Just thought you'd like to know dept.

So many music videos are now too obscene for children 'say experts'. The watershed is now an urban myth.  Children go straight from nappies to thongs. Our children can't play outside. Bring back Bob a Job without any of the mucky connotations. What to do? Who will save us from the decline of this once proud country?

This month the Government published a report, commissioned on the back of one of its election pledges to do more to protect children (ah, the return of good old family values), entitled 'Letting Children be Children - Report of an Independent Review of the Commercialisation and Sexualisation of Childhood'. Anyone old enough to remember Graham Bright and the Video Nasties campaign of the 1980s will perhaps get a slight whiff of deja vu.

Anyway, back to the report. Just read that title to yourselves again. 'Independent'. 'Sexualisation'. 'Children'. It's been written by Reg Bailey, Chief Executive of the Mother's Union (Christian Care for Families is their strap line), and published on the Department of Education's website. It looks very professional, and is 108 pages long (so it must be serious). Let's look inside, shall we?

After Reg's chatty "I hope I've done my best" introduction we move into the report proper, where the tone gets more serious (unnamed authorship is provided by someone from HM Government). This wastes no time in setting out its stall. On page 7 of the report there is a fascinating statement: "Insufficient evidence to prove conclusively there is harm to children [over the sexualisation of childhood] does not mean that no harm exists. If parents are concerned...it is their common sense...that tells them this. We should use that same common sense...and say that there are actions we can and should take now to make our society a more family-friendly place." Right, so this 108 page report isn't based on fact, but common sense.

It gets worse. A few words about the robustness of the report in research terms.

Appendix 1 covers the extent of the 'qualitative' research which informed the report (where numbers are less important that what the respondents say). The interview sample was:

"30 research sessions of 1.5 hours each:

10 group discussions with parents (4 respondents)
10 individual interviews with parents
10 paired depths with couples/co-parents"

So I think this is is a total of 24 interviews (it could be less - it's a bit ambiguous). 

Appendix 2 details the Omnibus 'quantitative' survey of 1025 parents (strangely 137 of this sample didn't have kids, so they aren't parents) and 520 children. I've selected some of the responses - the independent nature of the research presumably means that the questions don't always adhere to objective principles which is important - question construction can skew responses if too closed. Let's look at what the morally collapsed people of Britain are telling us (and as importantly what they're being asked):

63% of parents, when asked, had never bought anything for their child that they felt pressurised to do so.
61% of parents, when questioned, feel that children are forced to grow up too quickly 
60% of parents had not seen anything in a public place (eg advertising) that they felt was inappropriate
58% of parents had not seen anything inappropriate on TV before the watershed
35% of parents thought that companies should not market stuff to children by mobile phone 
58% of parents thought that celebrity culture encouraged children to act older than they are 
92% of parents had never complained about something on TV, adverts etc which they felt was inappropriate because of sexual content

73% of children surveyed did not feel that you had to act/dress older to be cool 
52% did not feel that that it's difficult to find clothes in shops that they and their parents would like
56% of children did not agree that it's important to wear the right brands
39% of children buy things because their friends have them
57% of children have asked their parents to buy them something because their friends have it 
84% of children admitted that if they want something that their parents won't buy them, they keep on to their parents about it 

These stunning statistics make it clear (according to the report) that something needs to be done. There's even a last ditch attempt at authenticity by including a 6 page bibliography, bulked out by Government reports and periodicals and websites.

So, the report's in the public domain. Now here's an extract from Hansard on 7 June, by Sarah Teather, Minister of State for Children and Families (the person who commissioned the report), speaking about it: 

"Mr Bailey has made a full and comprehensive report and fulfilled the remit he was given...The voices of parents and children come through strongly in the four key themes identified in his report...Mr Bailey has listened to the concerns of parents and takes them seriously. He understands that they want to set the standards and values their children live by...He believes that their views have a special status as they speak for children, not just for themselves...The Government welcome Mr Bailey’s analysis and the thrust of all the recommendations he has made. We note that the majority of the recommendations are directed at industry and the regulators, and we look to them to see that these recommendations are implemented... Mr Bailey has recommended that the Government should consider strengthening the controls on music videos. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport will respond to this recommendation by consulting on the operation of the Video Recordings Acts of 1984 and 2010...We will, as Mr Bailey recommends, take stock of progress in 18 months’ time and consider what further measures may need to be taken to achieve the recommended outcomes."

Now I know this isn't exactly international terrorism, and yes there are other things to worry about, but this is about censorship, and that, like other things beginning with C, starts at home.

Just thought you'd like to know.