Categories See All →
Search Articles
Recent Articles
Recent Comments
-
Failed prosecution for Garden Naturism
10 May 2013 03:58 PM
-
Failed prosecution for Garden Naturism
02 May 2013 12:47 PM
-
Failed prosecution for Garden Naturism
29 Apr 2013 07:20 PM
-
Psychology of Questions
22 Apr 2013 03:23 AM
-
Online Protection Bill becomes "Censorship...
16 Apr 2013 02:58 PM
-
INF Youth Rally
15 Apr 2013 09:29 AM
0
DfE press release - Protecting children ...
01 Jul 2012 10:49 AM |
Malcolm Boura
in Censorship
Press notice from the Department for Education issued 9 May 2012.
Press notice contents are in inset italic. Our comments in ordinary text, not indented.
It is important to realise that they could, if they took just a little more care, achieve the protection that they seek without causing children and young people so much harm.
Well it starts off very sensibly. Nobody would argue with the wish to protect children. A technique known in advertising as "nodalong".
The report was not independent. It was written by a team from the Department for Education (it says so in the report) and there is a clear conflict of interest. Mr Bailey is the chief executive of a minority faith based parents group.
The report fails to define what is meant by either “sexualised” or “inappropriate”. However it is clear that Mr Bailey's understanding of the terms differs radically from both objective fact and the opinion of many people.
The report, like all the others, fails to define what is meant by “inappropriate” and therein lies much of the problem.
The report fails to define what is meant by “explicit”.
But they are doing exactly that to the parents who disagree with them
The first duty of the government is to ensure that parents are informed of what is harmful and what is beneficial. The government has made many assumptions about what is harmful and completely ignored the evidence regarding the harm that they are doing. The Bailey report does not even consider the possibility that its recommendations could cause harm.
Again. “unsuitable” is undefined. Objectively unsuitable or unsuitable in their opinion? Note the spin implying that all parents share their concern.
They are using shot guns to deal with mosquitoes without any concern for what else will be hit. Yes some of the mosquitoes are dangerous, and must be dealt with, but the collateral damage of the emotion driven response is appalling. NB. The Bailey Report does not even consider the possibility that the recommendations could have harmful consequences. Part of government is interpreting Evidence Driven Policy Making as policy driven by the evidence that fits their ideology.
The British Naturism Response to the Bailey Report, but only if the censors allow you to read it.
Press notice contents are in inset italic. Our comments in ordinary text, not indented.
It is important to realise that they could, if they took just a little more care, achieve the protection that they seek without causing children and young people so much harm.
Protecting children from commercialisation and sexualisation - next steps on Bailey
The Government has today set out new measures protect children from the creeping tide of commercialisation and sexualisation in society.
Well it starts off very sensibly. Nobody would argue with the wish to protect children. A technique known in advertising as "nodalong".
Ministers welcomed progress to date in implementing the recommendations of the independent Let Children Be Children report by Reg Bailey, Chief Executive of Mothers’ Union – but said that industry still have plenty of work to do.
The report was not independent. It was written by a team from the Department for Education (it says so in the report) and there is a clear conflict of interest. Mr Bailey is the chief executive of a minority faith based parents group.
The Bailey review found that increasingly we live in a society full of sexualised imagery, where families don’t feel in control and children can’t be children.
It said that parents are worried about their children being exposed to inappropriate material and that although families want to take responsibility, all too often they don’t know how.
The report fails to define what is meant by either “sexualised” or “inappropriate”. However it is clear that Mr Bailey's understanding of the terms differs radically from both objective fact and the opinion of many people.
The measures announced today include: consulting on whether the current age rating system should be extended to cover more music DVDs and Blu-ray discs - to protect children from inappropriate material. Most are currently exempt from the Video Recordings Acts 1984 and 2010 as are sports, religious and educational products;
The report, like all the others, fails to define what is meant by “inappropriate” and therein lies much of the problem.
...working with the music industry, online retailers and video services, to have clear warnings on explicit videos where they are shown online. Many online video services already do this, and by the end of the year, YouTube will provide the music industry with the ability to label their videos "explicit," giving parents a straightforward way of checking whether they are going to be suitable for their children.
The report fails to define what is meant by “explicit”.
- We are also working with the BPI (the British record industry’s trade association) and digital services to ensure that wherever possible parents have the option of controls that will hide videos and songs intended for an older audience;
- taking forward the final stage of legislation needed so that the planned new system of age classification and labelling for videogames giving clearer age ratings and advice for parents can start in July. The new system will extend the statutory backing to cover games rated PEGI 12 as well as to those rated 16 and 18; and
asking the Advertising Standards Authority to consider whether more should be done to spell out the commercial intent of ‘advergames’ to young people and their parents.
Children’s Minister Sarah Teather said: It’s clear that many parents are fed up with their children being surrounded by adult images as they grow up and being targeted aggressively to get the latest ‘must-have’ items. ... “adult” is an offensive euphemism which they do not define. ... Being a parent is a tough job at the best of times. The onus has to be on industry to stop undermining parents trying to bring up their own children, the way they want.
But they are doing exactly that to the parents who disagree with them
We’re making progress but we’re keeping the pressure up on businesses so they listen and act on parents’ concerns. It’s not acceptable for industry to simply ignore families’ worries.
The first duty of the government is to ensure that parents are informed of what is harmful and what is beneficial. The government has made many assumptions about what is harmful and completely ignored the evidence regarding the harm that they are doing. The Bailey report does not even consider the possibility that its recommendations could cause harm.
Reg Bailey said: Ending the exemptions from age classification for hard copy music videos will be an important step forward in making sure that children are not inadvertently exposed to unsuitable material. And it will send a strong signal to producers of music videos intended for online distribution or broadcast of what is acceptable if they want to reach the correct audience. This is a major concern for parents.
Again. “unsuitable” is undefined. Objectively unsuitable or unsuitable in their opinion? Note the spin implying that all parents share their concern.
Parents are also concerned about some of the marketing to children through digital media, which children may not recognise as advertising and could take advantage of children’s inexperience. So I would welcome any move by the advertising industry or regulator that ensures that advertising and marketing messages are always clearly seen for what they are. As part of the response to the Bailey review the Government, advertisers and regulators have already taken a number of important steps, including:
- Setting up the ParentPort website – more and more parents are using the website to give feedback, make complaints and learn more about media regulation, online safety and other aspects of the commercial world, like retailing, that have an impact on children.
- Setting stricter guidelines by the Advertising Standards Authority on sexual images in outdoor advertising, particularly near schools. Introducing new guidelines preventing children aged 15 and under from being employed to act as brand ambassadors or in peer-to-peer marketing campaigns. The guidelines have been produced by the Advertising Association’s Children’s Panel and have the support of companies including Procter & Gamble, Nintendo, Facebook, Microsoft and Unilever.
- Securing the commitment from the top four Internet Service Providers (BT, Sky, TalkTalk and Virgin) that all new customers will be asked to make an active choice over whether they want to block adult content on their home internet connection. The UK Council on Child Internet Safety has been working with the wider internet industry in the adoption of active choice across all internet enabled devices and internet access points. We will also consult industry and others about what more can be done to keep children safe online.
They are using shot guns to deal with mosquitoes without any concern for what else will be hit. Yes some of the mosquitoes are dangerous, and must be dealt with, but the collateral damage of the emotion driven response is appalling. NB. The Bailey Report does not even consider the possibility that the recommendations could have harmful consequences. Part of government is interpreting Evidence Driven Policy Making as policy driven by the evidence that fits their ideology.
The British Naturism Response to the Bailey Report, but only if the censors allow you to read it.
1 Comments
Note the final few words intended for an older audience. At least some producers of books, films, music, imagery (etc, etc) have no interest in targetting children, and there might be mileage in exploring that, although perhaps there would be a huge battle over the age at which specific material ought to be targetted at children! But any voluntary arrangement has to assume that publishers/authors (using the terms in a wide/generic sense) are responsible and share the principles of the would-be censors. Which, commerce being what it is, is unlikely.
Oh well!
As so often, it seems complainants are a protected species where that species is well-regarded by those in power. Non-complainants are regarded as apathetic, "the silent majority" (ie agreeing with those making the most noise) or uncaring. Reminds me of a few years back when Which? magazine set up a system to encourage complaining about GPs. They provided no option or opportunity for praising GPs. Of course, the opposite can occur too: pre-Leveson, the Press Complaints Commission managed matters such that virtually no complaints were upheld. Coincidentally, in that time the press generally supported the party which was going to win the next election. Even more coincidentally, one of the very few complaints which did get upheld was from the leader of the party which had excellent and regular relations with the top levels of the press.
Minor point. Malcolm omits a key factor which looms large in regard to "offense" and nudity: much of the objection tends to be on behalf of hypothetical third parties. Eg "this is not what parents want young children to see" when what is actually meant is "I don't think young children or anyone else should see this, because I don't like it".