Social media ban for under 16s

[pokemonsuper9]

My son's school has the Yondr pouches. Yes, they could be opened, but the punishment at the school for doing this would be severe.

Have none of them heard of using an old phone as a dummy?
I complied with my school's phone policy but if they wanted to take them away from us daily I would have kept an old phone on hand to substitute out.

The only workable solution to this is to put responsibility on the parents.
Anything else will be easily worked around.

 

[AlterEgo]

This is a slightly extreme example, but where a child gets involved with someone or something online they shouldn't be, I think the parents should be equally responsible. Consider the Netflix drama Adolescence, the child is rightfully punished but should the parents have been more aware of what is going on? Should they also be arrested for endangering others by allowing their child the ability to do that?

You surely don't have children.

 

[adc82140]

Have none of them heard of using an old phone as a dummy?
I complied with my school's phone policy but if they wanted to take them away from us daily I would have kept an old phone on hand to substitute out.

The only workable solution to this is to put responsibility on the parents.
Anything else will be easily worked around.

They don't take the phones away. The students keep the phones in their pouches with them all day.

 

[yorkie]

Banned in theory, but in practice? The interviews with teachers showed this wasn't the case (don't think this report is still available on i player).

Please do provide a link and text quote, but of course, there will be occasions when pupils can get away with having their phones out.

But I don't think anyone has any solution that would completely and comprehensively prevent the possibility of any sort of phone use in schools by pupils.

By all means state they have to be handed in, but what if the pupil denies having a phone, or what if they have two? Do you then search hundreds of bags every day?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 22 Jan 2026 ==

They don't take the phones away. The students keep the phones in their pouches with them all day.

The pouch idea isn't guaranteed to work. Pupils could bring two phones and there are ways around the lock on pouches.

I am aware a couple of schools in York have gone down this road, but I haven't heard how it's working for them. I doubt it's going to be good value for money.

 

[Tetchytyke]

They don't take the phones away. The students keep the phones in their pouches with them all day.

The pouches are nothing more than theatre, usually brought in by some absolute whopper of a headteacher who is trying to make a mark. We all know the sort I mean, the headteacher who comes in and thinks that throwing their weight around with petty rules makes them look like a strong leader.

The kids who play by the rules with the pouches are the ones who'd play by the rules if you just asked them to keep their phones in their bag. The kids who wouldn't keep their phones in their bag won't use the pouches either.

But the pouch manufacturers make a stack of money and the headteacher gets to feel important and powerful, and that's what really matters.

 

[Railwaycat]

Please do provide a link and text quote, but of course, there will be occasions when pupils can get away with having their phones out.

The Look North report isn't available, but a quick search found this which completely backs up the report:

ASCL - ASCL President calls for an end to the chaos caused by social media

ASCL provides a range of updates, summaries and bulletins to help senior leaders navigate and keep up to date with the latest developments in education.

www.ascl.org.uk

ASCL President calls for an end to the chaos caused by social media​

14/03/2025
ASCL President Manny Botwe will today (Friday 14 March) say it is time to bring social media platforms to heel as a survey highlights their impact on children and schools.

The survey conducted by Teacher Tapp on behalf of the Association of School and College Leaders asked school teachers and leaders in England what social-media related issues they had noticed since the start of the academic year in September.

• Nearly three-quarters of secondary school teachers (73%) reported that students had been bullied by peers on social media.
• Almost half of secondary school teachers (46%) said that students had recorded teachers or other pupils without permission.
• Nearly a third of secondary school teachers (30%) noticed signs of students having accessed pornographic or violent content.
• Four in ten (43%) teachers – in both primary and secondary schools – said that parents had made negative comments about their school or staff online.
• And nearly three-quarters (71%) said students were using social media below the minimum age requirement.

As far as I'm concerned, that's more than enough to warrant a ban.

 

[pokemonsuper9]

• And nearly three-quarters (71%) said students were using social media below the minimum age requirement.

As far as I'm concerned, that's more than enough to warrant a ban.

But ban what? The currently restrictions clearly aren't working based on that last bullet point, moving that by 3 years won't change that.

 

[gabrielhj07]

Four in ten (43%) teachers – in both primary and secondary schools – said that parents had made negative comments about their school or staff online.

They should stop whinging about stuff like this that has nothing to do with social media, or they place themselves at risk of losing credibility on their other, quite sensible, points.

 

[yorkie]

The Look North report isn't available, but a quick search found this which completely backs up the report:

ASCL - ASCL President calls for an end to the chaos caused by social media

ASCL provides a range of updates, summaries and bulletins to help senior leaders navigate and keep up to date with the latest developments in education.

www.ascl.org.uk

As far as I'm concerned, that's more than enough to warrant a ban.

There are two issues which are being conflated; one is the use of mobile devices in schools (which you brought into the discussion) and the other is a social media ban for under 16's.

But how do you "ban" social media without any of the problems highlighted in this thread?

Saying that something must be banned, but not having a credible plan to actually achieve that is a classic case of this:

We must do something.

This is something.

We must do this.

If anyone can address the many legitimate concerns of actually implementing a "ban", I would be interested to hear...

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 22 Jan 2026 ==

They should stop whinging about stuff like this that has nothing to do with social media, ...

Without getting into the matter of 'whinging', I would agree that some of the points raised in this thread by @Railwaycat are not directly related to the matter of the proposed ban for social media for under 16s.

Indirectly related, yes, but not quite the same thing.

If @Railwaycat has some specialist knowledge or particular experience in this area, or has some workable ideas, then I am all ears...

 

[Peter Sarf]

I think if social media was less profitable then the problems with younger, more impressionable, people using it would be less significant. So I would go after the social media providers to make their products frankly less addictive. That means getting rid of the clever algorithms that decide what else the user might want to see and also getting rid of dubious marketing allowed on those sites. But then trying to control social media sites that are in a different country will be difficult unless such sites are just banned end of, which would anyway be the final sanction. I find myself heading into the argument that the internet perhaps needs to be censored.

I suppose a ban on under 16s/18s might at least send the right message to the majority of children AND also give back up to parents who do care.

 

[Harpo]

I cannot believe it is beyond the wit of the tech industry to create an age specific sim that is locked to a device and becomes the child’s gatekeeper and protector.

Anything else capable of being worked around by a young person, will be.

 

[pokemonsuper9]

I cannot believe it is beyond the wit of the tech industry to create an age specific sim that is locked to a device and becomes the child’s gatekeeper and protector.

So something opt in by parents, with a secondary 'undergroud' market for unlocked phones, with all censorship controlled by the mobile network, easily workedaround with a VPN?

 

[Harpo]

So something opt in by parents, with a secondary 'undergroud' market for unlocked phones, with all censorship controlled by the mobile network, easily workedaround with a VPN?

Agreed. If the child has the funds to obtain another device, buy their own sim, and operate it all covertly, then no control whatsoever is possible.

 

[Lewisham2221]

Agreed. If the child has the funds to obtain another device, buy their own sim, and operate it all covertly, then no control whatsoever is possible.

By that argument you might as well remove the age restrictions on purchasing vapes, cigarettes and alcohol - after all, some children still manage to get their hands on all of the above, so we might as well make it readily available to all children?

No, I'm not seriously suggesting giving children access to nicotine and alcohol products. I'm pointing out the weakness of the argument. There are lots of things which are prohibited. That doesn't mean some people don't continue to do them. That also doesn't mean that we shouldn't prohibit anything.

As it goes, I don't think a social media ban is the answer. Something clearly needs to be done - and I think better education around social media is definitely needed, although how you successfully deliver such education is a whole different can of worms.

Unfortunately, I can see this as being something the government wastes time and effort on, ultimately drafting some loophole ridden legislation so that they can shout about how they're taking decisive action over a serious issue. I'd prefer it if they focused their efforts on reversing the decline in public services and other tangible benefits that ordinary people will feel.

 

[Railwaycat]

If @Railwaycat has some specialist knowledge or particular experience in this area, or has some workable ideas, then I am all ears...

Sorry?

Why do I have to have some "specialist knowledge or particular experience or some workable ideas" to have an opinion? My opinion is based on the information I've gathered from a news report and the article I've linked to - it's not just plucked out of thin air (or from social media...), as so many peoples opinions seem to be these days. I fully realise control will be difficult to implement, but at least it can be tried.

You can't, ultimately, stop people breaking the speed limit, but that doesn't mean there shouldn't be one.

 

[Harpo]

By that argument you might as well remove the age restrictions on purchasing vapes, cigarettes and alcohol - after all, some children still manage to get their hands on all of the above, so we might as well make it readily available to all children?

My argument is simply that a kid with enough funds, can’t be stopped. That shouldn’t preclude measures that protect those who can’t afford a workaround.

 

[joncombe]

I think my biggest issue with this is - what counts as social media? Facebook, yes. Instagram yes. But what about things like Youtube, WhatsApp or even this forum? Or even news websites that allow commenting. Where do you draw the line as to what is "social media" because if it's anything with user generated content that means a LOT of websites are going to be blocked and young people will be unable to use them without an (admittedly very easy) bypass, like a VPN.

Secondly those of us that are over 18 and want to continue to use websites will now find we are likely to be forced to register and probably provide some sort of ID to prove we are over 18, or go down the VPN route too because just ticking a box "I am over 18" or providing a date of birth is very unlikely to cut it. (Probably a reason the government is so keen on digital ID "cards"). Not only is this going to be time consuming and inconvenient it also makes identify fraud much more likely when one of these companies that we had to provide ID to has a data leak/hacking and your ID now gets leaked along with your personal information.

My opinion is it's a horrible idea but the UK Government (the previous one too) seems to love restrictions and bans so I expect they are going to try and make it happen.

Some social media I admit has become absolute toxic garbage (e.g. Facebook where these days almost all of the content doesn't seem to be from friends, but AI generated garbage and adverts, but it does still have uses with the groups function which I do like, if you can cope with all the garbage you have to wade through to get to anything interesting).

 

[MerlinRail 804]

15 year old here, turning 16 in August. Got a few kinda disorganised thoughts, so sorry for the chaos you’re about to read!

I personally find social media has more positives than negatives, and inspires and encourages me to go out and trainspot. This has made a huge impact on my life, because a couple years ago, I started to really struggle with attending school, and making (kinda sporadic) videos for YouTube encouraged me to go out and film trains, and was definitely a big part of my recovery from that.

There are definitely negatives and risks to social media, and it absolutely is wrong that any life is lost as a result of things that take place on it, but I don’t think a blanket ban of any kind helps. When you turn 16, or indeed 13, a switch of responsibility isn’t just magically flicked. I would be more in favour of regulation and some sort of grading system that prevents users under a certain age from accessing certain content (and actual humans making the moderating decisions on these large platforms would be nice too). Really, I think the decision of what someone has access to within this should be down to the parent, aided by official guidance from the government, combined with in school education about the risks and dangers (though I do get the feeling that younger generations are probably more aware of some dangers than some older people tbh, especially in terms of identifying AI etc - it goes both ways). At the end of the day, different people develop differently and want different things, so the choice should be there for them.

Also in terms of phones and social media in schools, yes, there are incidents that take place on social media that the school ends up having to deal with (and one incident in year 7 that prompted police involvement), most of the time people are generally sensible. In terms of the day to day with phones and stuff, our school has the very reasonable policy of out of sight during school hours, which seems to work perfectly. Obviously it doesn’t get obeyed all the time, but that’s to be expected and people are generally respectful. Just simply banning doesn’t actually teach people to willingly regulate themselves, so it doesn’t really help in my view. Also, in a lot of situations, phones can actually be part of social interaction, whether it be playing multiplayer games on the bus, or watching a few TikToks together. Just because something is done differently to how it would’ve been done 30 years ago doesn’t necessarily mean it’s wrong.

In short, I agree that something needs to be done about the problems social media causes, but I don’t think that a blanked age restriction or anything like that is the answer.

I think my biggest issue with this is - what counts as social media? Facebook, yes. Instagram yes. But what about things like Youtube, WhatsApp or even this forum? Or even news websites that allow commenting. Where do you draw the line as to what is "social media" because if it's anything with user generated content that means a LOT of websites are going to be blocked and young people will be unable to use them without an (admittedly very easy) bypass, like a VPN.

This as well. For example, if something like steam is counted, which wouldn’t be a surprise because it does have a pretty big social element, do I lose the ability to do things such as play TSW, essentially destroying half of my interests?

Secondly those of us that are over 18 and want to continue to use websites will now find we are likely to be forced to register and probably provide some sort of ID to prove we are over 18, or go down the VPN route too because just ticking a box "I am over 18" or providing a date of birth is very unlikely to cut it. (Probably a reason the government is so keen on digital ID "cards"). Not only is this going to be time consuming and inconvenient it also makes identify fraud much more likely when one of these companies that we had to provide ID to has a data leak/hacking and your ID now gets leaked along with your personal information.

Also, what about people over 16 who AI facial recognition could identify incorrectly as being under 16, and therefore wrongly denying them access

 

[GusB]

I think if social media was less profitable then the problems with younger, more impressionable, people using it would be less significant. So I would go after the social media providers to make their products frankly less addictive. That means getting rid of the clever algorithms that decide what else the user might want to see and also getting rid of dubious marketing allowed on those sites.

That's not going to happen because that's what makes them money. More engagement, more ad revenue.

But then trying to control social media sites that are in a different country will be difficult unless such sites are just banned end of, which would anyway be the final sanction.

This is one of the problems; these companies are largely US-based and they are already expected to comply with local legislation. Banning them would be absolutely pointless because something new will spring up instead. There are social media platforms which are open-source and can be self-hosted; all it takes is some enterprising kid with the right knowledge. There are so many communication apps out there that it would be impossible to police.

I think my biggest issue with this is - what counts as social media?

Exactly this.

I find myself heading into the argument that the internet perhaps needs to be censored.

Censoring the internet is a dangerous path and a topic that's probably more suited to a separate thread.

I suppose a ban on under 16s/18s might at least send the right message to the majority of children AND also give back up to parents who do care.

You can send the right message but you can't guarantee that it'll be heeded! It's also not very fair to suggest that parents don't care; while there will be some who don't give a monkeys what their kids get up to, there will also be responsible parents who are simply out of their depth when it comes to technology.

I cannot believe it is beyond the wit of the tech industry to create an age specific sim that is locked to a device and becomes the child’s gatekeeper and protector.

Back in the early days of mobile internet, certain types of content were locked out and a credit card authorisation was needed to unlock them (it was a small fee which was refunded, iirc). However, that was before phones were wi-fi equipped and most traffic went through the mobile provider's own gateway.

Social media platforms should be doing their utmost to restrict unsuitable content anyway, but that relies on the user being honest about their age in the first place. Forcing age verification on people just makes it inconvenient for the rest of us and kids will find ways to circumvent restrictions anyway. It'll be like a game of whack-a-mole.

 

[WelshBluebird]

So if you ban it for under 16s, doesn't that de facto become imposing an ID requirement for everyone else? We've already seen some of the issues with that thanks to the OSA and its hardly been in effect for long.

 

[MerlinRail 804]

I also wonder, could this have some sort of an impact in the rail enthusiast community? Without access to social media, younger people will probably get less exposure to the railway hobbies, and then that could have an impact in the future when they grow up and less people are interested in working in the railway maybe?

 

[WelshBluebird]

I also wonder, could this have some sort of an impact in the rail enthusiast community? Without access to social media, younger people will probably get less exposure to the railway hobbies, and then that could have an impact in the future when they grow up and less people are interested in working in the railway maybe?

And to be a bit more serious, marginalised groups like LGBT people, victims of domestic abuse or worse at the hands of their family etc. For such groups social media has provided a lifeline so to speak. I follow someone on Instagram who does a load of cool stuff now but grew up in an abusive fundamentalist Christian family and they were able to escape thanks to connections made online.

 

[MerlinRail 804]

And to be a bit more serious, marginalised groups like LGBT people, victims of domestic abuse or worse at the hands of their family etc. Got such groups social media has provided a lifeline so to speak. I follow someone on Instagram who does a load of cool stuff now but grew up in an abusive fundamentalist Christian family and they were also to escape thanks to connections made online.

Yes agreed. Social media is a voice and a lifeline for so many people and groups and that really can’t be lost.

 

[davews]

The government refers to this as being based on the Australian scheme. This currently only includes a relatively short list of sites and is only for setting up accounts on those sites. There is no limitation on viewing those sites when not logged in.

Australia bans teens from social media – good luck with that

: Still, the ban has reset expectations and may reduce harm, and that’s kind of enough

www.theregister.com

Most of us happily use YouTube without any need for an account there. Obviously if you want to upload your nasty videos and send them to your friends it is different.

As others have said the big impact is that it would require all of us to verify our age, maybe multiple times, just to view normal content. Face recognition types of age verification of course don't work with desktop computers with no video camera..... and sending copies of my passport or driving licence to sites of dubious status is a no go. And with all these things it only verifies that the person being verified at the time is over 18 or who has documents suggesting they are, it says nothing about the person sitting in front of the computer at that time is the same one.

 

[styles]

A couple of things from my side.

I don't work in a school but I do volunteer with teenagers, most of whom currently are of an age where they'd be affected by this ban.

We have informally chatted before about social media and what sort of content they end up consuming and actually I think many of the older teenagers are sensible enough to swipe away from the harmful content. Some of the content they do consume is really not my cup of tea, but only because I find it tacky or mind-numbing, not harmful per se.

These are a self-selecting group though - they've opted to be in our group doing the activities we do. Across the full spectrum of people their age I've no doubt there's harmful content. But I do believe it is possible and feasible to educate young people about harmful content and how to get it to stop showing up (as often, anyway) in social media feeds. I would prefer to be investing resources into this than trying to enforce frankly unworkable policies.

Specifically, last night I was at a meeting about running an event which would be between our group, and a different group of young people - so we would be, at times, having 10-17 years spending some free time together. The topic of mobile phones came up. In the end we agreed for this particular event to say no mobile phones during the day, as it would avoid the risk of say some 13 year olds hanging out with some 16 year olds and potentially viewing content not suitable for their age range. In the evening where the age ranges are separated, we would allow phones for the older group. I think this is a good compromise.

But more broadly I was making the point that, for the events we run for our group of teenagers, we don't normally ban phones. Three main reasons I would say. The first is that if we did, some feel such detachment that they'd probably start to try sneaking them in. We have a good level of trust between us but they are teenagers after all and I'm sure there will be a day where they'll push the boundary to sneak in a phone or alcohol or something else they're not allowed. I'd rather they're using them in the open than hiding them. The second is that they take better publicity photos for our group than the adults do because they capture 'in the moment' things and selfies etc! The third is that I've been doing this for many years now and I've yet to actually have a problem with mobile phone usage. I believe the reason for this is that we put together an engaging programme and because of this they're not constantly thinking about their phones. On events I do find they get on their phones while waiting for their food to go down, and if it's an overnighter then a short spell on them in the evening, but during the day I barely see them.

Again, they're a self-selecting group and if they didn't like our programme they would just leave the group, unlike school where a lot of teenagers are in a class whether they want to be or not. But even when I'm teaching ours a skill they don't particularly want to learn but is needed for something, making it as engaging as possible just removes a lot of this phone distraction.

As for pouches, I think I'd just find it a bit patronising. And like I said earlier up, if one device was banned they'd just bring another cheap one off Amazon. I'm not going to start searching their kit for contraband.

I guess this is a bit of a tangent from specifically social media, but I do think they're quite closely related, as social media use is such a huge part of what teenagers do on their phones. More so than games etc.

--

The second thing is the Lords have given their initial green light to blocking VPNs for under 18s: https://www.techradar.com/vpn/vpn-p...ine-safety-consultation-as-lords-vote-for-ban

The announcement was followed by a government defeat in the House of Lords on Wednesday, where peers backed an amendment that would ban VPNs for children under 18 and force providers to implement age checks. Peers also voted in favor of banning social media for under-16s.

So this slippery slope continues to get greased, and the cat-and-mouse game of the legislature versus tech savvy teens wanting to use Instagram seems well underway.

 

[318266]

The second thing is the Lords have given their initial green light to blocking VPNs for under 18s: https://www.techradar.com/vpn/vpn-p...ine-safety-consultation-as-lords-vote-for-ban

So this slippery slope continues to get greased, and the cat-and-mouse game of the legislature versus tech savvy teens wanting to use Instagram seems well underway.

To me, this seems utterly ridiculous.

I run a small VPN server on my home network, so I can maintain my small home server when I am not at home, and also to hide my traffic from unscrupulous Wi-Fi providers I may inadvertently connect to.

Does this mean I need to be a registered VPN operator, and that I would be permanently banned from keeping any of my hypothetical children's devices secure? This seems utterly bonkers, especially when VPN companies such as Mullvad and Proton VPN will happily take the 4chan approach of "we aren't in your overregulated hellscape controlled by the media and no name thinktanks, get rekt lmao".

Meanwhile, it only seeks to make Trump and co. - who are under more and more pressure from their constituent American companies to oppose any sort of online safety legislation - more and more likely to play their dubious economic games with us - games we can only ever really lose if Trump truly wants us to.

 

[Peter Sarf]

A couple of things from my side.

I don't work in a school but I do volunteer with teenagers, most of whom currently are of an age where they'd be affected by this ban.

We have informally chatted before about social media and what sort of content they end up consuming and actually I think many of the older teenagers are sensible enough to swipe away from the harmful content. Some of the content they do consume is really not my cup of tea, but only because I find it tacky or mind-numbing, not harmful per se.

These are a self-selecting group though - they've opted to be in our group doing the activities we do. Across the full spectrum of people their age I've no doubt there's harmful content. But I do believe it is possible and feasible to educate young people about harmful content and how to get it to stop showing up (as often, anyway) in social media feeds. I would prefer to be investing resources into this than trying to enforce frankly unworkable policies.

Specifically, last night I was at a meeting about running an event which would be between our group, and a different group of young people - so we would be, at times, having 10-17 years spending some free time together. The topic of mobile phones came up. In the end we agreed for this particular event to say no mobile phones during the day, as it would avoid the risk of say some 13 year olds hanging out with some 16 year olds and potentially viewing content not suitable for their age range. In the evening where the age ranges are separated, we would allow phones for the older group. I think this is a good compromise.

But more broadly I was making the point that, for the events we run for our group of teenagers, we don't normally ban phones. Three main reasons I would say. The first is that if we did, some feel such detachment that they'd probably start to try sneaking them in. We have a good level of trust between us but they are teenagers after all and I'm sure there will be a day where they'll push the boundary to sneak in a phone or alcohol or something else they're not allowed. I'd rather they're using them in the open than hiding them. The second is that they take better publicity photos for our group than the adults do because they capture 'in the moment' things and selfies etc! The third is that I've been doing this for many years now and I've yet to actually have a problem with mobile phone usage. I believe the reason for this is that we put together an engaging programme and because of this they're not constantly thinking about their phones. On events I do find they get on their phones while waiting for their food to go down, and if it's an overnighter then a short spell on them in the evening, but during the day I barely see them.

Again, they're a self-selecting group and if they didn't like our programme they would just leave the group, unlike school where a lot of teenagers are in a class whether they want to be or not. But even when I'm teaching ours a skill they don't particularly want to learn but is needed for something, making it as engaging as possible just removes a lot of this phone distraction.

As for pouches, I think I'd just find it a bit patronising. And like I said earlier up, if one device was banned they'd just bring another cheap one off Amazon. I'm not going to start searching their kit for contraband.

I guess this is a bit of a tangent from specifically social media, but I do think they're quite closely related, as social media use is such a huge part of what teenagers do on their phones. More so than games etc.

--

The second thing is the Lords have given their initial green light to blocking VPNs for under 18s: https://www.techradar.com/vpn/vpn-p...ine-safety-consultation-as-lords-vote-for-ban



So this slippery slope continues to get greased, and the cat-and-mouse game of the legislature versus tech savvy teens wanting to use Instagram seems well underway.

Thanks for your insight. It is good to see teenagers being kept occupied in something useful and I have read warnings that youth clubs are being left unfunded which is counter productive (I hope it is part of declining Croydon Council rather than a national trend). It is important for adults (parents etc) to spend time keeping the younger generation involved in worthwhile activities. I have always felt that if young people are not given something to do they will find something not necessarily so good to do. Worse still undesirables will find something for them to do.

Apart from keeping young minds busy constructively there is also the other angle of teaching younger people what is right (or maybe right) and what is wrong or how to question. Both ways are useful together. An outright ban will be hard to police and possibly undermine the more constructive approaches (leading to push back). Of course there will always be some youngsters who for various reasons fall into bad ways, I suppose we have to accept that, but if the majority are OK then the risks will be less.

 

[Trackman]

So if you ban it for under 16s, doesn't that de facto become imposing an ID requirement for everyone else? We've already seen some of the issues with that thanks to the OSA and its hardly been in effect for long.

I was thinking that.
Not that I'm going to sign up to any new social media, but it would be a real headache, and I wouldn't be bothered signing up.

And what about this banning VPN nonsense for under 16s? VPN's are not all about circumventing websites etc.,