Lesbian kisses could be banned from television screens until the watershed under nutter inspired Government plans to stop children being exposed to supposedly indecent images.

A review launched with the backing of David Cameron is expected to recommend that sexually suggestive scenes currently allowed before the 9pm watershed, such as the famous lesbian embrace on soap opera Brookside, should not be shown until later in the evening.

The inquiry is being led by Mothers' Union chief executive Reg Bailey.

The Daily Mail said that Bailey is likely to focus on more restrictive watershed rules. A source close to the inquiry said: It is hard to protect children in the internet and mobile-phone age but we have to do something.

Sources also suggested that raunchy dance routines, such as those by pop stars Christina Aguilera and Rihanna on last year's X Factor final, could also fall foul of more censorial watershed rules.

Bailey is also understood to be looking at a ban on sexy advertisements in public places. The source added: Some of those huge poster advertisements for bras and knickers leave precious little to the imagination and they are there for all our children to see.

Bailey is examining restricting internet pornography by enabling parents to ask ISPs to block adult websites at source rather than relying on parental controls.

Update: Mothers' Union chief executive Reg Bailey is not speaking for the Mothers' Union

4th May 2011. See article from themothersunion.org

Clarification on reports published in print and online 1st and 2nd May 2011.

Mothers' Union explicitly refutes all allegations regarding the banning of lesbian kisses on television before or after the watershed as claimed by the media this week, including in The Sun and the Daily Mail newspapers.

The Bailey Review as conducted by the Department of Education is independent of the Mothers' Union's Bye Buy Childhood Campaign and therefore, any recourse to statements against Mothers' Union are unfounded and should be directed to the Department of Education.

The Mothers' Union's Campaign is gender inclusive and is therefore, neither targeted towards or against any type of relationship and should not be expressed as such.

Reg Bailey Suffering from  premature sexualisation

The government report into sexualisation of childhood is due to be published on Monday. The press seem to have been briefed with advance details as reported in the Guardian.

The report has been commissioned by David Cameron from the biased Reg Bailey, the chief executive of the Mothers' Union and long-term campaigner against 'premature sexualisation'.

Bailey is likely to give the retail, advertising and video industry 18 months to improve their act voluntarily or face tougher government regulation.

He is also expected to demand some regulatory bodies such as Ofcom and the Advertising Standards Authority do more to ensure they seek the views of parents on what is acceptable to show to children.

The report is also set to criticise the growth of peer to peer marketing, where companies hire teenagers to sell or promote products in school.

The review has already led bodies such as the ASA and the BPI, responsible for the music industry, to make pre-emptive efforts to show they are aware of the criticism of the way they currently operate. The ASA has promised to set up an advisory body, as well as regulate advertising on company websites.

The music industry is expected to be told to put some kind of advisory age rating such as films have on music videos. Critics are likely to argue that in practice these music videos go out on TV and parents will unable to stand over their children and prevent them watching them. Latest figures sent to the Bailey review suggest that half of children have access to TV via their computers in their own bedroom.

Senior figures associated with the review are to claim complacency from some industry bodies.

Bailey is likely to be asked by government to follow through his report to ensure his recommendations are implemented. Ministers are aware that the previous government published three reports into sexualisation of children in various aspects, but little happened. But Helen Goodman, the shadow justice minister, said: The voluntary approach has been tried and failed. We must have tougher regulations across the media, including social media. Pester power is the pollution of modern advertising and we should follow the polluter pays principle.

See article from dailymail.co.uk

The Daily Mail adds that at the moment advertising rules mean alcohol and fast food adverts are banned from billboards near schools. A source involved in drawing up the plans said that would be extended to cover adverts featuring sexual imagery.

Reg Bailey Still suffering from  premature sexualisation

The Daily Mail adds a few more details (in its typically overwrought style) about Reg Bailey's report:

A report commissioned by the Prime Minister, to be published on Monday, demands an end to the sexualisation of young children.

It will order the broadcasting watchdog Ofcom to consult parents about their concerns and report back every year on how it has reinforced taste guidelines.

David Cameron will endorse the proposals of Reg Bailey, the chief executive of the Mothers' Union, who found parents are deeply concerned that sexual imagery in television, advertising and pop videos is making children grow up too fast.

Ministers will make clear that they expect changes and the Government is prepared to intervene directly unless the conveyor-belt of smut is toned down.

The report also calls for a hard-hitting crackdown on internet pornography, demanding tighter parental controls over access to explicit websites.

Under the plans, laptops will be sold with parental controls automatically activated and customers will have to request specifically to receive porn -- a reversal of the current position.

Bailey is also demanding a crackdown on lewd lads mags such as Nuts and Zoo, urging retailers to sell the magazines in plain wrappers or put them behind modesty boards which hide their lurid covers from young children.

Ministers will set up a single website which parents can use to report excessive sexual content on screen, in adverts and where high street stores sell inappropriate clothing to youngsters.

The Bailey Review demands a return to the days when parents could be confident that programmes broadcast before 9pm would be suitable for the whole family.

The report accuses broadcasters of actively working against parents by peddling sexual content. 'Some parents even questioned whether the watershed still exists.'

Bailey warns: The watershed was introduced to protect children and pre-watershed programming should therefore be developed and regulated with a greater weight towards the attitudes and views of parents, rather than viewers as a whole. Broadcasters and Ofcom should report annually on how they have specifically engaged parents over the previous year, what they have learnt and what they are doing differently as a result. The onus is on broadcasters to show acceptable content in the first place, not to react to audience complaints after the event.

The report says parents are most concerned by music performances in music and talent shows during family viewing hours which were heavily influenced by the sexualised and gender-steroetyped content of music videos, making them more raunchy than was appropriate for that type of viewing.

It concludes: The industry needs to act and, in the case of pre-watershed family viewing, take a slightly more cautious approach than is currently the case.

Rag Bailey has now published his hardly independent review on sexualisation and rather reveals his nutter stance by claiming that the world is a nasty place and that in an ideal world, adult entertainment would be shunned by society. He says:

 We believe that a truly family-friendly society would not need to erect barriers between age groups to shield the young: it would, instead, uphold and reinforce healthy norms for adults and children alike, so that excess is recognised for what it is and there is transparency about its consequences.

Bailey's summary reads:

The Review has encountered two very different approaches towards helping children deal with the pressures to grow up too quickly. The first approach seems to suggest that we can try to keep children wholly innocent and unknowing until they are adults. The world is a nasty place and children should be unsullied by it until they are mature enough to deal with it. This is a view that finds its expression in outrage, for example, that childrenswear departments stock clothes for young children that appear to be merely scaled-down versions of clothes with an adult sexuality, such as padded bras. It depends on an underlying assumption that children can be easily led astray, so that even glimpses of the adult world will hurry them into adulthood. Worse still, this approach argues, what children wear or do or say could make them vulnerable to predators or paedophiles.

The second approach is that we should accept the world for what it is and simply give children the tools to understand it and navigate their way through it better. Unlike the first approach, this is coupled with an assumption that children are not passive receivers of these messages or simple imitators of adults; rather they willingly interact with the commercial and sexualised world and consume what it has to offer. This is a view that says to do anything more than raise the ability of children to understand the commercial and sexual world around them, and especially their view of it through the various media, is to create a moral panic. The argument suggests that we would infantilise adults if we make the world more benign for children, so we should adultify children.

This Review concludes that neither approach, although each is understandable, can be effective on its own. We recognise that the issues raised by the commercialisation and sexualisation of childhood are rooted in the character of our wider adult culture and that children need both protection from a range of harms, and knowledge of different kinds, appropriate to their age, understanding and experience. Parents have the primary role here but others have a responsibility to play an active part too, including businesses, the media and their regulators. Above all, however, we believe that a truly family-friendly society would not need to erect barriers between age groups to shield the young: it would, instead, uphold and reinforce healthy norms for adults and children alike, so that excess is recognised for what it is and there is transparency about its consequences. The creation of a truly family-friendly society is the aspiration: in the meantime, we need a different approach.

Reg Bailey's recommendations are:

1. Ensuring that magazines and newspapers with sexualised images on their covers are not in easy sight of children. Retail associations in the news industry should do more to encourage observance of the voluntary code of practice on the display of magazines and newspapers with sexualised images on their covers. Publishers and distributors should provide such magazines in modesty sleeves, or make modesty boards available, to all outlets they supply and strongly encourage the appropriate display of their publications. Retailers should be open and transparent to show that they welcome and will act on customer feedback regarding magazine displays.
    
2. Reducing the amount of on-street advertising containing sexualised imagery in locations where children are likely to see it. The advertising industry should take into account the social responsibility clause of the Committee of Advertising Practice (CAP) code when considering placement of advertisements with sexualised imagery near schools, in the same way as they already do for alcohol advertisements. The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) should place stronger emphasis on the location of an advertisement, and the number of children likely to be exposed to it, when considering whether an on-street advertisement is compliant with the CAP code.
    
3. Ensuring the content of pre-watershed television programming better meets parents' expectations. There are concerns among parents about the content of certain programmes shown before the watershed. The watershed was introduced to protect children, and pre-watershed programming should therefore be developed and regulated with a greater weight towards the attitudes and views of parents, rather than viewers as a whole. In addition, broadcasters should involve parents on an ongoing basis in testing the standards by which family viewing on television is assessed and the Office of Communications (Ofcom) should extend its existing research into the views of parents on the watershed. Broadcasters and Ofcom should report annually on how they have specifically engaged parents over the previous year, what they have learnt and what they are doing differently as a result.
    
4. Introducing Age Rating for Music Videos. Government should consult as a matter of priority on whether music videos should continue to be treated differently from other genres, and whether the exemption from the Video Recordings Act 1984 and 2010, which allows them to be sold without a rating or certificate, should be removed. As well as ensuring hard copy sales are only made on an age-appropriate basis, removal of the exemption would assist broadcasters and internet companies in ensuring that the content is made available responsibly.
    
5. Making it easier for parents to block adult and age-restricted material from the internet: To provide a consistent level of protection across all media, as a matter of urgency, the internet industry should ensure that customers must make an active choice over what sort of content they want to allow their children to access. To facilitate this, the internet industry must act decisively to develop and introduce effective parental controls, with Government regulation if voluntary action is not forthcoming within a reasonable timescale. In addition, those providing content which is age-restricted, whether by law or company policy, should seek robust means of age verification as well as making it easy for parents to block underage access.
    
6. Developing a retail code of good practice on retailing to children. Retailers, alongside their trade associations, should develop and comply with a voluntary code of good practice for all aspects of retailing to children. The British Retail Consortium (BRC) should continue its work in this area as a matter of urgency and encourage non-BRC members to sign up to its code.
    
7. Ensuring that the regulation of advertising reflects more closely parents' and children's views. The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) should conduct research with parents and children on a regular basis in order to gauge their views on the ASA's approach to regulation and on the ASA's decisions, publishing the results and subsequent action taken in their annual report.
    
8. Prohibiting the employment of children as brand ambassadors and in peer-to-peer marketing. The Committee of Advertising Practice and other advertising and marketing bodies should urgently explore whether, as many parents believe, the advertising self- regulatory codes should prohibit the employment of children under the age of 16 as brand ambassadors or in peer-to-peer marketing – where people are paid, or paid in kind, to promote products, brands or services.
    
9. Defining a child as under the age of 16 in all types of advertising regulation. The ASA should conduct research with parents, children and young people to determine whether the ASA should always define a child as a person under the age of 16, in line with the Committee of Advertising Practice and Broadcast Committee of Advertising Practice codes.
    
10. Raising parental awareness of marketing and advertising techniques. Industry and regulators should work together to improve parental awareness of marketing and advertising techniques and of advertising regulation and complaints processes and to promote industry best practice.
     
11. Quality assurance for media and commercial literacy resources and education for children. These resources should always include education to help children develop their emotional resilience to the commercial and sexual pressures that today's world places on them. Providers should commission independent evaluation of their provision, not solely measuring take-up but, crucially, to assess its effectiveness. Those bodies with responsibilities for promoting media literacy, including Ofcom and the BBC, should encourage the development of minimum standards guidance for the content of media and commercial literacy education and resources to children.
     
12. Ensuring greater transparency in the regulatory framework by creating a single website for regulators. There is a variety of co-, self- and statutory regulators across the media, communications and retail industries. Regulators should work together to create a single website to act as an interface between themselves and parents. This will set out simply and clearly what parents can do if they feel a programme, advertisement, product or service is inappropriate for their children; explain the legislation in simple terms; and provide links to quick and easy complaints forms on regulators' own individual websites. This single website could also provide a way for parents to provide informal feedback and comments, with an option to do so anonymously, which regulators can use as an extra gauge of parental views. Results of regulators' decisions, and their reactions to any informal feedback, should be published regularly on the single site.
     
13. Making it easier for parents to express their views to businesses about goods and services. All businesses that market goods or services to children should have a one-click link to their complaints service from their home page, clearly labelled complaints. Information provided as part of the complaints and feedback process should state explicitly that the business welcomes comments and complaints from parents about issues affecting children. Businesses should also provide timely feedback to customers in reaction to customer comment. For retail businesses this should form part of their code of good practice (see Recommendation 6), and should also cover how to make it.
     
14. Ensuring that businesses and others take action on these recommendations. Government should take stock of progress against the recommendations of this review in 18 months' time. This stocktake should report on the success or otherwise of businesses and others in adopting these recommendations. If it concludes that insufficient progress has been made, the Government should consider taking the most effective action available, including regulating through legislation if necessary, to achieve the recommended outcome.

David Cameron has backed demands to introduce wide-ranging changes to supposedly prevent the sexualisation of children.

Cameron said the Reg Bailey report represented a giant step forward for protecting childhood and making Britain more family-friendly.

In a letter to Bailey, the Prime Minister supported his proposals to ban raunchy billboard ads near schools and to forbid celebrities under 16 from marketing products aimed at children.

He also welcomed plans to make it easier for parents to block explicit material on laptops and mobile phones by ensuring such devices are issued with anti-pornography controls turned on by default.

And he revealed that he will grill companies and regulators at a Downing Street summit in October on the progress they have made to stamp out child access to adult material.In another victory today for the campaign, major retailers will sign a new code of conduct banning the sale of padded bras and other adult-themed clothes to young girls.

In his letter, Cameron said he was particularly keen to see rapid progress on a single website for parents to report inappropriate images, products and services. This not only seems entirely sensible, but also relatively easy and simple to introduce. I see no reason why the website cannot be up and running in good time to get feedback from parents for our October meeting.

Cameron said October's meeting will check what retailers, advertisers, broadcasters, magazine editors, video games manufacturers, music producers, internet and phone companies and regulators' have done to act on your specific recommendations.

The media and advertising industries are taking a relaxed view of government-backed plans to clamp down on sexualised imagery such as raunchy music videos and scenes on TV shows, inappropriate ad campaigns and a call for tougher internet controls for parents.

For the industry, the threat of legislation has receded. Cameron has on numerous occasions voiced his concerns about the role of the media and advertising in the commercialisation of childhood, but the Bailey report's recommendations call for voluntary regulation.

On Monday, Cameron called for a summit in October -- an industry-wide meeting of retailers, advertisers, broadcasters, magazine editors, video games and music industry chiefs and regulators -- to gauge progress with the ultimate threat of legislation in 18 months if tighter voluntary controls are not implemented.

However, the media and advertising industries are confident they can deliver what has been asked.

...Read the full article

Among the recommendations contained in the Bailey review, looking at the sexualisation of children, was that publishers and distributors provide modesty sleeves for lads' mags or make modesty boards available to all outlets they supply.

John Lennon, the managing director of the Association of News Retailing, agreed with the report's recommendations but said the cost should not be met by the retailer: It's a good idea for retailers that are too small to put these magazines out of the eye-level of children, but I hope these [modesty sleeves] would be supplied by the publishers and not by the retailers, he said.

The Bailey report also criticised newspapers for the use of sexualised front covers, but Lennon said this was not a major issues for retailers.

Newspapers are not included in the industry-wide voluntary code of conduct and Lennon said he did not expect this to change, adding: It's never really been an issue. We've had or two complaints from church groups but that's really about it.

One thing that stands out in reading the Bailey review is that the way in which the results are interpreted is very leading. For instance, on the question of advertising in public spaces, the reviews claims that 40% of parent respondents had seen something they regarded as inappropriate or offensive.

Clearly, context is missing: the distinction between whether offensive adverts were seen once ever, or every day, is not made. And of course, it would be just as easy to present the statistic the other way round, and get a different interpretation entirely. 60% of parents had not seen anything they regarded as offensive in public advertising.

...Read the full article

Won't you fuck off, Reg Bailey

See article from ministryoftruth.me.uk

I'd like to discuss the evidence base which underpins the report's main findings...

...

Well that was short and sweet, wasn't it?

The simple fact is that there is no evidence base behind the reports main findings. There are few moderately interesting references, pretty much all of which are dealt with in an entirely cursory manner, but otherwise there's no substantive discussion of the existing evidence base and the report makes no effort whatsoever to gather any new empirical evidence whatsoever. There's a bit of data from a poorly conceived/constructed questionnaire which falls short of push-polling only for lack of competence on the part of its designer(s) and feedback from focus groups which, in research terms, is the next best thing to worthless...

...Read the full article

The TV watershed: not in front of the children

See article from guardian.co.uk by Mark Lawson

Recently, I happened to mention to a senior politician and a long-serving TV executive scenes of drunken sex in the programme Geordie Shore, a variant of Big Brother in which eight young people from the north-east share a house and are encouraged to jump on each other, an outcome accelerated by the provision of a fridge filled with booze, a hot-tub and a so-called shag-pad.

Good God, what channel is that on and at what time? was the response from both of the people I told. But that reaction is, as they say, so last century. Although notionally screened at 10pm on MTV -- a suitably late slot in both Ofcom and Cameron/Bailey terms -- it is one of the shows most often down-loaded on sites such as iTunes.

Although these portals require buyers to tick a box acknowledging that they are over the age of 18, this defence depends entirely on honest self-declaration. Most parents of teenagers will tell you that Geordie Shore and many other post-watershed shows are being watched on computers and mobile phones at all times of day by viewers well under the age of 18.

The Cameron/Bailey emphasis on broadcasting border patrol fails to acknowledge that time and place are becoming ever more irrelevant to television viewing.

...Read the full article

Sexy performances on shows such as The X Factor will be outlawed by further restrictions to pre-watershed TV.

The TV censor Ofcom will issue new censorship rule to apply to autumn schedules.

The move follows a Government report on the sexualisation of children and nutter protests.

An Ofcom spokesman said: The guidelines will be there to make sure that broadcasters like ITV don't hover near the boundaries of harmful content to children. This is what happened with Rihanna's performance on the show last year, where the broadcasting code was almost breached.

Too many parents either willingly encourage or turn a blind eye to their children signing up to Facebook, watching adult films or wearing inappropriate clothing, claimed Reg Bailey, the author of Letting Children be Children. His over exaggerated report is the inevitable result of letting nutter campaigners free reign to conjure up nonsense to support the case against sexualisation.

The report was well received by fellow nutter campaigners but unsurprisingly it hasn't had the immediate impact on real life that perhaps he was hoping.

Bailey, speaking to The Daily Telegraph, said that parents were too often complicit in the unthinking drift towards ever greater commercialisation and sexualisation of children. He said: I was alarmed at the number of parents who were complicit in buying 18-rated video games for their children.

One father said it was OK that he played Grand Theft Auto with his 13-year-old son because it helped them bond together. He added that there must be easier ways of bonding with a child than playing a game that allowed gangsters to run over prostitutes.

He was speaking as further evidence suggested that hundreds of thousands of young children are on Facebook, the social networking site, which has rules in place to stop those under the age of 13 signing up.

Karen Fraser, the director of Credos, a think tank which advises the advertising industry, said that in a series of focus groups earlier this month she had discovered that 80 to 90% of those under 13 were signed up to Facebook: Parents have told us they don't want their children to miss out. They don't want them to restrict their social life.

Bailey said parents needed to address the number of under-13s on Facebook and the numbers of youngsters playing adult video games. I am concerned any parent would ignore these age restrictions. They are there for a reason. He added that he had spoken to retailers that had reported that shop staff had been assaulted by parents who had been challenged when trying to buy an 18-rated DVD for their children, who were with them: That is an appalling situation, but it is a function of poor parenting.

The government's review of the premature sexualisation of young people could make matters worse, exacerbating the very problem it is supposed to tackle.

That was the unanimous view of a group of experts in this field, whose letter setting out their concerns was published yesterday in the Times Higher Education Supplement.

They criticise the review on three key grounds:

• it will make it harder for young people to speak about sex, so increasing the risk of sexually transmitted infections, pregnancy and unwanted sex;
   
• by making girls' sexuality -- and female modesty -- a key issue, the review is adding yet further to the pressures to conform on young girls: although if the report is to be believed, it is those pressures that are already causing significant harm to girls;
   
• the review appears to have taken little account of existing research: it has ignored areas where real risks to young people has been previously identified (health, housing, poverty and education) and focuses instead on an area -- sexualisation -- which is poorly defined and for which it fails to provide any meaningful measures.

Above all, those critical of the report point out, many academics and researchers with a known track record in this area offered their services to the government in respect of the Bailey Review -- and were turned down. It is their hope that in future, government will be better prepared to listen.

See full text of the letter

Denis MacShane made a name for himself by spouting bollox about trafficking to the UK, quoting ludicrously overhyped estimates as to the extent of the problem.

Predictably he has now come out in favour of internet blocking and has urged Ministers to launch a 'crackdown' on children's access to hardcore internet porn which he said destroys childhood.

MacShane said that he wanted to see restrictions on how adult content can be accessed on computers and smartphones used by children. He has joined other MPs in calling on BT, Sky, Virgin, TalkTalk and Orange to make it impossible to access hard-core porn unless the user completes a screening process to confirm their age.

MacShane, always quick to believe any old bollox, said: At meetings with the communications minister Ed Vaizey, we heard reports that children in primary school were watching on average eight minutes of hard-core porn a week. This sexualisation of children destroys childhood and encourages a degrading image of girls and women as the sex objects of males.

Comment: Control Freaks

From Shaun:

When will people learn that it is for parents to prevent kids watching smut, if necessary by putting the computer in the living room.

Just a bunch of fucking liars and control freaks the lot of 'em. Labour and Conservative. I want none of the above putting on ballot forms, and the number of people voting for that on public record.

One in five eight-year-olds has seen nude images while surfing the internet, according to Baroness Floella Benjamin, the Liberal Democrat peer and former children's television presenter.

Lady Benjamin said children needed protection from exposure to harmful content. She called on Ofcom, the broadcasting regulator, to introduce new safeguards.

In a recent survey, 20 per cent of eight-year-olds said that they had seen nudity online, Lady Benjamin told peers during a House of Lords debate.

She asked Baroness Rawlings, the Tory spokeswoman for the Department of Culture, Media and Sport:

Are you aware that on the most popular websites children are exposed to advertising of an adult nature and are invited to explore links to very explicit websites?

If so, will the Government consider encouraging Ofcom to take further measures to protect children and young people being targeted in this way by putting in place simple and practical steps so that online media owners can take action to prevent clear-cut examples of inappropriate content appearing in places where children are likely to see them?

Few politicians, churchy types or moralists are bold enough to criticize adult sexual behaviour today. Instead, childhood and consumer culture provides a more legitimate site of anxiety and opprobrium. Those who are worrying about the moral development of little girls are actually worried about the moral degeneracy of adult society, but dare not direct their criticism at adults, retreating instead to what they sense is the more consensual terrain of concern for the welfare of the next generation.

What concerned commentators fail to recognize is that, far from there being an anything goes attitude when it comes to children's bodies and behavior, we are in fact profoundly uncomfortable with children's physical presence and their latent or nascent sexuality, as anyone who works with children and has been trained in no-touch rules will tell you. Little girls' bodies, how they move them and how they are covered, have thus become the official object of government concern and public scrutiny.

...Read the full article

The government has set up a website for parents, guardians and carers to either complain about something they see as inappropriate for children, or else just to pass on their opinions.

The parentport.org.uk website points out that it is only for parents, guardians and carers, so it will inevitably be one sided ,and now doubt pander to those who shout loudest about the easiest offence.

Complaints to ParentPort will be allocated to the appropriate censors who are taking part, namely:

• ASA
• ATVOD
• BBC Trust
• BBFC
• Ofcom
• Press Complaints Commission
• VSC

David Cameron in a press release said:

Parents will be able to report products, television programmes or other services which promote images of a sexual or risque nature to young children to a new whistleblowing website

The move also comes as the four big ISPs reveal that they will in future offer customers an active choice, at the point of purchase, of blocking adult content.  Subscribers to BT, Sky, Talk Talk and Virgin who do not opt in will have no access to internet porn. There is no mention of the specifications of what will be blocked yet.

Advertising near schools will also be more restricted. Billboards which show sexy images will be banned from close proximity to schools.

There will also be attempt to stop brand ambassadors with ministers saying that they are determined to try and halt the way social media can get to young impressionable children. Apparently some big companies, in the wake of crackdowns on traditional advertising of certain products to children, have turned to paying children small sums to promote sugary soft drinks and other products through social networking sites and playground chat.

And if this is not enough, as it surely won't be,  Cameron is expected to warn that he is prepared to act if companies do not do more to halt the sexualisation of children.

There is an upcoming meeting of the Westminster Media Forum where a battalion of sexualisation nutters will have a chance to bully those that may still hold the notion that adults should be free to enjoy life.

The event is set for Tuesday, 18th October 2011 at the venue Sixty One in Whitehall, London SW1A 2ET.

The Westminster Forum website describes the event:

This timely seminar will bring together representatives from across retail, parent and consumer groups, education providers and the media in an impartial setting to discuss the next steps for policy and best practice.

The event will offer an opportunity to discuss the Bailey Review's recommendations, with sessions examining the prospects for a voluntary retail code of good practice, the next steps for child internet safety, including empowering parents to block adult and age-restricted services, and the options for strengthening the ASA to protect young people from excessive commercialisation. Delegates will also examine the lessons learned and the unintended consequences 5 years on from the ban on the marketing to children of food high in fat, salt and sugar.

We are delighted to include keynote addresses from:

• Dr Maggie Atkinson, Children's Commissioner for England
• Reg Bailey, Chief Executive, Mothers' Union and Author, Letting Children Be Children: the Report of an Independent Review of the Commercialisation and Sexualisation of Childhood
• Sue Eustace, Director of Public Affairs, Advertising Association
• Dr Agnes Nairn, Professor of Marketing, EM-Lyon Business School.

Further speakers include:

• Mike Baker, Chief Executive Officer, Outdoor Media Centre;
• Jane Bevis, Director of Public Affairs, British Retail Consortium;
• John Carr OBE, Secretary, UK Children's Charities' Coalition on Internet Safety;
• Tony Close, Director of Standards, Content, International and Regulatory Development Group, Ofcom;
• Dido Harding, Chief Executive Officer, TalkTalk;
• Anna Home OBE, Chair, The Children's Media Foundation
• Katie O'Donovan, Head of Communications, Mumsnet;
• Dr Clarissa Smith, Reader in Sexual Cultures, University of Sunderland
• Lynsay Taffe, Director of Communications, Marketing and Public Affairs, Advertising Standards Authority.

 Chairing this event:

• Baroness Massey of Darwen, Chair, All-Party Parliamentary Group for Children
• Claire Perry MP, Member, All-Party Parliamentary Group on Child Protection

Advertising censors at the ASA have provided examples of new rules to pander to those blaming all of society's ills on sexy images in the media.

The ASA also list some of the characteristics that may be sexually suggestive or overtly sexual:

• Poses suggestive of a sexual position: the parting of the legs, accentuation of the hip etc.
• Amorous or sexually passionate facial expressions
• Exposure of breasts, including partial
• Poses such as hands on the hips, gripping of hair in conjunction with a sexually suggestive facial expression
• Images of touching oneself in a sexual manner, such as stroking the legs or holding/gripping the breasts
• Suggestion in facial or bodily expression of an orgasm
• Images of suggestive undressing, such as pulling down a bra strap or knickers
• Ads which draw undue attention to body parts, such as breasts or buttocks, in a sexual way
• Ads which show people in poses emulating a sexual position or alluding to sexual activity
• Overtly sexual lingerie such as stockings, suspenders or paraphernalia such as whips and chains.

Miserable new advertising rules have been revealed to further restrict public billboard adverts.

Some sexy advertising hoardings will be banned from public display altogether, while any put up within 100 yards of schools will have to pass even stricter new codes designed to remove supposedly sexualised imagery.

The move means clothing and perfume companies particularly face further restrictions on how they promote their products in the new guidelines from the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA).

The move comes ahead of a Downing Street summit this week between David Cameron and sexualisation campaigners. Banning sexy billboard adverts near schools was one of a number of recommendations made in May this year following a Government-commissioned review by Reg Bailey, chief executive of the Mothers' Union.

Billboards will still be allowed to carry posters of models wearing bikinis, they will not be allowed to show them in poses that are deemed to be sexually suggestive. This will cover everything from images of stockings and suspenders to poses where the legs are parted or even hands are placed on hips.

Posters which show sexually suggestive pictures will be subject to placement restriction, and the guidelines warn this could include images where a couple are fully clothed, but in a passionate clinch. Overtly sexual images will not be acceptable for any use in public. This could include ads which draw undue attention to body parts, such as breasts or buttocks, in a sexual way, the ASA warns.

Bailey, claimed the move was a crucial step in trying to reduce children's exposure to indecent images and curbing the rise in consumerism:

Now more than ever we need to look at ourselves as a society and at all the things that give value to our lives. What we are seeing is that companies are concentrating their energies on working together to change industry practices and ultimately create a more family friendly society. I hope this is the start of getting children to see themselves as rounded human beings rather than just as consumers.

A spokesman for the Advertising Association said:

All advertising has to take account of what society thinks is decent. We're giving the recommendations our full support.

Update: UK ASA now more prudish than South Africa ASA

16th October 2011. See article from bizcommunity.com

Commenting on the ASA UK statement, Gail Schimmel, director of Clear Copy, a South African marketing regulation advisory service, said:

The South African ASA has been fairly permissive in the imagery that it allows on outdoor advertising. It will be interesting to see if a change in the international approach has any effect on how the local ASA considers these matters.

She adds that certain images identified by the UK ASA as unacceptable are images that the South African ASA would allow. I would be sorry to see a move towards an overly conservative approach, but we also have to remain in touch with the acceptable norms of the rest of the world.

Letting youngsters dress up in mini-me sexy clothing is a sign of our society's eroded moral values, according to Dr Helen Wright.

Treating girls in this way is intensely wrong, according to Wright , who is head nutter of  the Girls' Schools Association.

But she reckons that parents who don't follow her particular brand of miserable morality are not entirely to blame. [There's also Rihanna's performance on X-Factor to blame].

Wright reckons that parents themselves have been failed by a poor education, lacking in the teaching of moral standards, so they are unable to see that 'sexy' is wrong.

Wright pre-empted her speech, set for today's GSA conference, in a press release. She will say:

There are all these images in magazines and TV -- if you're bombarded with that, you're going to think it's normal, and actually it's not. It's becoming twisted.

Some parents have been so deprived in their own lives of education and values that they no longer know right from wrong, and that they are, as a result, unwittingly 'indulging' children in some parallel universe where it is acceptable to let young children wear make-up and provocative clothing.

If parents can't see anything wrong in dressing up their children in 'Future WAG' T-shirts and letting them wear make-up, high heels and mini-me sexy clothing, then something is intensely wrong in our society'

I have no doubt that these are the parents who have been failed by the education system themselves. They have grown up without any respect for their elders or any idea of how to bring up a child.

And if you're not entirely sated of Daily Mail nutter nonsense, then there's more at How our children have been sold a sexualised ideal of achievement from dailymail.co.uk

Sex makes one generation fearful for the next. It has always been so. And in each generation, there are always those who consider the more risque edges of the entertainment industry to be going too far. In 1890s Paris, onlookers took against the frills and suspenders of can-can dancers. By the 1950s, its Crazy Horse cabaret was making witty mockery of such shows, while itself leaving little to the audience's imagination. At the same time in Britain, nudes posing in tableaux at the Windmill Theatre were still not permitted to move.

Now I find myself caught up in concerns about the sexualisation of children today. This week, I was quoted as condemning outright Lady Gaga and other performers for seeming obsessed with appearing at their raunchiest in their pop videos and on prime-time television shows. So have I changed sides? Or has the world changed?

...Read the full article

ASA: likely to cause serious or widespread offence The people:.Eye-catching, harmless, light-hearted, funny and suitable for the product

Credos which styles itself as an advertising think tank has published a report for the trade group, the Outdoor Media Centre examining the public offensiveness of some of the more controversial outdoor advertising campaigns.

The report, Public Attitudes Towards Outdoor Advertising, found that outdoor advertising is bottom on the list of offensive advert formats that the public are exposed to, with the internet; rap music; music videos; computer games and TV all being rated higher.

Credos asked 1051 GB adults aged 16-64 what they thought of twelve outdoor ads, four of which were banned by the ASA, with the other eight having received complaints.

It was found that while some ads provoked a strong emotional reaction, the public are generally unlikely to consider an advert so offensive that they would complain about it.

Respondents were asked to choose key words to describe each ad, out of the following list: funny, light-hearted, suitable for the product, harmless, depends on location and eye-catching. Harmless was the word used most often.

The perfect 10 ad for a gentlemen's club was found to be the ad which offended the most people, (31% of all adults) with inappropriate, vulgar, rude, eye-catching and sexist the top five words used to describe it.