The Government Shouldn’t Ban Me From Having a Smartphone
Last year, I wrote about a UN report suggesting that mobile phones should be banned in all schools. Since then there have been further discussions about limiting children’s access to a mobile device, not just in schools but outside of school.
A proposal to ban under-16s from buying smartphones and to bring in a law to increase the age limit on certain social media apps, including Snapchat, WhatsApp, Instagram and Facebook (which currently impose their own limit of 13 years-old), are said to be on the cards. WhatsApp and Facebook are facing even tougher restrictions. A consultation on protecting the young online has been launched seeking parents’ views on when children should be allowed to access social media.
This has come amid a campaign from Esther Ghey, the mother of Brianna Ghey, who was tragically murdered. She stated that her “daughter would still be alive if greater smartphone restrictions were in place”. Parentkind, a national charity which says it gives “those with a parenting role a voice in education for their children”, has called for all political parties to introduce this ban ahead of the next General Election. A poll commissioned by the charity revealed that, of 2,496 parents with secondary school-aged children, 58% believe that the Government should introduce tougher restrictions. This figure is even higher among parents with primary school children, 77% of whom would back a smartphone ban.
According to a recent Ofcom report on children in the U.K., 17% of toddlers aged three to four, 28% of children aged five to seven and 100% of 17 year-olds have a mobile phone. There is also a rise in children using social media: 93% of U.K. children aged 11-17 have social media accounts. Of 11-12-year-olds, who are below social media age restrictions, around 86% have social media accounts.
As a 15-year old schoolboy, owning a smartphone is vital. I can communicate with friends and family quickly and cheaply, complete homework, which is all online, access the internet to keep up with the news and updates from my school and it is vital for my safety. If I had my mobile phone taken from me, how could I call for help in emergency situations? There are far fewer public phones these days – the remaining ones are invariably vandalised – and there are hardly any bobbies on the beat to ask for help. It’s a different world from the one that existed prior to the growth of mobile phone use; mobile phones offer security and are highly accessible and easy to use. True, the safety aspects could be addressed by permitting children to have a ‘dumb phone‘. And homework could be done on a computer. But the other benefits remain.
However, using a phone on a regular basis also comes with some costs. If used near bedtime it causes inadequate and poor sleep, especially in teenagers, as the light keeps the brain stimulated for a while. From personal experience a mobile phone is a distraction when I am at school and when I am at home as I am always checking for messages or updates. This prevents me from socialising, whether at home, in school, at a meal or out with friends. But that is my fault and I should take responsibility for my own mobile phone use.
Should it be up to the state to decide if mobile phones should be taken away from children and teenagers? The Government has already issued advice on tackling smartphone issues within schools. This seems entirely appropriate, and it is up to schools to implement the guidance. Beyond that, it is hard to envisage a ban being effective. Six years ago, most supermarkets in the U.K. introduced a voluntary ban on the sale of energy drinks to under-16s. Yet a study in January found that up to a third of children consume energy drinks every week, despite the age limit. Would a Government ban really be more effective?
This smartphone ban will not be so smart and, like all other attempts by the Government and others to change the behaviour of adolescents, it risks failure.
Jack Watson is a 15 year-old school boy. He has a blog about supporting Hull City Football Club here.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
I expect that the main reason they don’t want teens using smartphones is so they won’t get redpilled by the likes of Rogan, Peterson, Tate etc
They don’t want our future good citizens seeing anything to challenge the government approved
brainwashingcurriculumSorry Jack, but no smart or any types of phone in any schools! Totally unnecessary distraction! Unlike you, not all kids know when to put them away! Complete ban of phones in schools
There’s a phone in the office for parents to contact the school and for the school to contact parents should it be necessary, the rest is not necessary!
Jack is not arguing for mobile phones to be allowed in the classroom:
“From personal experience a mobile phone is a distraction when I am at school”
Erm, yes he is!
“As a 15-year old schoolboy, owning a smartphone is vital.”
Or he’s badly contradicting himself!
Show me where he said it’s vital to have a mobile phone in the classroom.
It’s not ‘vital’ at all Jack, it’s what you’ve been trained to believe. At the risk of sounding patronising, there was a time, not too long ago, where smartphones didn’t exist. Back in the prehistoric age of the 90s, people managed perfectly well without these tools of entrapment. In fact, they didn’t just get by, but they were healthier – both mentally and physically. And, as odd as this may seem, I never once considered taking my Atari or CB radio (I’m showing my age now) to school with me.
You’re clearly an intelligent young guy – part of the generation that will ultimately dictate societies future – but if someone as aware as you believes these devices of control are ‘vital’ we are truly f*cked.
Added to which, children having to do homework on computers is all part of an agenda. What happened to handwriting? I recently listened to Cathy O’Brien in a podcast with James Delingpole and, amongst other things, she said that handwriting is vital.
I wonder how many of the 79 (so far) upticks own/use a smart phone. I wonder how many would be willing to put their smart phones away for a month and then comment on the impacts. Whilst I agree with Jack that smart phones should not be used in school time, this is 2024, not 1974. Like it or not, smart phones have become essential in many ways. The mention of any government ban sends shivers. This is a parental issue, not a nanny state issue.
He’s right that a ban would be utterly ineffective: ciggies/vapes and Red Bull, anyone? It’s down to the schools and the teachers to enforce non-use in classrooms, and parents to ensure sensible use elsewhere. But given how addicted most adults are to their own phones I can’t see that happening any time soon, and they no longer have the attention span to care. The
smartphonePersonal Tracking Device is now so ubiquitous I suspect it won’t be long before becomes a legal requirement to have one on your person at all times anyway.All hail the de-Googled dumb phone that actually switches off….😉
Commonality doesn’t make it right to have them in schools, Knives are common too!
I completely agree. Concentration, imagination, social skills (I have met several people recently who complain that their children never go out although apparently having lots of friends – they’d rather communicate with them by phone than in real life???!!) all gone/undermined. People need self-discipline to use mobiles wisely and well and most patently don’t have it!
It
as
Kn 🤣
Funny how when we post, we are not allowed to remove it! we all make mistakes, shouldn’t we be able to remove a post?
If you post a comment and then want it removed, you can always start posting comments about whether or not we are being gaslit over the causes of the Princess of Wales’s cancer, and then all comments will be removed.
https://staging.dailysceptic.org/2024/03/29/are-we-being-gaslit-over-the-cause-of-the-princess-of-waless-cancer/
I’m referring to making a mistake in a post and being able to delete it and start again in a few minutes time limit that’s all!
Quite, shame on the DS for this episode. In the absence of an explanation I am assuming the worst.
Additional restrictions are always a move towards controlling adults.
As hard as it may be, it’s the parents who are responsible for their children. Only particular collectives would demand that to be a State responsibility.
It is not the government that is responsible for policing the ownership and use of smartphones, it is the parent’s job. Those too pathetic and feckless to say no to their children are the ones at fault here. Of course parents (old enough to breed but not mature enough to take the role of adult in the family) want this brought in as it would relieve them of the responsibility, and unpopularity, of saying no to their nagging brats. By all means, give them a phone, one that does nothing but make calls, and as he says, safety concerns addressed.
Jack, although he doesn’t know it, is already completely in thrall to his little piece of technology. It is not essential! Get off your fundament and go and see your friends. If you don’t want to do that, then it will wait until you see them the next day.
Well argued, but Jack is not in thrall to woke twaddle, so not been enslaved by his phone.
“As a 15-year old schoolboy, owning a smartphone is vital.” seems to me to be indicative to being in thrall. If you can point out where I said that he was “in thrall to woke taddle” I would be most grateful.
Good article Jack well done. You give me hope that not all kids are brain washed with woke twaddle. Given the diet of trans brain washing in schools perhaps the key to our freedom lies in ppl like Jack’s hands.
Almost every intervention from the state fails to achieve its objectives and causes substantial collateral damage. The best state is the least state.
Indeed yet sadly so many of our fellow citizens are keen on “something being done” about whatever aspect of existence happens to be bothering them
What a joke.. We have to bam smart phones to protect the children.
But..
We will abort them.
We will vaccinate them.
We will Expose them to porn in the classroom.
We will disfigure their bodies.
We will let men wearing frocks in their changing rooms.
We will encourage them to change sex.
We will indoctrinate them.
We will starve them.
We will not educate them.
We will ruin them..
Kids didn’t do so badly before we tried to ban everything they come into contact with. Maybe we dont need to over-regulate their lives…
From my personal experience, I am just frustrated that they are the first generation to have available to them the entire content of human knowledge in a conveniently accessible format, yet most of them just pick fights with strangers and watch kitty video’s and random violence.
How can someone under the age of 16 afford to buy a smartphone and the SIM card contract? It’s the parents that are buying the phones, and they should have the strength to say no. Banning the purchase is different to banning the use. This makes any proposed Bill futile, as parents will continue to buy smartphones for their kids.
Quite true and grandparents encourage phone ownership and love to see what their grandchildren are up to. Adults demonstrate to children how to be obsessed/transfixed/distracted/diverted/enamored/entertained by their phones ALL THE TIME. I noticed that it was the teachers who had and used their phones in class first back in the early days. How a phone can be viewed as useful for a child’s safety i.e. you know where they are but you have no idea how dangerous the stuff is that they maybe watching?
Years ago an FT article made the point that if the government was to insist that all citizens walk about with a controlling device it would be resisted – how clever to make its citizens the purchasers and voluntary users of such devices.
Quite right Jack the more we can keep anything to do with government out of our lives the better. Responsibility for these abominations should be between the child and his/her parents and maybe the schools. Government should keep their interfering little noses out of it. TBH not sure which is the more evil mobile phones or governments.
I agree that we should try and get the State out of micro managing our lives.
The smoking ban is the start of a very slippery slope.
As Jack states there are quite a few positives to smartphones, however the downsides should not be underestimated. And that is not just for young people.
Banning smartphones is not the right way to go, Personal and parental responsibility is key as well as making sure people continue to be aware of the impact of smartphones on their lives.
Well put, thank you.