Netflix's Adolescence—The Unadulterated Truth (After All the Hysteria)

How one TV show took over Britain and who's ultimately behind it.

When Adolescence premiered on Netflix on 13 March 2025, it didn’t just trend—it detonated.

The fictional mini-series follows a 13-year-old white schoolboy—an “incel” who, fuelled by online misogyny and self-loathing, murders a female classmate.

The mechanisms behind his descent? A cocktail of Andrew Tate, red-pill “80/20” theory, and narcissism.

The mainstream press was euphoric. The BBC published headlines calling it “flawless”. The Times called it “complete perfection.” The Guardian declared it “the closest thing to TV perfection in decades.”

But then something strange happened.

The show’s creators—Stephen Graham and Jack Thorne—suddenly appeared everywhere.

First on This Morning the day after release. Then five days later, on March 18th, on the BBC. In later weeks, Graham had made it onto CNN and The Tonight Show Starring Jimmy Fallon.

Even when they weren’t present in person, British news panels and breakfast shows dedicated entire segments to the show, the threat of teenage incels, toxic misogyny and the need for urgent intervention.

To the more sceptical observer, it all seemed rather... coordinated.

And the producers had a message.

That same day on 18th March, they called for Adolescence to be shown in Parliament and across all schools in Britain—adding, rather curiously, that there should be a “crackdown on social media”.

The next day, Labour MP Anneliese Midgley raised the topic during Prime Minister’s Questions and asked whether the government would support nationwide screenings in schools.

Sir Keir Starmer responded approvingly, referring to task forces already being set up to tackle violence against women, toxic misogyny, inceldom, etc.

But something in his response jarred.

He called Adolescence a “documentary or drama.” Not once, but twice—repeating the same phrasing again weeks later during a 10 Downing Street roundtable where he invited the show’s creators.

The line sparked public outrage. It’s not a documentary. So why was Starmer calling it one?

Let’s not forget: just a month after Labour took power in July 2024, his Home Secretary Yvette Cooper ordered a review into tackling violence against women and girls using the same strategies developed to combat far-right and Islamist extremism.

This was soon followed by announcements from his Science Secretary, Peter Kyle, vowing to robustly enforce the Online Safety Act—legislation that grants Ofcom and police unprecedented powers to “regulate” online speech.

Based on What, Exactly?

Where did the idea for the show come from?

In a 4th March interview with Radio Times, Graham said it was partly inspired by two real-life murders:

“Where it came from, for me, is there was an incident in Liverpool, a young girl, and she was stabbed to death by a young boy. I just thought, why? Then there was another young girl in South London who was stabbed to death at a bus stop.”

The South London case was identified as the tragic murder of Elianne Andam, a 15-year-old stabbed in September 2023. Her killer, 18-year-old Hassan Sentamu, was a black teenager.

The question begged: why, then, was the fictional killer white?

Critics called it racial sanitisation. If the races were reversed—if a real-life white offender had been substituted for a black character—many of the same media figures praising the show would have likely cried “racism”.

Still, the case wasn’t cut and dry.

Graham also referenced a Liverpool murder, widely assumed to be the 2021 murder of Ava White, a white girl murdered by a presumed 14-year-old white boy (a High Court judge refused to identify him on welfare grounds).

That aligns more closely with the show’s casting. So claims of racial bias didn’t really stack up as some suggested.

But what the show didn’t reflect is just as telling.

Neither of the real-life cases cited were directly linked to inceldom, red-pill ideology, or Andrew Tate. One case did tie to social media but it wasn’t the sole cause.

Ava White’s murder reportedly stemmed from a dispute over a Snapchat video. Elianne Andam’s killing reportedly followed a confrontation involving her friend and the suspect—her friend’s ex-boyfriend—about returning personal items.

No Tate videos. No incel motivations. No online radicalisation narratives.

And yet, these appear to be the pillars of Adolescence (yes I watched it).

Disconnecting Fiction From Fact

To be clear, it’s not impossible for a white, online-radicalised incel to turn violent. In 2021, Jake Davison killed five people in Plymouth—including his mother and a three-year-old girl—before taking his own life.

It was found that Davison consumed “black pill” nihilism online and openly admired Elliot Rodger, the incel figurehead behind the 2014 mass killings in California.

But this is a far cry from what Tate offers up as an influencer.

An objective reading of Tate’s content is not straight forward—he says something outrageous to generate attention, and then walks it back in later videos with some “common sense” take—or vice versa.

For instance, in a YouTube video from July 2022 Tate says, “I believe she's my woman; she should be able to come to me with her problems, and I should fix them.”

An old-fashioned, arguably paternalistic statement, but nothing that would set off alarm bells in most corners of society.

Later in the same interview, however, Tate declared that “a woman is given to the man and belongs to the man,” and later described women as being “property”.

He’s said worse—much worse. But almost always, the most provocative statements are quickly followed by caveats, context, or redirection. It’s a pattern—provocation to drive engagement, followed by rhetorical dilution.

And yet, a lot of progressive activists never acknowledge this duality. Perhaps because nuance doesn’t make headlines.

The Relevant Data

In the aftermath of its release, Starmer repeatedly hailed the show, stating “as a father, watching Adolescence with my teenage son and daughter hit home hard. We all need to be having these conversations more.”

Given such comments, one might think the statistics on misogynistic, Tate-driven, incel violence are significant. The thing is, they’re not really.

According to the government data from Prevent—the UK’s primary counter-extremism programme—only nine referrals in the 2023/2024 year were linked to incel-related concerns.

That’s just two percent of the total cases adopted by Channel, the arm of Prevent that offers intervention for individuals considered at risk of committing extremist acts.

This may be because incel ideology manifests alongside other extremism types but the same is true for other ideologies.

Compare that to 45 percent of adopted cases linked to extreme “right-wing” ideology and 23 percent tied to Islamist extremism. Even individuals flagged for threats of school massacres outnumber incel cases.

More telling, the Prevent system has long been accused of institutional bias that aligns with a broader civil service orthodoxy.

Training materials categorise “cultural nationalism” as an extremist ideology. The belief that Western culture is under threat from mass migration and a lack of integration is explicitly flagged as a “narrative of concern.”

A government source familiar with the training recently confirmed the examples used to illustrate radicalisation almost exclusively feature young white men.

Even modules on incels, she noted, places disproportionate focus on obscure online terminology like “looksmaxxing”—a process of maximising one's own physical attractiveness.

And yet, despite that tilt, adopted incel cases remain remarkably small.

The notion that misogynistic extremism is sweeping through the UK’s white youth is also undermined by the data.

A 2023 Savanta survey of over 1,200 UK residents aged 16 to 25 found that while 41 percent of Black respondents viewed Andrew Tate favourably, and 31 percent of Asian respondents, only 15 percent of white respondents did.

Dr William Costello, a researcher at the University of Austin specialising in incel psychology, confirmed as much in a recent interview with Triggernometry. His work consistently shows that Tate’s influence is not concentrated among disaffected white youth—but spread far more broadly.

And all of this is happening against a backdrop where 75% of MI5’s caseload is tied to Islamist terrorism and foreign nationals are significantly overrepresented in sex and violence offence statistics.

Data from the Ministry of Justice, obtained under freedom of information request, show that up to 23 per cent of sexual offences, including rape, were accounted for by foreign nationals between 2021 and 2023—despite census data showing they make up 9.3 percent of the population.

Disproportion

This is why some jaws dropped on March 31st, when Starmer officially backed the producers’ plan to have the series screened in secondary schools—so that “as many young people as possible can see it.”

Critics quickly pointed out that the BBC’s Three Girls—a 2017 drama based on the real Rochdale grooming gang scandal—was never shown in schools.

That series depicted a part of the industrial-scale grooming of vulnerable white working-class girls by networks of men, mostly of Middle Eastern and South Asian descent.

A case built on documented facts, witness testimony, police reports, and first-hand survivor accounts. Yet it’s the pseudo-fictional, Tate-inspired incel boy that gets a government mandate.

Original grooming gang whistleblower and former detective Maggie Oliver says its still occurring. Her foundation, set up to support survivors, is still being contacted by dozens of girls every month.

Knife crime among teenagers is also far more prevalent.

In the year ending March 2024, more than 3,200 knife or offensive weapon offences were committed by children aged 10–17 that resulted in a caution or sentence.

That’s a 6% drop from the previous year—but still 20% higher than it was a decade ago.

No school screenings. More pervasive areas of concern go on.

But when Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch finally addressed the elephant in the room—calling on Starmer to prioritise economic growth instead of indulging theatre—the liberal media again lit their torches.

First came LBC and Nick Ferrari, suggesting Badenoch was being “derelict in her duty” for admitting she hadn’t watched the show.

Yes, apparently not watching a dramatised Netflix mini-series now qualifies as a dereliction of public office. This, from a broadcaster that positions itself as a champion of reasoned discourse.

Then James O’Brien jumped in, claiming Badenoch had fallen victim to “online racist lies” about the show’s casting—specifically the suggestion that a non-white real-life killer had been fictionalised as white.

This, despite Adolescence’s own co-creator Stephen Graham admitting in that Radio Times interview that the South London case involving murderer Hassan Sentamu, a black teenager, had been part of his inspiration.

Meanwhile, the BBC’s coverage became outright surreal.

In their attempt to force a connection between Adolescence, Southport, and Andrew Tate—the BBC published a piece headlined:

“Southport attack parents share Andrew Tate fears.”

Six lines in, the author confessed:

“It is not known whether he (Rudakubana) ever viewed material linked to Mr Tate.”

So why write the article? The same outlet repeated police lines that Rudakubana’s true motive is unknown. And they’ve said nothing—zero—about the reported anti-white content found on his laptop.

If they’re willing to run he said/she said to tie a social media influencer to Southport, surely they should be covering the content reportedly found on the killer’s devices?

Curious Connections

Then came a bit of a bombshell—uncovered by the ever-diligent investigative journalist Charlotte Gill.

Just as Adolescence was approved for rollout in schools, Netflix revealed the plan would be facilitated via Into Film+, a platform supported by the British Film Institute.

Accompanying this, a charity called Tender would be producing “educational guides” and “conversation toolkits” for teachers, parents, and carers—framing the series for classroom discussion.

What went largely unmentioned is that Tender received £3.4 million in taxpayer cash between 2020 and 2024. Its CEO, Susie McDonald MBE, attended the Adolescence roundtable hosted by Starmer.

That funding didn’t come from private donors. It was routed through a mix of government grants and contracts—making it less an “independent” educational outfit and more a state-backed vehicle.

And Tender doesn’t operate in a vacuum.

The charity has previously worked with one of the UK’s most openly progressive city leaders, Mayor Sadiq Khan. In 2022, he launched a £1 million “anti-sexism toolkit” for all secondary schools in London—developed in part with Tender’s involvement.

Then there’s Into Film+.

On paper, it’s a distribution and education service. In practice, it’s bankrolled by the British Film Institute (BFI)—which in turn is funded via the National Lottery, overseen by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS).

Why does that matter?

Because the same National Lottery funds some of the most aggressive progressive movements in the country—including TransActual, Mermaids, and Just Like Us. Among them, T(ART) Productions, which hosts “drag camps” for children as young as 14.

Of course, we can’t forget Warp Films, producers of Adolescence, that also received government funds in 2021 via the Global Screen Fund, which is financed again by DMCS.

So let’s be clear about the setup.

A fictional drama about a statistically rare ideological threat—produced by state-adjacent creatives—being pushed into schools like no one’s ever seen before, complete with classroom materials written by a state-funded charity and distributed through a government-backed film service.

The state’s fingerprints are all over it.

And to be clear, this isn’t suggesting Labour masterminded the show. It predates them and ministers don’t directly sign off on this kind of funding.

What’s far more likely is that it’s civil service-enabled and promoted through murky bureaucratic channels.

The same civil service that in a leaked report in January described the “alleged” problem of grooming gangs and claims of “two-tier policing” as part of a “Right-wing extremist narrative”.

Thoughts

It’s not hard to see what’s going on here.

Adolescence is, in fairness, a solid show I guess. It may well have started with the genuine intent to exploring cases like Ava White and Elianne Andam.

But whatever its artistic merit, what the government has done with it is about narrative-shaping.

We’ve got MPs platforming a pseudo-fictional show as educational content, a Prime Minister calling it “a documentary or drama,” and the entire machinery of the state moving in tandem to reinforce its message—as well as mainstream hacks running PR.

The show has been quietly coopted as propaganda—to justify the government’s creeping online “safety” censorship agenda. And the producers, for all their media rounds and appearances, seemed more than happy to play along.

This headline alone really said it all:

As Off Guardian put it on X on March 21st:

“The Online Safety Act came into force on Monday. Since then, the creators of Adolescence have been on Newsnight, Good Morning Britain, and CNN talking about the dangers of social media and the need for "real change". They have been invited to address parliament. An MP asked if the show should be compulsory viewing in schools. You can choose to live in a world where this is all a coincidence, or you can choose to live in the real world.”

The good news?

More than 1,500 teachers and parents have signed a letter saying the series is not suitable as an educational resource. There’s fight back.

---

---

• Do you think if things stay the way they are our best days are ahead of us?

• Are you going to sit down and watch as our media/government officials push for yet more invasive, authoritarian, censorious policy?

• If you want to do something today to change that, supporting citizen journalists like myself could make a genuine difference. In the past year alone, The Brief has reached over 90 million people on X (Yep, 90 crazy…) Sometimes, all it takes is one post to wake someone up—one to cut through the noise. Maybe it was that one that brought you here today.

---

---