In Response to the Bailey Report

Categories: uncategorized

Date: 03 September 2011 17:22:36

As mentioned earlier in the week I caught part of a talk which included Reg Bailey at Greenbelt which related to his review and to the Mothers Union Bye Buy Childhood campaign. During the talk TOH had to nearly physically restrain me because I was getting overly annoyed by what was being said, not because I didn't agree with the ethos but because I was feeling it potentially disempowered parents which was the exact opposite of what it is actually seeking to do. Having now read both the Bailey Review and the Bye Buy Childhood reports I want to give a more considered response which still echoes with dis-ease but which also comes out in support of some of the recommendations. I will focus on the Bailey Review.

To summarise for those not familiar, Reg Bailey is the Cheif Executive of the Mothers Union. In September 2010 the MU published the Bye Buy Childhood report and as a result of his involvement with this report the coalition government asked him to chair an independent review on the commercialisation and sexualisation of childhood, (a review commissioned by the Department for Education).

Both reports take the position, as I do, that childhood like adulthood is a socially constructed category and they are arguing that children are being prematurely socialised into adulthood. They argue that there are a complex range of factors underlying this but particularly the increased commercialisation and targeting of children as customers together with an increased sexualisation of the material which children have access to.

Apparently 9 out of 10 of those surveyed agreed with the statement "‘these days children are under pressure to grow up too quickly" This is a statement which I too agree with.

The report then goes on to say, "This pressure on children to grow up takes two different but related forms: the pressure to take part in a sexualised life before they are ready to do so; and the commercial pressure to consume the vast range of goods and services that are available to children and young people of all ages."

This is where I start to agree with the ethos but disagree with some of the content of the report. One of the key pressures I see being put on children and forcing them to grow up too soon is the pressure to succeed. This pressure has most forcibly come through the exam regieme we have been putting our children under since the introduction of SATS. This pressure is not mentioned, but I believe it is linked to the commerical pressure to consume.

It used to be that our children were judged by their ascribed status until they left school and got a job. They then began to be judged by their acheived status, that is what educational qualifications and posessions they had, etc. Now we are giving them in different ways an achieved status way too young and there is a culture of reward being linked to this. The concept I know some parents work under is you do well in your exams and you will have x, y or z. If we are starting to examine children at 7 years old and send them home with SATS results to be rewarded then the move to achieved status is starting very early.

In terms of the pressure to take part in a sexualised life before they are ready I have some agreement with this, but I also feel that too much blame is being put on producers and not enough responsibility is being given to parents. The market is simple, if people will not buy the product then the producer will not make it. Six and seven year olds do not go down to Primark or where ever on their own, it is there parents who go with them and choose what to spend the money on. If things are inappropriate then they have the ability to say no. Similarly if a young child wants an inappropraite magazine or so forth then the parent is quite able to say no and explain why to the child.

The report goes on to say, "The vast majority of parents want their children to grow up happy, healthy and safe. Worries about the commercialisation and sexualisation of childhood are not likely to be their most immediate priority as they bring up their children. However, it is clear that when asked, many parents believe that their children do face these pressures. They are also concerned about some of the things they and their children see and have to deal with. Parents are happy to take responsibility for their children’s upbringing, but they expect and want businesses and others to support them and to deal fairly and responsibly with children."

This is where I think you cannot have it both ways and parents have to not only be "happy" to take repsonsibility for their children's upbringing but they have to actively do so. I, like most others, am one of those parents who has wanted to bring up my child to grow up happy and healthy and safe. Within this  worries about the commercialisation and sexualisation of childhood have been amongst my most immediate priorities as I have bought up Third Party, but not in the way this report or the government is talking. I have been concerned about what I have spent my money on, and what food, clothes, etc to buy my child. I have been concerned as a parent about what I could give her. This made me conscious of the choices open to me and what was available with the money I had. I was concerned about what she was watching on tv and whether it would help her or not educationally, as well as would it keep her quiet. As she turned into a teenager I was concerned that (i) she would not shag about and (ii) if she did that she would be safe. I was also concerned about keeping her safe from those who might seek to groom young girls on the internet and so forth. In short I had the concerns which are spoken of amongst my main concerns but did not formally express them.

After discussion of the main themes the report goes on to make some recommendations which I want to outline and comment upon.

"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. ACTION: Publishers, distributors, retailers and retail associations in the news industry, including the National Federation of Retail Newsagents and the Association of News Retailing

Ok, this is great but let us be honest. Our children are faced with these images because it is what their fathers, uncles, older brothers and so forth are buying. We know here what we are talking about is not primarily the outright porn magazines but Nuts, Zoo, Loaded and so forth. These are the magazines which are going to be taken off shelves but still remain on coffee tables along with the Sun and page 3. What we need is not the removal of these to the top shelf or a sleeve being put around them - what we need is for men to take responsibility for the media they are buying. Again if people weren't buying it then the producers wouldn't be making it. The consumers of these products who have children need to take responsibility.

"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. The testing of standards that the ASA 15 Summary of Report and Recommendations undertakes with parents (see Recommendation 7) should also cover parental views on location of advertising in public spaces. ACTION: Advertisers, advertising industry bodies, and the ASA."


OK, either I am naieve or I live in an unusual area because I have no idea what type of advertising is being discussed. If it is stuff like the wonderbra adverts, well um sorry but underwear is normal and I don't get the issue.


"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. ACTION: Ofcom, broadcasters".


OK, here I start to get edgy. Firstly, there is an off button. If you don't want kids who are too young to watch stuff press the off button and don't let them have a tv in their rooms. Secondly, with i-player it doesn't matter when it's on. If they want to see it they will. Thirdly, any programme with content which might be dodgy generally has a warning before stuff. Thirdly, if you're not sure sit down and watch stuff with your kids. Forthly and this is what I did, use the more adult material as a teaching tool and so you can discuss moral issues. If certain Holly Oakes and East Enders storylines had not occurred I would have found it very difficult to discuss things with Third Party as she was growing up. The truth was real life is sometimes much worse than East Enders and if we want to give our kids the skills to support their friends who are going through x, y or z that children shouldn't and to say no to stuff we need to talk to them. TV helps us do that but at the same time bed times are important and these vary according to age.


"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. ACTION: Government"


I broadly agree with this but it does worry me who is agreeing these things and whether (i) it will further demonise the black community and (ii) whether it will make it harder for us to enjoy low culture with our children. Again there is the issue of parental responsibility - if you don't like it turn it off! Realistically most music videos are watched via music tv channels and these organisations do act responsibily.


"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. ACTION: Internet industry and providers of age-restricted"


I agree, but it helps if you chat it through with kids. I got Immy to set the controls for me. Fact is the kids know more about technology and how to over-ride this stuff than we do. Best thing you can do is chat with your kids and find out what they are watching.


"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. ACTION: Retailers and retail associations, including the BRC"


Whilst I agree with this it seems a bit wishy washy. The truth is the biggest way to enact change is not to buy what you don't approve of - then retailers won't sell it. It's not a case of not giving people the choice it should be about letting them know why certain choices are wrong. Third Party knew I would not allow her to own, buy anything with the Playboy logo on. I sat down and gave her a lesson on the porn industry and what the playboy bunny meant. We ended up in a situation where she thought I was over reacting but knew that no meant no and why. Parents need to communicate with their kids and explain stuff. The main issue I think for me is finding a way for us to help parents communicate with their children.


I could go on but I am aware that the post is already way too long. The point is that the only effective answer to this is to educate our children in anti-captialism and ethical consumerism. Also, we need to understand what products are purely to make money and which are cultural - there is a difference and I don't think this report fully addresses this.


Finally I think the key is to help parents to understand what they spend their money on makes a difference, how they chat to their kids makes a difference and how they prepare their children to say no to things makes a difference.


Not sure how coherent all that is, but hope if nothing else it has made thought provoking reading. Final interesting point Bailey said initially he thought he had much longer, but Cameron wants it all in place by October.