Webchat with Reg Bailey, author of the government report on sexualisation of children, Friday 10th June, 11am to 12pm

[KatieMumsnet]

Reg Bailey, chief executive of the Mothers' Union and author of the government?s Let Children be Children, is joining us for a webchat this Friday, 10 June, 11am to 12pm.

Following our Let Girls be Girls campaign , launched early in 2010, we?ve been asking retailers to commit not to sell products which play upon, emphasise or exploit their sexuality.

The government has now responded to our campaign and Reg Bailey?s report, which included these recommendations:

? Retailers to ensure magazines with sexualised images have modesty sleeves.

? Music videos to be sold with age ratings.

? Procedures to make it easier for parents to block adult and age restricted material on internet.

? Code of practice to be issued on child retailing.

? Create a single website for parents to complain to regulators.

? Change rules on nine o'clock television watershed to give priority to views of parents.

Please join us live to ask Reg about the report, or if you can't make it, please post your question here.

NancyNews I e-mailed the co-op about that, they had a policy where they'd theoretically told all their branches to move them but at my local co-op, they had moved them from toddler level... to older children level. Partly because where they were displayed, was a newspaper stand of about 5ft so presumably they didn't have any facilities to put them higher.... prob was solved by Sport going out of business but what a pity it's up and running again

Made what illegal? I don't care about lads mags, but there is no evidence that it is harmful for a child to see a cover of one - but Reg and many others just don't like it and would rather err on the side of caution.

Top shelf? Ok. Though I have noticed they seem to mostly be on the top shelf already. Modesty covers? This is what worries me - mainly because of how they use them in the US to also cover up gay magazines, or even one just showing Elton John holding a baby. I definitely don't want that culture over here.

Actually most people think porn shouldn't be shown in public.

Even regular porn-users.

And frankly I think many women don't like seeing other naked young women, because they feel it is objectification of women, etc (I don't agree) and use children as a way of getting rid of it. This is an area both the Bailey types and certain feminists agree. Hide those nudie ladies, it can't be good for the children.

But I think lots of other things in this world are harmful for children to be exposed to. Religion indoctrination for example. That's something I could campaign to have banned. I could complain that seeing churches, and their billboards slogans, making them ask 'mummy, who is Jesus' which 'religionizes' the child.

Would I be wrong? Would I be more wrong if I was in the minority? Wasn't it only 17% of self-selected parents in Reg Bailey's report that mentioned Lads mags?

"Actually most people think porn shouldn't be shown in public.

Even regular porn-users"

And where is your evidence that these people consider the cover of a lads mags constitutes porn?

I'm not going to get into a debate with you about the definition of porn on thhis thread catmilk. If you want to discuss that, start a new thread about it.

"i think you'll find there are a hell of a lot of women and parents of young children who are."

17% of Reg's self-selected parents mentioned lads mags. And there is absolutely no evidence that seeing one does a child any harm, is there?

There is plenty of evidence that a child living in poverty suffers, can we have more reports and action on that instead?

Actually there is masses of evidence out there, that seeing porn is disturbing for children and affects regular adult users too.

If you search some of the porn threads on the feminist section, there are lots of links.

"oh catmilk i have no desire to engage in your dubious agenda. this is mumsnet. not, 'have a pop at women' net."

Don't you dare misrepresent my comments as having a pop at women. I disagree with women - or men - that have a knee-jerk reaction to ban anything they don't like. I don't agree with those types at all. Simple.

Q for all - Do you think with a conservative government, who just welcomed a review from a religious group, that if 'modesty guards' were introduced there would be a possibility they would be used to cover gay magazines too, as they are in the US?

SaF's reaction isn't kneejerk.

It's thought out and well researched

TBH catmilk, no.

Homophobia is less officially sanctioned in the UK than in the USA. And there are too many out gay MP's, for that to happen here.

I understand your concern on this one, but we have a different culture to the USA

"Actually there is masses of evidence out there, that seeing porn is disturbing for children and affects regular adult users too."

You say you have no desire to debate what constitutes porn, then use that statement to say lads mags cover are disturbing (as long as we accept they - the covers - are porn).

I said start a new thread about it if you're that interested. Or you can do a search in the feminist section on porn. I've had all these arguments before and it's not my job to educate you. The info is available with a bit of searching and the feminism section is v. helpful because the links are there. Happy searching, I'm off to the market.

Bailey specifically singled out lads mags, so they are entirely relevant to this thread, and to how poor his review is.

I am reminding everyone that only 17% of self-selected in Bailey's reviews mentioned Lad's mags as an issue - so not many seem worried.

Also there is NO evidence - unless you count these covers as porn, which I think is laughable - that they cause any harm to children.

I'm a feminist who doesn't need any more education on the subject of porn, HerBex. Enjoy your market trip x

HerBeX - have you still not understood that the Mothers Union is not for Mothers and By Mothers?

You clearly do Catmilk, seeing as how you are denying that there is evidence of the harm porn does.

Yes I do understand that Noonoo. The fact that a man's in charge of a bunch of women, makes that pretty obvious frankly.

HerBex, are you unaware or pretending not to know that there are feminists who are not anti-porn?

Yes of course I'm aware of them.

And I think they're wrong.