Reply to Peter Kyle, Secretary of State's letter about my Jools' law petetion.

Gosh, little did I ever think I would be struggling to reply to Department for Science, Innovation and Technology Peter Kyle, Secretary of State's letter to me around my Jools' law petetion.

I've struggled to find the words:
a) I am dyslexic; I find it much easier to say what I want to say.
b) This is a new world for me. I come from a background in Financial Services, and now I find myself discussing laws, legal processes and child safety. So if I don't quite get things right, I'm doing my best in unknown territory.

My response is....

Thank you very much for your response. However, I don't feel that the Online Safety Bill and Data Law will fully provide sufficient protection for children, and they don’t give parents any support to protect their children. 
I can fully understand that the coroner gaining access to children’s data and then being able to pass this data to parents is incredibly helpful for the inquest process.  However, we are still waiting for children to die before we can access data.  Why are we not trying to stop the children dying in the first place?

The data must be preserved as soon as possible after death, and then social media companies must actually release it, unlike in Ros and Mark Dowey’s case, whose son Murray took his life after being duped by criminals online, and Meta then took a very long time to release data even with an order in place. Ros has personally praised Police Scotland to me, who apparently found out within weeks that their son took his life because of online criminal activity. 

I learned a few points from my son Jools’ situation, and I know many other parents who have also faced the same problem.

1.  No one asked social media companies to preserve any of Jools’ data until I finally did two years later when I had the strength to fight the system myself. It may be too late to help me with possible answers now.
2.  No one ever asked social media companies directly for all data. Some data was downloaded five months after Jools’ death on a few of Jools’ accounts, but not all of them. I also understand that some browsing data is only stored for 30 days, as this wasn’t requested until five months later. This would never give the police a complete picture.

3) None of his devices were forensically looked at when he died, as the police system in Gloucestershire was ‘apparently’ down at the time. 

This is a training issue for the police to learn from, but it is too late for me.

I can only access this missing data if I succeed in the High Court to redo Jools’ inquest. This process has already cost me many thousands of pounds, and I haven’t even reached the High Court yet. I  have had his devices forensically looked at. My lawyer has advised that I need a clinical physiologist report on the data before we can continue with the Attorney General and then on to the High Court. This seems such a waste of time and money when I (as do a large amount of the population) feel that if parents were allowed access to their children’s social media, this would be a much easier process. 

 As for me and other bereaved parents, why can we not see our children's activity online once they have died? I don't understand this part. It could help us understand why our children have ended their own life. We were responsible for them as minors, and we should have the right to see this data.  Why should we wait for the coroner and an inquest process that sometimes takes months or years?  

My campaign has gained massive parental support for protecting children online. Over 3 million people have seen my LinkedIn posts, let alone my other social media accounts.  I am supported and backed by many thousands of people who agree that parents need to be able to protect their children online. 

Social media can expose children to various risks, including cyberbullying, online predators, and inappropriate content. Parents should be able to monitor interactions and ensure their child’s safety by having access to their accounts.  At the moment, most social media companies are unable to do this.   We have children agreeing to T&Cs online with these companies, and there are hardly any monitoring facilities for parents to ensure they are safe. 

𝗠𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗮𝗹 𝗛𝗲𝗮𝗹𝘁𝗵 𝗠𝗼𝗻𝗶𝘁𝗼𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗴: Social media can impact a child’s mental health, sometimes leading to anxiety, depression, or low self-esteem. If parents could monitor their children’s social media, they could identify signs of distress or harmful behaviour early by keeping an eye on their children’s online activities.

𝗚𝘂𝗶𝗱𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗘𝗱𝘂𝗰𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻: With parental access, parents could guide their children in responsible digital citizenship, helping them understand the consequences of their online actions and fostering a healthy relationship with technology.

𝗬𝗼𝘂𝗧𝘂𝗯𝗲’𝘀 𝗽𝗮𝗿𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘁𝗲𝗲𝗻 𝗮𝗰𝗰𝗼𝘂𝗻𝘁𝘀 𝗼𝗳𝗳𝗲𝗿 𝗮 𝘀𝘂𝗽𝗲𝗿𝘃𝗶𝘀𝗲𝗱 𝗲𝘅𝗽𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗯𝗮𝗹𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗲𝘀 𝗶𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗽𝗲𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝘀𝗮𝗳𝗲𝘁𝘆:

𝗖𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗖𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗿𝗼𝗹: Parents can choose from different content settings to ensure their children only access age-appropriate videos.
𝗔𝗰𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝗠𝗼𝗻𝗶𝘁𝗼𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗴: Parents can monitor their teen’s YouTube activity, providing insights to spark meaningful conversations about safe and responsible online behaviours.
𝗣𝗿𝗶𝘃𝗮𝗰𝘆 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗦𝗮𝗳𝗲𝘁𝘆 𝗧𝗼𝗼𝗹𝘀: Restricted Mode filters out potentially mature content, and the ability to moderate comments helps create a safer online environment for teens.

By supporting #𝗝𝗼𝗼𝗹𝘀𝗟𝗮𝘄 and utilising tools like YouTube’s parent and teen accounts, we could create a safer digital space for our children, ensure their well-being, and foster a positive online experience. Still, more needs to be done with the other social media companies. 

I understand there are privacy rights for children who are still alive, and also, what if the parents are the perpetrators? I fully accept that a more extensive discussion is required for live children, but most parents want to keep their children safe online. 

At the moment, we have children being able to watch porn, people dying, and being sold drugs via social media.  This is so very wrong.  We are waiting for social media companies to correct this. If parents can't control it and neither can the government, then I feel you should be banning it for children until it’s proven to be safe. 

Kind regards,

Ellen Roome