My phone was my safety net at school – banning them won’t help

Letters to the editor: our readers share their views. Please send your letters to letters@independent.co.uk

Banning mobile phones in school only helps divert blame from the schools themselves (Getty Images)

I am a 19-year-old student who has mental health and special educational needs, and struggled immensely with secondary school. I am writing with the help of a tutor to comment on Horatio Clare’s recent article (“A homework ban law has been passed in America – we need the same here”, Tuesday 10 September)

In my opinion, the idea of banning mobile phones in secondary schools is scapegoating; attempting to divert the blame for students’ mental health problems away from schools themselves.

For me, my mobile phone was my safety net at school and I wouldn’t have gone in without it. I needed to know that if I felt unsafe I could phone someone I trusted to talk to.

Also, they can be used constructively in class. What I found most useful was that on the very rare occasions I was allowed to listen to music while working, I was much better able to focus on the work and not get distracted.

Instead, I think an increasingly authoritarian school administration is primarily to blame. I believe there has been an increase in overly strict approaches to school behaviour with excessive punishments for minor offences such as uniform infringements; while not paying sufficient attention to more serious pupil misbehaviour such as bullying. Moreover, few schools make allowances for the behaviour of pupils suffering from mental health problems.

Anonymous

Address supplied

Coming from a site down under

Protecting children online is paramount. But for Australia’s proposed social media ban to be effective, it must be proportionate to the risk their services pose (“Australia set to ban social media and gaming platforms for young teens with checks on users’ ages”, Tuesday 10 September).

Unlike higher-risk activities such as online gambling or cryptocurrencies, social media could effectively deploy less intrusive methods such as age estimation techniques, rather than rely on hard ID scans for users to prove their age.

Options here include email address age estimation and facial age estimation, as outlined by the government. These techniques are less disruptive to user journeys and, therefore, more likely to be willingly adopted by social platforms.

Any new legislation must be reasonably and equitably enforced across the industry. Leaving effective implementation to chance will inevitably result in failure and likely push younger users from the bigger, more established social sites to lesser-known platforms where there is often less regulator focus.

The crucial thing is that methods deployed for users to prove their age must also be accurate, privacy-preserving, avoiding the need to process sensitive personal data, and inclusive – ensuring everyone, regardless of background or documentation, can verify their age.

By embracing innovative age assurance technology, Australia can strike a balance between protecting children and while not damaging positive digital engagement. If they get it right, it would create a powerful model for other countries looking to create safer, age-appropriate online environments, including the UK.

Andy Lulham

London

The hidden cost of free returns

Consumers unhappy with the new Asos returns fee will soon realise that the tide is turning on paid returns and for a good reason, one that will benefit them in the long run (“The Asos returns row should be a wake-up call for all of us”, Wednesday 11 September).

Many people will admit to purchasing multiple items with the intention of sending some back. It’s a wasteful practice that eats up time, resources and the planet.

Many retailers are now considering making the switch to paid returns as the environmental and financial cost of free returns to company finances and sustainability goals is becoming untenable.

Many of the biggest retailers already charge, and it makes perfect sense for these fees to be targeted at repeat returners.

I’m sure nobody wants these costs to be passed on through increased prices on items being sold, but that is where we’re headed if free returns are prioritised over other consumer priorities.

Al Gerrie

London

Past their sell-by date

The process to select the new leader of the Tory party is rumbling to a conclusion, with two candidates, Robert Jenrick and Kemi Badenoch, emerging as possible winners (“Jenrick campaign denies ‘dirty tricks’: Inside the Tory leadership election”, Monday 9 September). Neither offer the Tory party the ingredients for revival.

They are both old stock, rejected by an enlightened electorate, and notwithstanding physical age, both are past their political sell-by date.

They offer a continuation of the same policies that got the party crushed in the general election and they offer them to a constantly diminishing fan base. It seems almost inevitable that despite whoever wins the other will continue to factionalise the party in it’s finest “rats in a sack” tradition. Their ultra-rich backers may have to look elsewhere for influence in government.

Reform UK sits in the wings and has ambitions but they appear to have problems of their own. The newly elected MP’s are discovering the difference between spouting unanswered rhetoric on GB News, or elsewhere on the net, and debating with the politically experienced and well-informed on the floor of the House. It is not going well for them.

Nigel Farage does not always look happy with the efforts of his charges. He will, sooner or later, have to step up to the plate – if not too preoccupied with the fate of his failing friend, Donald Trump, who offers similar populist policies on immigration as Reform.

David Nelmes

Newport

Now we know, don’t grow old!

Sir Keir, thank you for telling me – and millions of others like me – that we are useless members of society.

Yes, some of us are very frail, or on oxygen 24/7 just to be able to breathe. Some of us are, for the moment, a bit more glossy-eyed. Others are very wealthy, and for them I feel no envy.

But many of us are not destitute. Through scrimping and saving, we just get by – no holidays or new pedigree kittens for us!

Thank you for telling me and my fellow citizens that it is only the working population who matter (“Cut to winter fuel payment could kill 4,000 people, Labour’s own research suggests”, Tuesday 10 September).

Remember, when you sit feeling toasty and warm on a cold winter’s night, that many of us are freezing – chilled to the bone with the agony of the depression that descends so darkly with the cold.

Now we know: don’t get old while shiny, new, reformed Labour is in power! What will the government offer next? A subsidised one-way ticket to Dignitas?

You and your chancellor will soon fill the £22bn black hole. Enjoy your time in power – you won’t be back.

Rachel McKenzie

Seaford, East Sussex

Out of touch

There are significant numbers of pensioners that do not need the winter fuel payments. But I worry the bar for eligibility has now been set too low (“How winter fuel payments are changing – and what other support is available to pensioners”, Tuesday 10 September).

The advisors around Keir Starmer are showing poor judgement and are out of touch. It shows really how narrow his coalition is, and we’ll likely see the same poor judgement in the future.

This does not bode well regarding the longevity of the Starmer reign. It reminds me of Gordon Brown’s own tax hike on the working poor... and look how that turned out.

Peter Hack

Pill, Somerset