SEARCH RESULTS

Full letter...... Dear Parliamentarians, We are not writing as activists or advocates. We are writing as mothers and fathers whose children are no longer here. We are writing as parents who wake up every day to a silence that should not exist, who go to bed knowing there will be no goodnight, no laughter, no future with the child we raised and loved. The decision by MPs not to raise the age limit for harmful social media platforms to 16 was not just disappointing; it was devastating. The Government's offer, a consultation with no binding commitment and no fixed endpoint, is not an answer to a problem that has already claimed too many young lives. We have already lost our children. We cannot accept a process that risks losing more as discussions continue. We have watched technology companies fight every attempt at meaningful reform. We know how they operate. We know how easily protections are delayed, diluted or quietly dropped when there is no firm legislative commitment. We are also deeply concerned about the consultation itself. It was announced at the eleventh hour, in the days before your previous vote. It proposes an expert panel of academics but leaves little or no space for those on the frontline, those who see the consequences every single day, such as GPs, police officers and others dealing with the reality of harm as it unfolds. Beyond this, the Government is seeking powers that would allow future measures to be introduced with little or no opportunity for you, as elected representatives, to scrutinise or challenge them. We cannot ignore what this means. It means there is a real risk of half-measures. Measures that sound like action, but do not prevent harm. Measures that will not stop other families from becoming like ours, families who are left desperately sad and broken forever. And if those measures are passed in this way, you may not have the chance to stop them. More parents will lose their children in circumstances that could and should have been prevented. And while others move on, we are the ones left behind, serving a life sentence without our children. More families will sit in rooms filled with their child’s belongings, knowing they will never be used again. More birthdays will become anniversaries. And right now, across the UK, parents are not waiting for consultations or future reviews. They are watching their children scroll, message and engage on platforms they know are not safe. They are trying to set boundaries without the support of the law. They are fearful, overwhelmed and doing their best to protect their children in a system that is not designed to help them. They are asking you. They are pleading with you to act now. To give them something they do not currently have: the ability to say no, backed by law the ability to protect their children before harm happens, not after You voted for change in January, and you were right to do so. Lord Nash’s cross-party amendment provides time for implementation, involves the Chief Medical Officer, and represents a careful, considered and credible path forward. It is a commitment to act. That commitment is what is missing from the Government’s position. We are left with bedrooms that remain untouched, phones that will never light up again, and questions that will never be answered. We are not here because this is our profession. We are here because this is our reality. And we are asking you, with everything we have left, to act so that other parents do not have to live it too. Please vote today to reject the Government’s amendments. Please vote for Lord Nash’s cross-party amendment. Please vote to raise the age. Yours sincerely, Ellen Roome MBE (Mother of Jools Sweeney) and co-signed by the following bereaved parents: Amanda Stephens (Mother of Olly Stephens) Areti Nicolaou (Mother of Christoforos) Beth Layton (Mother to Elsa Layton-Jones) Eliza Gabb (Mother of Sky Gabb) Esther Ghey (Mother of Brianna Ghey) George Nicolaou (Father of Christoforos) Hollie Dance (Mother of Archie Battersbee) Ian Banyard (Father to Lacey Banyard) Lisa Kenevan (Mother of Isaac Kenevan) Lorin LaFave (Mother of Breck Bednar) Mariano Janin (Father of Mia Janin) Matthew Sweeney (Father of Jools Sweeney) Michael Absalom (Father of Kady Absalom) Michelle Barrett (Mother of Kibi Wade) Michelle Gardner (Stepmother of Kibi Wade) Penny Banyard (Mother to Lacey Banyard) Ruth Moss (Mother to Sophie Moss) Stuart Stephens (Father of Olly Stephens) Tanya Absalom (Mother of Kady Absalom) Terry Layton (Father to Elsa Layton-Jones)

Front Page of The Mirror 17th Feb 2026

Today, I am sharing a letter sent from Baroness Kidron to Lord Hermer KC, the Attorney General, seeking his permission (a fiat ) to apply to the High Court for a new inquest into the death of my son, Jools. I am asking for a new inquest because the original inquest into Jools’ death lasted just 23 minutes. No witnesses were called. No meaningful evidence was gathered. Crucially, Jools’ online activity was not examined properly. Since that inquest, serious new information has emerged. Gloucestershire Police have now agreed to re-investigate Jools’ death, following the identification of significant investigative failings by an independent former senior investigating officer and now private Dectective Mick Randall and safeguarding expert Mark Bramah , and the discovery of new forensic evidence from Jools’ devices. The police’s acknowledgement that their original investigation was inadequate inevitably raises serious questions about the adequacy of the inquest that followed. There has also been an important change in the law. Under the Online Safety Act 2023, coroners now have powers to request relevant data from social media companies via Ofcom. That data was not available to the coroner at the time of Jools’ inquest, despite written confirmation from platforms that it was preserved. A new inquest would, for the first time, be able to consider this evidence properly. This is not just about my family. A full and lawful inquest could identify lessons that help prevent future child deaths and improve how the system responds when a child dies in circumstances involving online harm. I am deeply grateful to the many peers, MPs, experts, and organisations who have signed this letter in support. Thank you in particular to Paul Wright of Alliance 4 Children for organising many of the signatures and helping bring so many voices together. Their backing reflects a shared belief that the truth matters, and that families are entitled to answers when a child dies. For Jools. And for other children who deserve better protection. #JoolsLaw #Inquest #OnlineSafety #ProtectChildren #Accountability #Justice

Today, I formally wrote to Baroness Levitt’s office again to chase a previously offered meeting and to submit a further letter setting out our concerns in more detail. The letter is supported by bereaved parents whose children died in circumstances where online activity may have played a role , and where critical digital evidence was not preserved early enough to allow proper investigation. Why I wrote again Despite existing legislation, families continue to face delay, confusion, and inconsistency when trying to preserve their child’s social media data after death. Once evidence is lost, it cannot be recovered. For many families, this means living indefinitely without answers. The purpose of the letter is to underline why automatic data preservation following the death of a child is necessary, proportionate, and urgently needed. Key concerns raised In the letter, I set out the following issues: Delay is not neutral Digital evidence can be deleted or lost rapidly, particularly where overseas platforms or cross-border contact are involved. Early misclassification is dangerous When a child’s death is quickly labelled “non-suspicious”, opportunities to preserve and examine digital evidence often collapse entirely. Not all online harms look like self-harm Grooming, coercion, blackmail, and relational exploitation frequently occur through private messages and platform features that are invisible to manual phone review. Existing mechanisms are failing families Parents report confusion, refusals, and delays when relying on discretionary routes under current law. These systems depend on early certainty that often does not exist. Automatic preservation is low burden and high protection Preservation does not mean access or analysis. It simply ensures evidence is not lost while the circumstances of a child’s death are properly established. Safeguarding must outweigh administrative convenience The cost of preserving data that is never used is minimal. The cost of losing data that later proves relevant is permanent. Why this matters Jools’ Law is about ensuring that no child’s death is prematurely closed without full understanding, and that opportunities to protect other children are not lost because a simple, temporary safeguard was not applied. I remain hopeful that a meeting will now be scheduled so these concerns can be properly discussed alongside other bereaved families who live with the consequences of evidence lost too soon. I will continue to update this page as progress is made. (Full letter attached)

Totally shocked to see this article hit the front page of the Daily Mail, Trump, Beckhams and Me & Jools!!!!

Yesterday I pre-recorded an interview with BBC News  Points West . During that process, I was informed by the BBC that the police do, in fact, hold the original forensic image taken in April 2022, at the time my son Jools died. This original forensic image was never examined by police. I am also extremely concerned that I learned this information from the BBC rather than from Gloucestershire Constabulary , despite having explicitly asked this question in previous meetings and awaiting their response. Families should not have to discover fundamental facts about their child’s case through journalists. I also want to acknowledge Mick Randall, who was interviewed live for this piece. Mick is from Fedora Investigations and has been invaluable in getting us to this stage. His experience, persistence, and forensic rigour have brought scrutiny and challenge where it was long overdue. Without his professionalism and determination, we would not be here. Thank you, Mick. I sincerely hope this original forensic image now provides answers, clarity, and truth about what happened during the critical period before Jools died. This once again underlines why automatic preservation of children's online data - Jools'Law is essential! This must be standard practice from the outset. I will keep going until we have answers. #JoolsLaw   #Accountability   #Transparency   #DigitalEvidence   #ChildSafety

Gloucestershire Police have now formally confirmed that new investigative resources have been allocated to review outstanding lines of enquiry in relation to Jools’ death. Following a meeting between Senior Investigating Officers and the former SIOs supporting me, Mark Bramah, a child safeguarding expert and Mick Randall from Fedora Investigations who conducted the independent review, the police have acknowledged that further work is required. A dedicated team has now been identified and resourced to progress those enquiries. The police have set an indicative timescale of around one month to complete this work, taking it to 9 February, with a commitment to provide updates. They have also agreed to liase directly with the independent investigators working for us to ensure the enquiries are carried out thoroughly and promptly. This is a step forward. It does not change the fact that critical opportunities were missed in the immediate aftermath of Jools’ death, but it does show that persistence, scrutiny, and evidence-based challenge can lead to movement. But families should not have to fight for years to trigger basic investigative action. Progress should be automatic, immediate, and routine. That is why systemic reform is still needed and why Jools’ Law matters. #Joolslaw

On 8 December, my barrister Harry Lambert wrote to the Attorney General asking for permission to apply for a new inquest into the death of my son, Jools. If the Attorney General grants permission, we must then apply to the High Court for a new inquest. There are still hurdles to overcome. If a new inquest is granted, once successful at the High Court, the Data Use and Access Act 2025 can be used by the coroner to obtain Jools’ online and social media data. This evidence is currently inaccessible and, without it, important questions remain unanswered. There has been no direct response to us yet, but I know how much time and care many MPs and Peers have given in writing to the Attorney General in support of my application, and I am deeply grateful for that. My MP, Max Wilkinson , has shared confirmation from the Solicitor General that the application has been received and is now under consideration. I also want to say a heartfelt thank you to Harry Lambert and Outer Temple Chambers for undertaking this work pro bono. Their commitment, care and belief in the importance of getting answers has meant more to me than I can properly put into words. I am sharing this not just as an update, but because this matters far beyond my own family. When digital evidence is not preserved or accessible, families are left without answers, and opportunities to protect other children are lost. Fingers crossed we hear more soon. 🤞

This is exactly why Jools’ Law should exist: To automatically preserve a child’s online and social media data when they die. The message below is from another bereaved parent. I have removed their child’s name. Another bereaved parent, another child, and another unnecessary battle for answers. Months of fighting.   Repeatedly pointing out the law.   Educating a coroner on their own powers.   Being told nothing could be done because the platforms are based outside the UK. I even had to ask the Ministry of Justice and the Home Office to step in. Only after relentless pressure did the coroner finally agree to ask for a list of the child’s social media accounts to take to Ofcom. No parent should have to do this. No bereaved family should have to become a legal expert while in deep grief. And no coroner should be unclear about the powers available to them. Yet this is happening again and again. I want data to be preserved automatically when a child dies, No delays. No begging. No parents forced to fight while in shock and grief. No evidence is lost while authorities work out what they can and cannot do. This has to change.   #Joolslaw

My Dad showing Jools his OBE In this photo, Jools is admiring his grandad’s OBE with such pride. My dad even allowed him to take it to primary school for show-and-tell. He was proud of what it represented: service and doing the right thing. Today, I find myself wondering what Jools, this beautiful boy of mine, would think about his mum, me, receiving an MBE. It STILL hasn’t quite sunk in. I’m just little me, trying to bring real change to protect children online, and to ensure no other parent is left to live our nightmare. I hope Jools would understand that this was never about recognition. It was about love and not walking away or giving up, despite how hard it has been. As his mum, I taught Jools about truth, morals, and values, which I don’t believe social media companies have yet learned. Through him, I came to understand how deeply the online world can shape a young life, and how dangerous it can be for children. From losing Jools came Jools’ Law, a simple but vital fight to ensure bereaved parents are not denied access to their child’s digital world, where answers may lie. I would give this honour back in a heartbeat to have my son here. But since I cannot, I will use it exactly as it should be used. To keep pushing. To keep asking the questions others find uncomfortable. To fight for change. For Jools. For all the children whose lives were cut short. And for the ones we can STILL save. I pinky promise, Jools. I will love you forever. #JoolsLaw   #MBE   #ForJools   #OnlineSafety   #ChildProtection   #Safeguarding

House of Lords If only Jools could see how far his story has travelled. What began as a mother’s search for answers has become a campaign for change, to make sure no other parent is left in the dark when the unthinkable happens. I’ll be meeting with Baroness Beeban Kidron and other supporters of her amendment as we continue to push for   #JoolsLaw   — calling for the automatic preservation of children’s online data so that truth and accountability are never hidden behind a screen. (I do understand that it won’t actually be called JoolsLaw but if the crime and policing bill includes the wording to achieve that, then that’s perfect!) This invitation is another step forward — for Jools, and for every child whose story deserves to be told. 🕊️

Jools aged 4