SEARCH RESULTS

Ofcom has issued its consultation on Data Preservation Notices (DPNs) and Coroner Information Notices (CINs). See... https://www.ofcom.org.uk/.../consultation-on-data ... As Jools’ mum, and as a campaigner for Jools’ Law, I want to share the reality families face when a child dies suddenly: Many parents don’t know all the accounts their child had; children often use multiple platforms, under different usernames. How can a coroner possibly know where to request data from? Without a standardised process, crucial evidence is easily lost. For example: Hollie Dance  was unaware that Archie Battersbee had social media accounts. I didn’t know Jools had multiple accounts and neither did the police discover this. Another family I know only discovered after their daughter’s death that she’d been groomed on an app called LMK, which they, and I, had never heard of. Even if coroners do request data, how are they expected to know what to ask for? Algorithms, search histories, “For You” feeds, private messages — all could hold vital answers. And here’s a critical procedural issue: When a child dies, the coroner will usually open an inquest quickly. However, in many cases, the inquest is then suspended while the police conduct their investigation. Once suspended, the coroner cannot issue CINs or DPNs. Responsibility for gathering evidence, including digital evidence, is passed back to the police. This creates a dangerous gap. The police rarely act swiftly enough to preserve online data, and while responsibility bounces between agencies, the “golden hour” passes. Platforms may delete or alter vital evidence before anyone acts. This happened in Lincolnshire, where parents were told their coroner couldn’t request social media data because the inquest was open but suspended. The same opening and closing happened in Jools’ case. So even though the new DPN powers exist, coroners cannot use them once they suspend an inquest, leaving families at the mercy of police delays. This is precisely why Jools’ Law is needed: automatic preservation of a child’s social media data at the point of death, without waiting for coroners or police to determine jurisdiction. Without automatic preservation, bereaved parents are left fighting an uphill battle for scraps of information while the truth about their child’s final days may already have been erased. We cannot allow that to continue. #JoolsLaw   #OnlineSafety   #ChildSafety   #BereavedParents   #DigitalEvidence

Once again today, I have been contacted by a journalist informing me of another devastated family, this time in Lincolnshire, whose teenager has tragically taken their own life. My heart breaks knowing the engulfing pain they are now living with. Coroners already have the legal powers they need, they just need to be used What angers me is hearing that the Coroner in this case is apparently applying to the High Court to access the young person’s social media data. This is simply not necessary. The inquest has not yet taken place, and under current law, the Coroner does not need to go to the High Court. This highlights, yet again, the serious lack of training for both Police and Coroners. Families are left crying out for answers while those who should know how to act are either unaware of their powers or uncertain about the correct procedure. In the meantime, vital data is at risk of being lost or deleted. The process should be straightforward: Since April 2024, coroners have had the power under Section 101 of the Online Safety Act to ask Ofcom to issue a Coroner Information Notice (CIN) to online platforms such as Snapchat, TikTok, Meta or Google. This notice requires the platform to provide information about a child’s online activity that may be relevant to their death. There is no need for a High Court application. In addition, the government has confirmed that the new powers to issue Data Preservation Notices (DPNs), which force platforms to preserve a child’s data so it cannot be deleted during an investigation, will now come into force by the end of September 2025, several months earlier than originally planned. Once active, DPNs will make it a criminal offence for companies to delete or alter a deceased child’s data once notified. Until then, coroners should continue to use Section 101 powers via Ofcom to secure data for an inquest. The two powers will work side by side: Section 101 CINs → to access a child’s online data. DPNs (from September 2025) → to preserve a child’s online data so it is not lost. Both Ofcom and the Chief Coroner’s Office have made clear that coroners should be working with Ofcom early in an investigation, and that police must inform coroners quickly under “golden hour” procedures so that vital data is not deleted before it can be secured. A Practical Checklist for Bereaved Families It makes me deeply angry that bereaved families are expected to do this themselves. In the aftermath of losing a child, no parent is in a fit state to navigate complex legal processes just to stop vital evidence from being lost. This is precisely why I continue to fight for Jools’ Law, because securing and preserving a child’s online data should happen automatically. No parent should have to beg for it, chase officials, or risk losing potential evidence that could help explain what happened to their child. If you are a bereaved parent and need social media data to be preserved or accessed for your child’s inquest: Ask the coroner directly: “Have you requested a Coroner Information Notice under Section 101 of the Online Safety Act?” Confirm the process: The coroner must go through Ofcom, not directly to Apple, Meta, or other companies. Ofcom will then issue the legal notice to the relevant platform. Raise urgency with police: Remind them of their duty under the “golden hour” principle — coroners should be notified immediately after a child’s death so that online data can be preserved. Keep records: Ask for written confirmation from the coroner or police of any requests made to Ofcom. Note dates and names of those you spoke with. From September 2025 onwards: In addition to CINs, coroners will be able to ask Ofcom to issue a Data Preservation Notice (DPN), making it illegal for a platform to delete your child’s data once notified. No parent should ever have to fight to stop vital evidence from being lost. Coroners already have the legal powers they need; they simply need to use them. I believe this process should happen automatically (which isn't the law YET) on the death of a child, without grieving families having to push for it.

Matt, Jools, Ellen He should have been opening his A-level results, dreaming about university, travel, and adventures. Instead, I’m left with milestones of could have been. Jools ended his life at just 14. I still don’t know why because the law stops me from accessing his online data. That’s why I’m fighting for Jools’ Law to give bereaved parents the right to answers and the chance to protect other children. I’m back from London today after continuing my fight for Jools’ Law, and an important meeting was had. This fight is for Jools and for every family who deserves the truth. Today, while other families celebrate results, I’m reminded that grades are never more important than a child’s life. Please keep talking, keep noticing, and keep listening. #JoolsLaw   #ForJools   #CouldHaveBeen   #SuicidePrevention   #ALevelResultsDay

Jools' 6th Birthday (Ellen, Jools, Matt) Today should have been filled with laughter and celebration. Today, our son Jools should have turned 18. Instead, there is silence. No card to write. No present to wrap. Just an aching, endless space where my brilliant, funny, kind boy should be. Since that awful day when Jools died, I’ve lived with a pain no parent should ever know. I’m fighting to understand what happened to him, but along the way, that search for answers has grown into something much bigger. Meeting so many other parents who are in a similar awful position. Because Jools is not the only child. There are others, right now, being harmed, confused, and overwhelmed by what they’re exposed to online. Violent, explicit, and deeply inappropriate content, content no child should ever see, and it is just a scroll away. It’s hurting their minds, their self-worth, and in some cases, their lives. So I keep going, not just to find answers about what happened to Jools, but for every other child who is still here and still at risk. I have no other children of my own left to protect, but I can fight to protect yours. And I will. Jools should still be here. He should be celebrating with his friends, with me, with his dad, and with everyone who loved him so much. If you’re a parent, please take a moment to hug your child today. Look them in the eyes and remind them they are loved beyond measure. And if you work in government, tech, education, or law, ask yourself: What are we really doing to protect our children online? Because right now, it is not enough. I’ll never get to buy Jools a pint. I’ll never see him off to university. I’ll never know the man he could have become. But I can fight. And I will. I can’t say “Happy Birthday,” because there’s not one part of this that feels happy. So instead, I’ll just say: Thinking of you, my darling boy, on what should have been your 18th birthday. I pinky promise to love you forever, Jools. Love, Mum x

I would like to introduce you to two incredibly brave parents whom I’ve had the privilege of meeting on this difficult journey. Their beautiful daughter was just thirteen when she was groomed online and tragically lost her life. What they’ve written below is raw, honest, and utterly heartbreaking — but it’s also vital reading for anyone who cares about protecting children. They didn’t ask to become campaigners. They’re grieving parents, like so many of us, who have been forced to carry this weight because the systems that should have protected their daughter failed her. Please take the time to read their words. Share them. Talk about them. Their message deserves to be heard. We will not stop fighting until the truth is faced and real change is made. For their daughter. For Jools. For every child. 💙 #JoolsLaw #OnlineSafety  Our daughter died as a result of online grooming. She was just thirteen years old. Following her death, a joint agency enquiry was launched to determine what lessons can be learned. That is right and necessary. But in our experience, it has not gone far enough. As her parents, we have not been invited to share what we know, what we’ve learned, or what we’ve come to understand in the painful aftermath of losing our child. This may seem like a procedural oversight, but it points to a deeper systemic issue: When governments, regulators and official enquiries fail to see the full picture, it is bereaved parents grieving, traumatised and exhausted, who are left to fight for the truth. And the truth is this: our daughter’s death was preventable. But the action needed to protect her and countless others, was delayed, diluted, or denied by those in power. The danger of online grooming has been known since at least 2017, when it became a criminal offence for adults to send sexual messages to children. By then, cases of digital grooming were already rising sharply. In the years that followed, the number of recorded grooming offences increased by more than 80%. In 2019, the UK government published the Online Harms White Paper, proposing a duty of care on tech platforms. But what followed was four years of slow progress and political distraction under successive Conservative governments. During this time, the number of children being harmed online continued to grow. So did the evidence. And still, meaningful regulation was delayed. The Online Safety Act, passed in October 2023, came far too late for our daughter. Even then, enforcement only began in mid-2025, by which point the apps and loopholes that exposed her had already done irreversible damage. Platforms like LMK and WhatsApp, which allowed predators to reach her directly remain widely available to young people with little or no oversight. And organisations like Ofcom, despite being tasked with regulation, have repeatedly failed to act with the urgency and strength required to protect children. We now hear the current government speak of reform, transparency, and safety. These words are welcome. But as campaigners like Ellen Roome have rightly warned, we have heard them before. The promises of one government are often undone by the inaction of the next. Unless there is a serious break with this cycle of delay and denial, more children will die, and more parents will be left to carry what we now carry. This is not just about one app, or one agency, or one enquiry. It is about a culture of deferral where warnings are ignored, safeguards are postponed, and grieving families are told, after the fact, that “lessons will be learned.” We are sharing this not to point fingers, but to say what must be said: Our daughter died not only because a predator found her, but because systems failed to stop him. Those failures began years ago and were allowed to continue across successive governments. The burden of change now falls on people who loved her the most, and who lost her in the most unimaginable way. We do not want this burden. But if no one else will carry it, we will. Two grieving parents United Kingdom

Image taken by Sky News, see article - https://news.sky.com/story/new-internet-rules-enforced-from-today-but-this-grieving-mother-is-sceptical-they-will-work-13401388 That means, for the first time in UK law: ✅ Platforms must introduce highly effective age verification to block children from accessing adult content, including pornography, suicide, self-harm, and eating disorder material. ✅ Algorithms must be changed to stop harmful content from being pushed into children’s feeds if the platform knows the user is a child. ✅ Risk assessments must be tailored by specific age groups, not just “13+”. ✅ New types of harm — like body shaming, hopelessness, and compulsive scrolling — must now be recognised and mitigated. ✅ Platforms must name a senior executive who is responsible for child safety. It sounds like progress — and it is, on paper. But here’s the truth ❌ Age Verification — rigorous on paper, weak in practice Yes, platforms must now apply “highly effective” age assurance for the most harmful content. But what does that really mean? Self-declared ages (e.g., ticking a box) no longer qualify. Ofcom now requires reliable methods, such as facial age estimation, official ID matching, mobile provider checks, or digital identity services. Platforms can be fined up to £18 million or 10% of their global revenue, with possible criminal penalties for senior executives. BUT these checks only apply when accessing harmful material directly (like explicit sites or flagged posts), not when a child creates an account or scrolls through algorithm-driven content. And here’s the kicker: 👉 There’s no obligation for platforms to go back and verify existing users. That means millions of children who signed up using a fake age are outside the protection of the new rules. ❌ Algorithms still addictive, still targeting the wrong eyes Platforms are supposed to stop harmful content being shown to under-18s but only if they know the user is under 18. So what happens when they don’t check? The algorithms that addict, isolate, and expose children to graphic material continue to run. The law targets new uploads, not systemic design. And existing harmful content? It’s still out there, pushed into feeds based on behaviour, not age. ❌ Accountability — still absent for bereaved families Even now, if the worst happens, families like mine have no legal right to access their child’s account, content, or digital history. We’re still forced to beg social media companies for answers, and often, we’re ignored or stonewalled. We need more than a starting point. We need real change. ✔️ Real age checks — at sign-up, not just content access. ✔️ Full audit of existing users — not just new ones. ✔️ Platform designs built for safety, not engagement. #JoolsLaw   #OnlineSafetyAct   #ChildrensCode   #AgeVerification   #ProtectChildrenOnline   #FixTheGaps https://news.sky.com/story/new-internet-rules-enforced-from-today-but-this-grieving-mother-is-sceptical-they-will-work-13401388

Page 50 of Woman Magazine Page 51 of Woman Magazine Page 52 of Woman Magazine

Jools looking at a laptop in despair When a child dies, families are plunged into a world of unimaginable grief, confusion, and unanswered questions. In today’s digital age, some of the most vital clues as to why that death occurred may not lie in a diary or a note, but in the data held by social media and messaging platforms. Data, which is currently almost impossible for bereaved families or coroners to access promptly.  Too many families are experiencing the same appalling scenario: they ask for their child’s digital data to be preserved and requested only to be ignored. I raised a few cases directly with the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) at my last meeting, and they assured me that they would pass this on to the coroner concerned.  However, STILL, no data has been preserved and requested as in the example of  Ms L.  Her daughter died in January 2025.  I raised the issue of preserving the data with the MOJ and was assured they would follow up with the coroner.  Last week, Ms L was told by the Coroner’s office, “Y ou can talk about these things at the pre-inquest in October ”.  9 months after the death of her daughter!! In digital terms, that’s a lifetime. How much data will have gone? Social media platforms do not store data indefinitely. Without a legal preservation order, conversations are deleted, accounts are deactivated, and messages disappear. Evidence is lost. And with it, any chance of understanding what really happened. This is why Jools’ Law must be compulsory — not just a polite option or a bureaucratic process to consider, but a legal requirement that, upon the death of a child (or indeed, any person under suspicious or unclear circumstances), digital data is immediately requested and preserved. It’s Not Just About Children Although Jools’ Law was inspired by my 14-year-old son Jools, who died in April 2022, this is not an issue exclusive to children. Adults, too, die in unexplained or suspicious circumstances, and families are left with no way to access potential answers locked behind passwords and platform policies. If a person is found dead in a home, the police don’t wait eight months to collect the laptop. So why are we waiting months to access the contents of that laptop or their online accounts? Data is the new scene of the crime. It’s time our procedures reflected that. The Law Must Change — And Fast Coroners must be required to issue immediate Data Preservation Notices in any case where digital evidence could be relevant. This should not be left to the discretion of grieving families or delayed by administrative bottlenecks. In one case, the bereaved parents were told, "You aren't priority"! In Jools’ Name and for All Who Deserve Answers Jools didn’t leave a note. Like so many young people today, if he had shared his fears, pressures, or distress, it likely would have been in a message, a DM, a Snap. We may never know for certain because his data hasn’t been obtained. This isn’t just about one child. It’s about every person whose digital life might hold the key to justice, truth, or closure. Support Jools’ Law. Make digital data preservation compulsory after death. #JoolsLaw #OnlineSafety #DigitalJustice #DataAfterDeath #BereavedFamiliesForOnlineSafety

Today, I received a thoughtful reply from the Rt. Hon. Peter Kyle, Secretary of State for the Department of Science, Innovation, and Technology, regarding the Data Use and Access Bill and the #Onlinesafetyact It’s reassuring to know that new powers will come into effect from September 2025 — but heartbreaking that they’re needed at all. I continue to believe it should be automatic that, in the event of a child’s death, their social media data is preserved and requested in every case without delay, in case it is needed. Tragically, I now know of three more children who have recently died, and whose data still hasn’t been preserved and requested via Ofcom. Police and Coroners must do better. #joolslaw   #childsafetyonline   #DigitalAccountability

Image of LMK app Today, I discovered an app called LMK, which I wanted to warn people about the dangers of. 📱 What is LMK? LMK (Let Me Know) is a social networking app that allows users—mainly teenagers—to send and receive anonymous messages. It started as an add-on for Snapchat but now functions as a standalone app. It includes features like chatrooms, polls, voice chats, and anonymous Q&A. LMK is often promoted as a way to 'make new friends' but poses serious risks for children. 🚨 Key Features • Anonymous questions and messages • Public voice and text chatrooms • Snapchat integration for anonymous interactions • Find and connect with strangers easily 🔴 Main Risks for Children 1. Cyberbullying – Anonymous messaging enables cruel, untraceable harassment. 2. Sexual Grooming – Predators use the app to initiate contact with minors. 3. Inappropriate Content – Children are exposed to sexual, violent or graphic material. 4. Mental Health – Anonymous abuse can severely impact self-esteem and emotional well-being. 5. Lack of Moderation – Poor reporting tools and no live oversight of chatrooms. 🧠 Real-World Context The LMK app has been linked to several cases involving cyberbullying, sexual exploitation, and mental health crises. Child safety organisations and schools have flagged it as high risk. ✅ What Parents & Schools Can Do • Talk openly with children about online risks. • Check phones for unfamiliar apps and Snapchat-linked activity. • Use parental controls and monitoring tools (Apple Screen Time, Google Family Link, etc.). • Report any concerns to Child Exploitation and Online or safeguarding leads. • Stay informed via trusted online safety resources (NSPCC, Internet Matters, Childnet). ❗ Age Rating and Legal Grey Areas • App Store age rating: 17+ • Common usage: children as young as 12 • No meaningful age verification This briefing was prepared to support parents, schools and safeguarding professionals in identifying digital risks.

Group photo of Lessons4life meeting in London London, Wednesday 9th July 2025 — a powerful group of parents, campaigners, policymakers, and educators led by Hayley Sherwood came together in the heart of Westminster to support and drive forward the Lessons4Life campaign. The meeting was to discuss how we can urgently equip children with the emotional intelligence, digital resilience, and life skills they need to navigate today’s increasingly complex world, both online and offline. But more than that, it was a moment of connection, unity, and shared purpose. I spoke as a bereaved parent about my beautiful son, Jools, who ended his life at just 14 years old. His death, I believe, was connected to the overwhelming pressures children face today, including the hidden and harmful content they encounter online. I shared the heartbreak of losing him, the unanswered questions that still haunt me, and my fight for Jools’ Law — a campaign to give bereaved parents the legal right to access their child’s digital data after death. At the heart of my campaign is one vital question: how can we protect children if we’re denied the truth about what they’re experiencing online? Our stories matter — because they are one of the reasons Lessons4Life must become part of every child’s education. This isn’t theoretical. It’s real. And it’s deeply personal. One of the most significant moments of the day was when we hand-delivered a Lessons4Life white paper to 10 Downing Street. This document outlines the urgent need for mandatory life skills education in all UK schools, and proposes a national framework that prioritises emotional wellbeing, digital resilience, and age-appropriate online safety. Children’s lives depend on this. Larry the Cat, the official Chief Mouser to the Cabinet Office To our delight, we were also greeted by the real boss of Downing Street — Larry the Cat, the official Chief Mouser to the Cabinet Office. Larry has lived at No.10 since 2011, outlasting multiple Prime Ministers and clearly unfazed by political chaos. While we stood there delivering a white paper, Larry was snoozing near by like he’d just closed a trade deal and fancied a nap. A purring reminder that in the middle of serious business, there’s always room for a little mischief — and a lot of cat-titude. Back at the event, we were privileged to hear a powerful talk from Fatima Whitbread MBE. Her story of survival, strength, and self-belief deeply moved the room. A former world javelin champion and Olympian, Fatima has used her own experience of childhood trauma to inspire and advocate for vulnerable young people. It was truly lovely to meet her — she was generous with her time, her words, and her presence. It was also a great pleasure to meet her. Fatima Whitbread MBE speaking at the Lessons4Life campaign meeting, sharing her story and message of hope Prioritising Personal Development Schools are in a strong position to support children to develop positively, while creating a lasting impact on the next generation by helping to educate children in areas, such as: emotional regulation and self-care improved self-worth and self-confidence reduced anxiety healthy relationships reduction in teen pregnancies better understanding of nutrition etc. Better resourced personal development will directly impact societal issues, but schools need data to inform their focus. The Lessons4life campaign seeks to enhance support for schools, empowering them to Evaluate, Educate & Elevate personal development for all children. Key themes from the meeting included: • Mandating life skills education from primary school age — teaching children about emotional regulation, healthy relationships, consent, and online safety. • Reforming RSHE (Relationships, Sex and Health Education) to reflect the real-world challenges children face today, including harmful online content, body image, and AI-generated misinformation. • Bringing young people into the conversation, ensuring youth voice is central to future policy decisions. • And perhaps most importantly, calling for cross-party political commitment to embed these lessons for life into the national curriculum — not as a bolt-on, but as a core subject. The energy in the room was driven by purpose. Every attendee shared a desire to protect future generations — to stop other families experiencing preventable loss. This campaign is not about blame. It’s about responsibility. It’s about giving our children the tools they need to survive — and thrive — in today’s world. It’s about education that saves lives. You can read more hear.... https://www.lessons4life.org

Yesterday, myself and six other bereaved parents from ‘The Bereaved Families for Online Safety’ Group met with Ofcom and Presidio Safeguarding as part of their ‘Lived Experience group meeting’ to discuss Deceased Child User duties.   The UK's Data (Use and Access) Bill, which became law on June 19, 2025, includes provisions for parents or guardians to access a deceased child's online data. Specifically, a parent or guardian can request data from the preceding 12 months before the child's death from internet service providers (ISPs) without a court order, upon verifying their identity and relationship to the child. Ofcom wanted our ‘lived experience’ feedback on how to help design these duties to help a parent when a child has died.  Well, let me explain, when Jools died, I was physically crawling on my hands and knees up the stairs. I could barely get out of bed, and some days I didn’t. I couldn’t eat, and I felt physically sick constantly. I sat on a step, breathing into a paper bag while having a panic attack.  I didn’t really care about breathing myself, so to think that a parent is going to be in any fit state to ask to obtain data, preserve data or indeed do much at all is out of the question for most bereaved parents. You are existing, nothing else and barely doing that.     I go back to my argument for Jools’ Law, which all the other bereaved parents in the room yesterday agreed with. THIS HAS TO BE THE POLICE who ask the coroner to preserve and request the data URGENTLY.  Whilst I was under the impression until now that there are 90 days to protect the data being removed from the phone, I have been corrected, “coins”, which is data stored on the phone, go after only 28 days. So unless the POLICE & THE CORONER preserve and request this data it could well me missing by the time the police POSSIBLY look at the device.  Well, I don’t really remember the first couple of months after Jools died.  In between uncontrollable sobbing, crawling to the bathroom, and then being asked things like “what kind of coffin do you want for your child?”, there is no way I would have been able to ask the police to obtain this data.  I have shown that I’m a fighter, well, it took me 2 years to find my fight in me again, how on earth would a parent do this in the first 28 days? We need Jools’ Law, and it needs to be compulsory that on the death of a child, this data is automatically preserved and requested BY THE POLICE, informing the Coroner, and then the Coroner instructing Ofcom.    Even today I have been contacted by a parent whose child died 5 months ago to say, “We are five months on from xxxxx’s death and we have requested that the Coroner preserve her phone data and requested for it to be analysed. So far they have refused. We discovered lots of harmful content on xxxx’s tiktok account, which we informed the Police and Coroner of, but we have had no response. The police have had xxxx’s phone since she died in January and they were able to access it, but I believe they have done the most basic of checks. It's all very disappointing”.   When is this going to change? It is so very wrong.   And there is another problem.  I was told that once the Data Use and Access Bill had Royal Accent, it was law and Coroners could use it.  Ofcom told me yesterday that this is NOT correct.    There are various sections of the Bill, which I asked for clarification on from Ofcom:   The first stage would be to preserve the data so that Social Media companies don’t delete it – Section 124 of the bill.  HOWEVER, this part can’t be used yet, even though the law has had Royal Accent.   WHY? – It must go through a consultation process before it can be used. 1. Drafting the Code(s) of Practice and Establishing a Panel • Under new Section 124B, the Information Commissioner must: • Draft a statutory code of practice outlining how access requests should work. • Establish a stakeholder panel that includes experts, affected individuals (e.g., parents), industry representatives, regulators, etc. • Publish the draft code, panel membership, selection process, and reasons for inclusion before panel review. 🗣️ 2. Panel Review & Public Consultation • The panel meets to review the draft code and submits a report with recommendations. • The Commissioner must then: • Publish the revised code and panel report (or a summary). • Explain why any panel recommendations were not adopted. • Meanwhile, a public consultation typically takes place to gather views from civil society, tech companies, researchers, bereaved families, etc. • The Bill itself requires a “thorough consultation” before enforcing regulations. 📊 3. Impact Assessment • Under Section 124C, an impact assessment must be carried out and published: • Identifying who would be affected by the code. • Evaluating potential impacts on those groups. 📜 4. Formal Regulatory Process • After consultation and panel review, the Commissioner—and ultimately the Secretary of State—may put the code into effect through formal regulation. • The Secretary of State has the power to: • Modify or suspend certain panel requirements via regulation (negative resolution procedure). • Any resulting regulations (e.g. verification methods, extra safeguards for third-party data) must undergo affirmative approval in Parliament. ⏱️ 5. Timeline & Government Commitments • The Government has committed to: • Waiting for Ofcom’s report (on researchers’ access under the Online Safety Act), due July 2025. • Launching a public consultation shortly after publication. • Ensuring adequate time is allocated for stakeholder input before finalising regulations.   ✅ Summary Flow Chart Step Action 1. Commissioner drafts code + forms stakeholder panel 2. Publish draft code, panel details, panel reviews and issues report 3. Public consultation gathers views from all stakeholders 4. Impact assessment published 5. Final code and any modifications are published 6. Regulations laid before Parliament for approval 7. Section 124 comes into force once regulations gain parliamentary approval     Ofcom confirmed that Section 101 of the Data Use and Access Bill amends the Online Safety Act 2023, specifically empowering Ofcom to support child death investigations by coroners or procurators fiscals. This apparently IS in force. This allows Coroners to request social media data for a deceased child, but apparently not preserve it, as section 124 can’t be used yet.     I repeat, please please please can police have the power on the death of a child to automatically request immediately to preserve and request the children’s online data.  Just get the data.  If it’s not needed, then it’s not needed, just as Jools’ toxicology report was negative and not needed, at least it was done.