister’s political dilemma is this: he needs to find a Rwanda “Plan B” which can satiate his riled-up party right, while adhering to the court’s decision and not alienating his party’s moderate voices — many of whom populate his new cabinet. Squaring this circle will be nothing less than the hardest task of Sunak’s premiership. 

Josh Self is Editor of Politics.co.uk, follow him on Twitter here.

Politics.co.uk is the UK’s leading digital-only political website, providing comprehensive coverage of UK politics. Subscribe to our daily newsletter here.

Source

The Supreme Court has ruled that the government’s flagship deportations plan is unlawful in a verdict delivered this morning.

The court’s five judges unanimously backed the judgement delivered by the Court of Appeal which declared the policy was unlawful because of the risk that asylum seekers sent to Rwanda would be returned to their own country and face persecution in breach of their human rights.

It is a significant blow to the prime minister, who has pledged to “stop the boats” – a reference to irregular Channel crossings.

The government’s Illegal Migration Act grants ministers the power to detain arrivals and deport them to a third safe country such as Rwanda.

Responding to the Supreme Court’s ruling, Rishi Sunak said: “We have seen today’s judgment and will now consider next steps.

“This was not the outcome we wanted, but we have spent the last few months planning for all eventualities and we remain completely committed to stopping the boats.

He added: “Crucially, the Supreme Court – like the Court of Appeal and the High Court before it – has confirmed that the principle of sending illegal migrants to a safe third country for processing is lawful. This confirms the Government’s clear view from the outset”.

“Illegal migration destroys lives and costs British taxpayers millions of pounds a year. We need to end it and we will do whatever it takes to do so”

“Because when people know that if they come here illegally, they won’t get to stay then they will stop coming altogether, and we will stop the boats”.

Giving the court’s verdict this morning, Lord Reed pointed out that the Supreme Court is “required to decide” on the “legal question” of whether the scheme is lawful or unlawful.

He stressed that the court is “not concerned with the political debate” about the scheme.

Explaining his judgement, Lord Reed said: “There is a legal rule that refugees must not be returned to their country of origin if their lives would be threatened in that country.”

“As to the legal test which the court has to apply – the test is whether there are substantial grounds for believing that asylum seekers who are sent to Rwanda will be at real risk of ill treatment as a consequence of reform”, he added.

“And if there are no such grounds, the policy is lawful, if there are such grounds, the policy is unlawful.”

Lord Reed noted Rwanda’s failure to fulfil its responsibilities with Israel under an agreement, like that to the one being proposed by the UK, on the removal of asylum seekers in 2013-18.

“Despite the terms of the agreement… asylum seekers were frequently moved to another country from which they were likely to be refouled”, he said.

The ruling comes at a moment of jeopardy for Sunak, who is facing a revolt from right-wing Conservative MPs after the sacking of Suella Braverman as home secretary.

In a scathing letter yesterday, Braverman accused the prime minister of betraying the nation by backtracking on a deal – agreed between the former home secretary and Sunak before he became PM – to ignore European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) rulings.

Responding to the ruling, Halima Begum, CEO of ActionAid UK, said: “Today we breathe a huge sigh of relief as this cruel and unworkable plan receives the ultimate judgment it deserves.

“Since its very inception, legal experts and campaigners have been absolutely clear that this inhumane policy is incompatible with the UK’s human rights obligations.

“The Supreme Court ruling, which follows the Court of Appeal judgment earlier this year, sees British values of compassion and dignity and the countless refugees with valid asylum claims, vindicated.”

‘You have manifestly and repeatedly failed to deliver’ – Braverman’s letter to Sunak in full

Source

A lack of political vision and ambition to improve childhoods is holding this nation back. Babies, children and young people in the UK have been ignored by government for too long and the impact is as clear as it is catastrophic: more children are living in poverty, they face a growing mental health crisis, and are waiting too long to receive urgently needed support. There are increasing numbers of children persistently absent from school, more children experiencing abuse and exploitation both on and offline, and a rising number of children being taken into care after reaching crisis point.

In addition, we know that children living in poverty are falling further behind their peers in terms of their education, health and wellbeing and those who are already vulnerable or experiencing hardship are at even greater risk of harm. Children in more deprived areas are more likely to face a serious illness during childhood and to have a long-term disability. The pandemic, followed by the cost-of-living crisis, have exposed and cruelly intensified these inequalities.

Child poverty costs the UK £39bn a year due to increased pressures on public services, greater risk of unemployment and lower lifetime earnings.

That’s why, ahead of the next general election, five of the UK’s leading children’s charities have come together to call on the next UK Government to put babies, children and young people at the heart of policy making and commit to a significant financial investment to transform childhoods across the country.

We believe that every child, regardless of their background, their parents’ or carers’ income or their postcode, deserves the best possible start, and support to thrive to achieve equal outcomes throughout their childhood and adolescence. With commitment from the very top of government, we can shift the dial from crisis interventions to ensuring childhoods are happier, healthier and free from abuse, neglect and exploitation.

A child’s health, wellbeing and life chances are shaped by the circumstances of their birth and their early life experiences. Sadly, in the UK today, around 4.2 million children are growing up in poverty, including 48% of children from Black, Asian and minority ethnic groups. One million children in the UK are living in extreme poverty and one in 12 parents have a child who has had to share a bed with them or a sibling because they cannot afford another bed.

At the same time, the mental health and wellbeing of many of the UK’s children is in decline and it is unacceptable that the poorest 10% of children are nearly twice as likely to die before reaching adulthood as the most advantaged 10% of children. One in six children aged 7-16 and one in four young people aged 17-19 are thought to have a diagnosable mental health condition and more children than ever need support from local authority children’s services because they are at risk of harm at home, online or elsewhere. In 2022 more than 80,000 children in England were looked after by local authorities – an increase of 22% over the last 10 years and 201 children died due to known or suspected abuse and neglect.

With a General Election around the corner, there is a huge opportunity for the next Government – regardless of the party – to address the urgent issues facing babies, children and young people today. We need commitment from the very top of Government to take decisions and prioritise spending that will create conditions where all children can thrive.

To improve children‘s lives, we must improve the policy and decision-making process that impacts them. Our new report Children at the Table released today, sets out the roadmap to a better future for babies, children and young people. We invite the main political parties to commit to a personal pledge by the next Prime Minister and Chancellor to be champions for children, to put them at the heart of their next Government and invest more of our national wealth in improving their lives. These recommendations, if listened to, will result in the essential changes needed to improve the lives of children and young people.

We stand ready to work with the next UK Government, devolved Governments, all politicians, the voluntary and community sector, academics, and health care professionals to give children a seat at the table and transform childhoods for future generations.

Source

The internet has become an indispensable part of modern life. However, as more individuals and
businesses go online, the risks of fraud, hacking, inappropriate content, and other threats continue to
rise. To address these challenges, the UK government has established various commissions and
regulatory agencies focused on enhancing online safety through industry oversight, consumer
education and protection standards.

UK Gambling Commission

One of the key internet safety bodies is the UK Gambling Commission, which regulates all forms of gambling, including online casinos. Staying safe when playing online casinos is of utmost importance, considering that there is an exchange of sensitive personal and financial information when using these websites. It is advised that online casino players look for secure casinos that are licensed by the UK Gambling Commission, as these ensure the safety of UK players. Under the Gambling Act 2005, the Commission works to ensure fairness, safety, and responsibility within the industry.

A major part of its mission is safeguarding consumers by holding operators to strict standards. The UK Gambling Commission requires licensed online casinos to implement robust measures to protect player funds in segregated accounts and provide fair games that are extensively tested. Operators must also promote responsible gambling through tools like deposit limits, timeout periods and self-exclusion options. The Commission regularly audits licensees to ensure compliance.

Licensed sites have undergone rigorous vetting of their security, financial viability, and commitment to responsible gambling. The UKGC also regularly consults stakeholders and updates its guidance through white papers and reviews. For instance, the white paper published in April 2023 plans to reform the aforementioned Gambling Act covering topics like age verification, advertising technology and VIP practices. This evolving, evidence-based regulatory approach is critical for addressing new challenges as online gambling evolves.

This guidance gives players a better understanding of the online landscape and allows them to make the choice to play at online casinos licensed by the UK Gambling Commission. In turn, customers can enjoy secure, fair, and accountable gaming services. Choosing UKGC licensees also supports the ethical integrity of the industry and wider public safeguards.

National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC)

As digital connectivity becomes increasingly central to how we live and work, cybersecurity has never been more crucial. To bolster the UK’s cyber defences and make the internet safer for businesses and the public, the government established the National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC) in 2016. Operating as part of GCHQ, the NCSC is on the frontlines of identifying and preempting online threats.

The NCSC’s expansive mission covers detecting and neutralising cyberattacks against the UK, providing guidance on security best practices, and improving the country’s overall cyber resilience. Its experts work closely with public and private sector partners to understand evolving online safety threats like hacking, data breaches and malware. By sharing intelligence and solutions, the NCSC helps organisations large and small protect themselves in the digital sphere.

For individuals, the NCSC offers advice on topicsincluding password hygiene, multi-factor authentication, preventing phishing attacks and securing internet-connected devices at home. Its website contains extensively detailed, sector-specific guidance documentation as well as general online security tips anyone can use straight away to reduce their cyber risks.

The NCSC is also responsible for managing major cyber incidents and working to minimize disruption. Its round-the-clock operations centre monitors for threats, while its incident management teams coordinate swift and effective responses. From attacks on infrastructure to data leaks, the NCSC strives to contain the impact of breaches and reduce recovery times.

As online safety threats only intensify, the National Cyber Security Centre provides the expertise, guidance and rapid response capabilities needed to enhance protections across UK networks and systems. This freely available advice allows individuals and organisations of all sizes to tackle onlinesecurity issues with confidence.

OFCOM

While not an internet-specific agency, the Office of Communications (OFCOM) contributes to online safety through its regulation of television, radio, telecoms, and internet services. A large part of Ofcom’s work is dealing with complaints about broadcasting, and OFCOM holds providers accountable for delivering safe, reliable services to consumers.As more of these services are provided online, their work has a positive effect on the area of online safety and security.They also aim topromote media literacy in line with their online regulatory role by helping to improve the online skills of UK adults and children.

For example, OFCOM policies require telecom companies to inform customers about security threats like spam calls and SIM swapping fraud. OFCOM also penalizes providers that fail to protect customer data. They also release reports Its oversight bolsters the overall integrity of the UK’s communication infrastructure.By setting and enforcing industry regulations, OFCOM upholds standards that support an online environment customers can trust. Its work provides a framework that complements more targeted internet safety initiatives.

Outlook

The risks associated with internet use will continue growing as more of life moves online. However, the combined efforts of regulators like the UKGC, UKCIS, and OFCOM promote greater safety across online casinos, social media, telecom networks and other digital domains. Through licensing, cybersecurity auditing, age controls, takedown procedures and other mechanisms, these government bodies collaborate to reduce risks.

But internet users also need to exercise caution, use security tools, and report issues when encountered. Parents especially must take an active role in protecting minors through tools like parental controls. Still, the dedicated focus and expertise of these commissions and agencies provide a critical foundation for enforcing standards and taking action against threats. By working together, government, industry and the public can meet the shared goal of online safety.

Source