Jay’s Law and the Rise of the Armchair Detective: Why Online Sleuthing Needs Accountability

When Debbie Duncan lost her son Jay Slater, she faced the worst pain any parent could imagine. But alongside her grief came something she never expected: a constant wave of online speculation, false claims and cruel theories about what had happened to him.

Jay was a 19-year-old from Lancashire who died in Tenerife in 2024 after falling into a ravine. The tragedy was followed by a month-long search that attracted intense media attention and, later, an inquest confirming his death was accidental.

Yet even with the facts established, strangers online continued to create videos, posts and podcasts spreading conspiracy theories.

Debbie has now launched a campaign with her local MP for what she calls “Jay’s Law”. The proposal would make social media companies remove organised misinformation and malicious speculation targeting bereaved families.

It’s a call that resonates far beyond her own story, because Jay’s case is not the first time grieving families have had to defend themselves from the internet.

The Jay Slater Case: Grief Vs Digital Speculation

During the search for Jay, online interest turned quickly into obsession for many people. Some began producing elaborate theories about his disappearance, suggesting hidden clues or foul play. Others accused his friends and family of involvement without any evidence.

Debbie described it as “relentless”.

Instead of being left to grieve, she had to fight off coordinated networks of people creating false content for views and attention. These claims weren’t simply wrong, they were deeply hurtful and often defamatory.

Her campaign for Jay’s Law aims to stop this cycle. The legislation she is proposing would give Ofcom powers to act when platforms fail to remove malicious content about ongoing tragedies. The campaign’s goal is simple: to protect families from having their pain turned into entertainment.

A Familiar Pattern: The Nicola Bulley Case

Many people will remember the case of Nicola Bulley, who went missing in St Michael’s on Wyre in early 2023.

Her disappearance led to a huge police search and national media coverage. Sadly, her body was later found in the River Wyre, and an inquest ruled her death was accidental.

During the search, however, a new kind of public involvement emerged. Social media users arrived at the scene filming live streams, speculating on the police investigation and even questioning members of Nicola’s family. Some called themselves “TikTok detectives”, convinced they could solve the case from their phones.

Lancashire Police later said this behaviour made their work harder and added unnecessary distress for Nicola’s loved ones. What should have been a quiet, methodical search became a public spectacle filled with rumour and misinformation.

Both the Bulley and Slater cases are clear examples of how easy it is for unverified speculation to spread faster than official facts. In both, families already dealing with tragedy had to endure another layer of public scrutiny and cruelty.

The Rise of the Digital Detective

Social media has given everyone a voice, and many people use it for good. In some cases, online communities have genuinely helped find missing people or raise awareness of cold cases. But this same openness has created a space where speculation can run wild.

Not long ago, an ‘armchair detective’ was just a crime-show fan with theories. Now, the term has a darker edge.

It typically refers to people on TikTok, YouTube or Reddit who present themselves as investigators. They discuss clues, analyse CCTV, and share their theories, sometimes responsibly, but often not.

The problem is that these individuals are not trained, regulated or accountable. They can publish information without checking its accuracy. They can name innocent people. And because algorithms reward engagement, the more dramatic or shocking a claim sounds, the faster it spreads.

When speculation replaces evidence, real investigations carried out by professionals, the police or private investigators, can be damaged and innocent families can be harmed.

The Regulatory Gap

One of the challenges highlighted by Jay’s Law is that investigative activities in the UK are largely unregulated. Private investigators do not currently need a licence, although one was proposed years ago under the Security Industry Authority (SIA).

The SIA did publish a best practice guide which reputable private investigators will adhere to, but there’s no obligation to do so.

Even if that licence existed, it would only apply to professional investigators, not journalists or social media users. Many of the people creating “true crime content” online describe themselves as citizen journalists or campaigners. They would not fall under any regulation that might apply to private investigators.

That leaves a gap. Families like Jay’s have no protection from people using their tragedy to create online content. The proposed law doesn’t focus on policing individuals, but on making platforms act faster when clear harm is being caused.

Balancing Free Speech and Protection

There is a difficult balance to strike. Free speech is a core part of our society, and people should be able to discuss news stories and express opinions. But freedom of expression does not mean freedom from responsibility.

When someone’s grief becomes a public talking point, we all have a duty to be respectful. In both the Bulley and Slater cases, speculation went far beyond discussion. It turned into harassment and defamation.

Jay’s Law is not about silencing debate or banning journalism. It is about stopping malicious content that targets vulnerable families and spreads falsehoods. The same principle already exists for other types of harmful online content. Extending it to protect grieving families simply brings some much-needed compassion into the digital age.

The Professional Standard

Professional investigators work to a very different standard. Their goal is to uncover facts that stand up in court, not to attract attention online.

A trained investigator understands how to collect and handle evidence properly. They respect privacy, follow data protection laws and keep sensitive information confidential. Most importantly, they never publish speculation.

Good investigative work happens quietly, with respect for everyone involved. It relies on accuracy, patience and professional ethics. When mistakes are made online, they can ruin lives. When mistakes are made professionally, they can be challenged and corrected within the legal system.

The public could learn a lot from this approach: verify before sharing, respect before reacting, and remember that behind every story are real people trying to cope.

Why Jay’s Law Matters

Debbie Duncan’s campaign is not about censorship. It is about protecting dignity at a time of loss. Her experience, and that of Nicola Bulley’s family, shows how easily social media can turn grief into spectacle.

On its own, regulation won’t fix that problem, but it is a start. Platforms should be required to act faster against coordinated misinformation and harmful speculation. Users should think twice before posting theories about real people.

As Debbie herself said, she hopes no other parent has to live through what she has endured. Her campaign turns tragedy into purpose, reminding us that decency still matters, even online.

Real investigation should always seek truth, not attention. For those of us who work in this field, that principle has never changed, and it is what separates professional enquiry from harmful speculation.

If you need any professional investigation services, give us a call on 01772 334700.