Queen Camilla was the victim of an attempted indecent assault as a teenager, according to a new book about the Royal Family. The Queen is said to have fought off her attacker using the heel of her shoe.

The attempted assault is recounted in Power and the Palace by the former Royal editor of the Times newspaper, Valentine Low.

He says the Queen told Boris Johnson the story of her experience in 2008 when he was mayor of London.

It is reported that the Queen was 16 or 17 years old when the incident happened on a train to Paddington Station.

The man is said to have been touching the teenage Camilla Shand when she took off her shoe and hit him with it.

It was, she told Johnson, something her mother had told her to do if she ever found herself in that situation.

When she arrived in London, she reported the incident to station staff and the man was arrested.

Buckingham Palace has made no official statement on the story but is not disputing the details of the account.

Much of the Queen’s public work in recent years has been supporting the victims of domestic violence, sexual assault and rape.

She is patron of the charity SafeLives and has visited women’s refuges and rape crisis centres across the UK and globally.

In a number of powerful speeches, she has spoken of the courage of those who have experienced domestic violence and why they should not feel fear or stigma in coming forward.

In a speech in 2020 she said: “Through my work, I have talked to many women who have lived with coercive control and domestic violence and, thankfully, come out at the other end as the victors not the victims.

“They are some of the bravest people I have ever met. Their stories are harrowing and have reduced even the toughest of their listeners to tears. That is why it is so vital that these survivors should no longer feel any shame or any blame.”

And at a reception at Clarence House in April for SafeLives, she spoke of domestic abuse.

“I would not be standing here if it was 10 years ago because we wouldn’t have been talking about it – it was a taboo subject. Nobody actually wanted to talk about it.

“But now 10 years later we’ve got survivors telling their story who years ago would’ve been too ashamed to come forward to tell their stories, but now they’ll get up and talk and inspire others to talk.”

Sources close to the Queen say she has not gone public with the attempted attack before to avoid drawing attention to her experience rather than to the victims she now works with.

They also say this episode did not motivate the Queen to get involved in supporting domestic violence organisations as that work stemmed from hearing victims stories over the years.

Royal sources also say if discussion around the Queen’s past experience helps destigmatise what far too many girls still suffer today, then that would be a positive from what was a negative episode.

Details of help and support with child sexual abuse and sexual abuse or violence are available in the UK at BBC Action Line.

Australia could use a range of technologies to implement its social media ban for under-16s but all have risks or shortcomings, a report has found.

The government says its ban, which comes into effect in December, is designed to limit the harmful impacts of social media. The policy has been touted as a world-first and is being watched closely by leaders globally.

Under the new laws, platforms must take “reasonable steps” to prevent Australian children from creating accounts on their sites, and deactivate existing ones.

Though the move is popular with many parents, experts have raised concerns over data privacy and the accuracy of age verification technology.

The federal government commissioned the UK-based Age Check Certification Scheme to test the ways Australia could enforce the ban, and its final report was published on Sunday.

It looked at a variety of methods – including formal verification using government documents, parental approval, or technologies to determine age based on facial structure, gestures, or behaviours – and found all were technically possible.

“But we did not find a single ubiquitous solution that would suit all use cases, nor did we find solutions that were guaranteed to be effective in all deployments,” it said.

Verification using identity documents was cited as the most accurate method, but the report identified concerns that platforms may keep this data longer than required and was anticipating sharing it with regulators, both of which would leave users’ privacy at risk.

Australia – like much of the world – has in recent years seen a series of high-profile data breaches, including several where sensitive personal information was stolen and sold or published.

Facial assessment technology was 92% accurate for people aged 18 or over, but there is a “buffer zone” – about two to three years either side of 16 – in which is it is less accurate. The report said this would lead to false positives, clearing children for accounts, and false negatives, barring users who should be allowed.

There are also privacy and accuracy concerns with parental approval methods, it said.

It recommended that the methods should be “layered” to create the most robust system, and highlighted that many of the technology providers were looking at ways to address circumvention, through things like document forgeries and VPNs (virtual private networks) which obscure the user’s country.

Communications Minister Anika Wells said there was “no one-size-fits-all solution”, that the report showed age checks could be “private, efficient and effective”.

“These are some of the world’s richest companies. They are at the forefront of AI. They use the data that we give them for a bevy of commercial purposes. I think it is reasonable to ask them to use that same data and tech to keep kids safe online,” she told reporters on Monday.

“There is no excuse for social media platforms not to have a combination of age assurance methods in their platforms ready for 10 December.”

Under the ban, tech companies can fined up to A$50m ($32.5m; £25.7m) if they do not take “reasonable steps” to bar those aged under 16 from holding accounts. These steps are still to be defined.

Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat and YouTube are among the platforms affected.

Polling indicates most Australian adults support banning social media for children under 16.

However some mental health advocates say the policy has the potential to cut kids off from connection, and others say it could push children under 16 to even-less-regulated corners of the internet.

They suggest the government should instead focus on better policing of harmful content on social media platforms and preparing children for the reality of life on the web.