Did UK police attempt to seize a child's phone for viewing a social media post? No, that's not true: In the recording shared as "proof" of the claim, police were heard saying the reason for their visit was different. In a statement released in response to social media posts, police said that their visit to the home of a suspect, who is a teenage girl, was part of an investigation into acts of "sending indecent or grossly offensive communication to cause distress or anxiety".
The claim appeared in a post (archived here) on X on September 21, 2025. It opened:
Starmer's regime send what appears to be sharia police to threaten to take a lady's daughter into custody if she doesn't hand over her phone. The child's 'crime'? Looking at a social media post! This is England 2025.
This is what the post looked like on X at the time of writing:
(Image source: Lead Stories screenshot of post at x.com/TRobinsonNewEra)
The video, which lasted 1 minute and 23 seconds, contained multiple cuts. A female voice-over continued asking the police officers about "a social media post," but the officers replied that it was not the reason for their visit. That exchange begins at the 00:45 mark:
OFFICER: ... if we are not able to basically get phone, we'll have to escalate this further...
WOMAN: Yeah..
OFFICER: ...which means your daughter will get arrested..
WOMAN: ...for what? Viewing a social media post?
OFFICER: No, absolutely no.
On September 21, 2025, West Midlands Police issued a statement (archived here) referring to the claim reviewed in this fact check as "disinformation." It read:
The offence being investigated is one of malicious communications - sending indecent or grossly offensive communication to cause distress or anxiety.
The messages are of an incredibly serious nature and have caused serious concern for the victim.
Officers made a number of attempts to speak to a suspect, a teenage girl, at her home address in Walsall earlier this month as part of the investigation.
On 13 September, we spoke to the girl's mother at her home and explained we needed to speak to her daughter and recover her mobile phone as part of the investigation.
The following day, the girl attended a police station for a voluntary interview, and the investigation continues.
We are aware of a brief and heavily edited video clip showing part of the 13 September visit.
The clip is misleading, and we have reviewed a 10-minute body worn video recording showing the full exchange.
