Neil Brown2d ago

The report of the Southport Inquiry (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-southport-inquiry-phase-1-report) makes for horrifying reading.

Perhaps of particular note to those interested in #OnlineSafetyAct issues, chapter 6 (online harms) of the report:

* leads with criticism of a lack of parental oversight / responsibility, which I found unusual.

* suggests that VPN usage in the UK should be subject to age / identity verification.

* notes that X was unhelpful in its responses to the Inquiry's statutory information requirements.

The Southport Inquiry: Phase 1 report

Phase 1 report of the inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the Southport attack of 29 July 2024.

GOV.UK
Show threadNeil Brown2d ago

The report is also critical of Internet filtering in schools, given what the perpetrator was able to access.

I am not sure that being tougher on schools is the answer here - they are already massively underfunded, with too much to do in too little time.

Perhaps it would be wise if the DfE was more specific about the requirements, such that schools, local authorities etc. could put more onus on suppliers to deliver a consistently high standard of service?

Show threadSteve Hill 🏴󠁧󠁒󠁷󠁬󠁳󠁿πŸ‡ͺπŸ‡Ί

@neil the DfE's filtering / monitoring standards are pretty good now, TBF, although there is always room for improvement. But keeping up with changing guidance is basically a full time job, pretty much no school is meeting their requirements, and no one is really checking.

IMHO, Ofsted would do well to check the docs that schools are expected to produce (but don't), and as you say, schools just don't have the resources to do the work. (And this is their work, not something to contract out)

Apr 13 at 9:13pmWeb
Show threadNeil Brown1d ago

@steve

Some schools may have the skills etc to do this in-house, but realistically I suspect that many are dependent on their filtering service provider.

Show threadSteve Hill 🏴󠁧󠁒󠁷󠁬󠁳󠁿πŸ‡ͺπŸ‡Ί1d ago
@neil there is a lot of stuff that the filtering provider realistically cannot do. E.g. schools are expected to review their filtering/monitoring approach annually (including redoing risk assessments, etc). We do get asked to do the annual review and we tell the school that all we can do is check there is nothing utterly insane configured - we don't know the risk profile of their kids, etc. So cannot do a full review of their approach.
Show threadSteve Hill 🏴󠁧󠁒󠁷󠁬󠁳󠁿πŸ‡ͺπŸ‡Ί1d ago
@neil schools are also expected to document what they have blocked/allowed, but in my experience this almost never happens. So when it comes to reviewing block/allow lists, we ask "why did you whitelist blah 8 months ago?" and no one knows. Not really much excuse since our product lets you record notes against individual blocked/allowed URIs, just lazyness and lack of discipline from the schools.
Show threadSteve Hill 🏴󠁧󠁒󠁷󠁬󠁳󠁿πŸ‡ͺπŸ‡Ί1d ago
@neil the DfE list who is responsible for each thing, and whilst I think they could be a little clearer, ultimately the DSL is responsible for much of it, but in my experience often won't directly engage with the filtering provider. Fully accept that schools don't have enough resources though.
Show threadNeil Brown1d ago

@steve

> Fully accept that schools don't have enough resources though.

This, exactly.

By all means place the onus on a person within a school, but then *ensure adequate funding for the school to recruit and train the right person to do that*.

Show threadSteve Hill 🏴󠁧󠁒󠁷󠁬󠁳󠁿πŸ‡ͺπŸ‡Ί1d ago
@neil the KCSIE also requires safeguarding staff to be adequately resourced... So I guess schools are supposed to cut back in other areas to ensure this is so?
Show threadNeil Brown1d ago
@steve Oh, sure, schools are supposed to support all sorts of things out of their meagre funding.