There is a wider question here that we should also address. The latter are irresponsible and wholly unregulated. The former are generally responsible and highly regulated. The truth is that politicians haven't begun to get their heads around the enormous imbalance that exists between established newspapers and social media. A young man is wrongly identified on the internet as a terrorist, suspected of detonating a bomb on a London Tube, and subjected to a witch-hunt of online threats that lead to an invasion of his home. For example, I don't think it would be easy, as it was until quite recently, to use a search engine such as Google to obtain information about how to make a bomb.Įven though they don't see themselves as publishers, social media companies are making some effort to suppress material that could be of use to terrorists or paedophiles, though critics will rightly say that they could go much further.Ī new Netflix series called Accused deals with just this issue of misinformation spewed out by social media.

In practice, they have - following pressure from Parliament, the media and public opinion - gone some way to cleaning up their act. Isn't this inconsistency in standards grotesque? Social media companies have long maintained that they aren't publishers in the sense that newspapers are, and therefore can't be held responsible for obscene, damaging or unlawful material appearing on their platforms. Yet it is a fair bet that the same authorities that keep a watchful eye on newspapers, and are liable to pounce if any of them stray from the straight and narrow, won't lift a finger to try to rein in those wild and anarchic forces doing whatever they please on the internet. Take it from me that his name is out there. I can't name the well-known social media platform where it can be found for fear of being accused of somehow flouting legal restrictions. The identity of Elianne Andam's alleged killer is easily available on the internet.

They already enjoy such a right north of the border in Scottish parliamentary elections. I'll come later to the vexed question of whether it is right to confer anonymity on a 17-year-old in a country where Sir Keir Starmer plans to allow 16-year-olds to vote in General Elections. Or rather, newspapers do know his name but are legally prevented from publishing it because he is below the age of majority, which is 18 in England and Wales. Who was this youth? (I don't like describing a 17-year-old as a 'boy'.) The answer is that we don't know. He remains in custody, and is due to appear at a further hearing in a Crown Court today. Two days after her death, a 17-year-old boy was charged with her murder in a youth court sitting in Croydon. The police lost no time in arresting a suspect. It was reported that she had stepped in to defend a friend. It was senseless, cruel and shocking.Įlianne, with a bright future in front of her, was the 16th teenager to be stabbed to death in London this year. Last week, the nation was appalled by the murder of 15-year-old Elianne Andam, as she made her way to school in Croydon, South London.

Rita dominic getting married