Pershore missing mother and daughter found
Follow BBC Hereford & Worcester on BBC Sounds, Facebook, X and Instagram.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
11 minutes ago
- The Independent
By likening Nigel Farage to Jimmy Savile, Peter Kyle has handed Reform a free gift
Just when Nigel Farage and his tiny parliamentary party were beginning to be exposed as shrill and clueless, Peter Kyle, one of the most promising cabinet ministers, handed them a free gift. By saying that the Reform leader is on the side of 'people like Jimmy Savile', Kyle destroys his own arguments for the Online Safety Act. The attempt to link Farage with a notorious child sex abuser is gratuitous and offensive. It makes Kyle seem desperate and allows Farage to pose as the wronged party – Farage's criticisms of the Act seem more credible after Kyle's outburst than before. It is surprising that Kyle has chosen to use this slur when Labour people were so indignant – and rightly so – when Boris Johnson used it against Keir Starmer. That was when Johnson was desperate: Sue Gray's report on lockdown parties in Downing Street had just been published and Johnson wanted some way of deflecting attention. His attack on Starmer had nothing to do with Gray's report. It was an aside referring to Starmer's time as director of public prosecutions, during which, Johnson said, 'he spent most of his time prosecuting journalists and failing to prosecute Jimmy Savile, as far as I can make out'. But it was more relevant than Kyle's attack on Farage. It is factually correct that the Crown Prosecution Service failed to prosecute Savile when Starmer was in charge, and it is unclear whether it could have done more to bring Savile to justice at the time. But Farage has nothing to do with Savile – at all. Kyle's attempt to smear the Reform leader was phrased thus on Sky News: 'If people like Jimmy Savile were alive today, he'd be perpetrating his crimes online, and Nigel Farage is saying that he's on their side.' Nothing could be better calculated to distract from the real issue, which is whether Farage's pledge to repeal the Online Safety Act is a sensible one. The Reform rhetoric about 'authoritarian' and 'dystopian' legislation is overdone, and Farage admitted yesterday that he didn't know how he would protect children online instead. But rather of exposing the weakness of Farage's arguments, Kyle allowed his opponent to protest on X that his comment was 'disgusting' and to demand an apology. Kyle responded: 'If you want to overturn the Online Safety Act you are on the side of predators. It is as simple as that.' This is a terrible way to conduct a public debate. There are well-founded concerns about the Online Safety Act, which seems to put unworkable obligations on non-profit-making websites while doing little to ensure that the big tech companies behave more responsibly. A lot of well-informed people said it was badly drafted legislation even before it was passed by the Conservative government two years ago. Kyle is now overseeing the coming into effect of provisions of the Act relating to age-verification, and instead of acting on the concerns that have been expressed, he has ploughed ahead – in effect accusing anyone who has doubts, including for example Ella Dorn of the New Statesman, of being aligned with Savile. When Johnson gratuitously dragged Savile's name into his attempt to save his disintegrating premiership, the disgust at his deliberate attempt to invoke conspiracy theories driven by fears of paedophilia was felt across the political spectrum. Munira Mirza, Johnson's adviser who was consulted in advance, begged him not to do it, and resigned when he did. Kyle should not be using the same disreputable tactic, which not only speaks volumes about this government's self-confidence but also allows Reform off the hook. Only this morning, Sarah Pochin, Reform's newest MP, was struggling to explain what her party's policy on small boats actually is. All she could propose was that Britain should 'do something drastic', by which she seemed to suggest that we should let migrants drown in the Channel. If the next election really is a fight between Labour and Reform, Labour must fight it better than this.
The Sun
12 minutes ago
- The Sun
I got spoofed and was forced to change my mobile number – it could happen to you too
IF you've ever been targeted by a scammer, you'll know it can be a scary and worrying experience. But has a fraudster ever pretended to be YOU, in order to trick people out of their hard-earned cash? 1 That's exactly what happened to me, when I discovered that my phone number had been "spoofed" and crooks were using it to try and scam people. It's a horrible form of identity fraud and a cunning way for fraudsters to attempt to steal cash or money from unsuspecting victims, as the number appears to be from a trusted source. It all started six months ago, when I started getting mysterious phone calls from strangers claiming that they'd has missed calls from me. But when I checked my call log each time, I could see that I never made the call to that number. I would tell the caller that they made a mistake, and hang up the phone. I was suspicious that these were scammers trying to lure me into handing over money in some way, so I made sure to block the numbers after I put the phone down. But the calls kept coming and each time I kept blocking the number. That was until last week, when I received a WhatsApp out of the blue from a lady I didn't know. "Hello, did you call me?" the text read. I usually don't message back when I get these sorts of WhatsApp messages, as I'm wary of scammers. But I was confused when the lady sent a screenshot of her call log - and surprisingly, my phone number was at the top of the list. I decided to message back, explaining that I didn't call her. I thanked her for flagging the missed call, and said I would look into what happened. After contacting my phone company, ID Mobile, I was told that the most likely explanation for what had happened was that my phone number had been spoofed. They said there wasn't much the company could do about my spoofed number, although I had the option to change my phone number, which would cost £25. I was also told to report the issue to Action Fraud. The thought of a scammer using my number and pretending to be me to con money out of innocent people made me sick to my stomach. So I decided to bite the bullet, swallow the £25 charge, and put the experience behind me. Even better, I've not had a single scam call or text since I switched my number - before, I used to get at least one a week. However, there's nothing to stop my new number from being spoofed too. It's also been a massive inconvenience contacting all my friends, family, and organisations to let them know about my change of number. iD Mobile said: "We understand how frustrating it is for customers to receive calls from people claiming they've been contacted by them. "In this instance, it appears the number was spoofed — a common industry issue where fraudsters fake caller IDs without needing access to the number itself." I've been told that if I report it to Action Fraud, the £25 fee will be waived - which I'm planning on doing soon. Spoofing on the rise The main reason why scammers will spoof numbers is in order to target more victims without being caught up in something called the Do Not Originate (DNO) list. Ofcom and UK Finance launched the DNO list in 2019. Companies and organisations add to the list when a rogue number is reported, and this list is shared with telecoms providers to help them identify and block calls from these numbers. It's an effective tool in filtering through scam callers - but tech and cyber security expert David McClelland said scammers are exploiting a loophole. "Perhaps because of this DNO list - although it's difficult to say for sure - scammers are now also making calls that spoof individuals' mobile numbers," he said. Spoofing is becoming a big problem. The telcoms regulator, Ofcom, is so concerned about the growing threat of spoofing that it launched a consultation in July last year on how to address the issue. It said it was "concerned" that scam calls are coming from scammers who are spoofing UK mobile numbers. It said a call from a spoofed number could appear more trustworthy, and "victims are more likely to share personal information or to make a payment, which can lead to significant financial and emotional harm". It can therefore make it much easier for fraudsters to hunt down victims and steal their money. Some 5.7million Brits have been targeted by a mobile phone scammer more than 10 times, according to research from comparison site Uswitch. And an eye-watering £1.17billion was swiped by scammers in 2024 - roughly level to what was stolen in 2023. What can you do about spoofing? Worryingly, phone companies can't do a lot about spoofing, says Jake Moore from the cybersecurity firm ESET. "There's no solid bulletproof way to stop this sort of spoofing," he says. "However, it's a good idea to report it to Action Fraud and at extreme lengths, you can change your number. "This may be challenging for some people - but it will eradicate the problem if your phone number appears on a list that hackers delve into." My spoofing experience has been sobering, and has reminded me of the importance of remaining vigilant against scammers. Set your privacy settings to the highest level on your social media and messaging accounts. This is so people can't contact you or collect personal information about you - it's surprising how much we share on our accounts. Be wary of who you share your number with. "Try to reduce the amount of companies you give your phone number to," Jake said. "Most website forms will ask for it but not all of them will require it for the service or product to work. "By limiting where your number is divulged, it reduces the chance it will be breached." If you get a cold call, never rely on just using the caller ID as a way to verify who they say they are. It's worryingly easy for scammers to spoof a number. If someone says they are from your bank, then hang up and call the number on the back of your card, or through the mobile bank app. If someone says they are from an official organisation, like HMRC, hang up and look up the number to call back on the website. Being spoofed has made me realise the lengths that scammers will go to in order to trick you into handing over money. From now on, I'll be keeping a close eye on where I'm sharing my phone number. How to stop nuisance calls and texts FED up with scam texts and calls clogging up your phone? Take these steps to fight back. On iPhone, you can enable Silence Unknown Callers by going to Settings > Phone, scrolling down to Silence Unknown Callers, tapping the option, and turning on the feature. This will block phone numbers that are not in your contacts or that you have not contacted previously. On Android, open the Phone app, tap the three dots for more options, tap Settings then turn on Caller ID and spam protection. This uses a database of phone numbers to determine a caller's ID and filter out spam calls. Contact the Telephone Preference Service to add your landline or mobile number to the UK's official Do Not Call register and opt out of unsolicited communications. You can register your phone number on the TPS website or by phoning 0345 070 0707. Certain phone providers offer their own blocking services, some free and some paid for. Contact your provider to find out more.
Telegraph
12 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Political censors have cynically hijacked vital child protections
Britons woke up last week to discover that their firehose of digital smut had been strangled, albeit temporarily for consenting adults. Undeniably, the introduction of age verification regulations does mark a huge change in our relationship with the internet, hitherto a pornographic free-for-all. It may feel like a shock to find a third party inserting itself between you and a website, apparently demanding to know who you are, but it shouldn't be a surprise: it's eight years since the UK Government published its online harms green paper under Theresa May, and The Telegraph launched its Duty of Care campaign the following year. After much wrangling, the result was the 2023 Online Safety Act. In March, the first part of went into effect, placing new obligations on platforms to remove content that is legal, but harmful to children: suicide advice, eating disorders or dangerous stunt challenges. The second phase went into force last week, requiring age checks for pornography sites. 'Companies have effectively been treating all users as if they're adults, leaving children potentially exposed to porn and other types of harmful content,' wrote Melanie Dawes, Ofcom's chief executive, in January. The UK is not an outlier in its desire to keep children safe, either. Texas and three other US states require age verification for adult material, and so will Australia. But critics of the law have warned of consequences for free expression from the start, and over-zealous interpretations quickly became apparent. X, previously Twitter, has already put material behind the age gate, with Benjamin Jones, director of case management at the Free Speech Union – of which I am a member – identifying a number of posts which were worryingly censored for unverified users. Some supported calls for single-sex spaces for women. One by Wuhan lab researcher Billy Bostickson (a pseudonym) fell foul too; it was part of a thread on the use of bamboo RNA in vaccines. Several posts in a thread discussing Richard the Lionheart were gated, which merely contained a reference to the crusades. Most troublingly, a post linking to a live stream of police arrests at a demonstration at a migrant hotel in Leeds was also taken down. All these bans appear to have been the work of an over-zealous algorithm. Some saw this coming. Baroness Claire Fox has written of her dismay at realising how outnumbered speech advocates were when she was in a room as the only free speech advocate, alongside dozens of groups all requesting some clause or addition. 'Only two of us [peers] consistently opposed the bill – myself and Lord Daniel Moylan. I was shocked that so many from the free speech camp of peers were silent,' Fox tells me. 'It became a Christmas tree bill with lots of other things put in it,' said Kemi Badenoch as she campaigned for the Conservative leadership last year. She also predicted 'it will go after people who aren't doing anything wrong'. That hasn't quite happened yet, but long overdue moves to enforce accountability on giant, transnational platforms, and better protect children unfortunately coincided with a renewed desire to control political speech. The good state must take an active role in removing inflammatory speech, the United Nations declared in its 2021 paper Our Common Agenda. It re-emphasised the point last year. William Perrin, one of the architects of Ofcom's approach to regulating online platforms, who was not involved in drafting the legislation, recently posted a paper for the think tank Demos called Epistemic Security 2029: Protecting the UK's information supply chains and strengthening discourse for the next political era. It explicitly calls for the policing of social media platforms. One gets the sense that as long as populists are rising, the impulse to censor will be irresistible to their political opponents. By controlling our discourse, they can control democracy. 'We have an establishment that is innately hostile to Free Speech,' Jones of the Free Speech Union tells me. There is very much wrong with this. Against a backdrop of widespread concern about street crime, shoplifting and rampant fraud, the energy devoted by police to what we say online is confounding, from enthusiasm for the category of 'non-crime hate incidents' to the creation of a special monitoring unit. The implicit idea seems to be that if we stop talking about something the underlying problem will go away. With Britain a tinderbox, and a long summer ahead, this seems a brave moment to test the proposition. It is understandable why age verification and clumsy algorithms sow suspicion of the system itself. In reality, however, online anonymity was always illusory. Your broadband operator has always known who you are and which sites you visit. So has the shady VPN provider. Google collected your pornography browsing history even while you were browsing in 'incognito' mode, for which it was sued, agreeing later to delete billions of records in a settlement. What our alarm reflects is a wholesale loss of trust in the Government. Ofcom points to polling showing the Online Safety Act is widely supported. It is highly regrettable that a bien-pensant blob has cynically hijacked child protection law to ensure it has a media landscape more in keeping with its views. But there's plenty of blame to go around. One lesson of the Online Safety Act is that free-speech advocates also needed a plausible child protection plan. They never came up with one – and were duly steamrollered. The consequences for Britain may be profound.
