Good news in the battle to protect young people

Last month we were contacted by a member who had been on holiday in the heart of England and had spent a few nights in different youth hostels.  Disturbingly, he reported that pornography channels were available on the televisions in the bedrooms and public areas.

The Youth Hostel Association is a charity with a clear mission; to inspire all, especially young people, to broaden their horizons gaining knowledge and independence through new experiences of adventure and discovery.

Pornography is probably not the kind of knowledge and experience the YHA intends to provide its young guests.

We wrote to the Chief Executive of the YHA pointing out the growing body of evidence showing the profoundly harmful effect of porn consumption on the attitudes, behaviours and relationships of young people.   We asked her to take action to ensure that these potentially harmful channels are removed from public view.

We were delighted to receive a reply thanking us for bringing the matter to her attention and assuring us that new guidelines have now been put in place to ensure this doesn’t happen again.

This is wonderful news and a good illustration that making our voice heard makes a positive difference.

In this case the easy availability of pornography was just an unfortunate oversight.  However it does demonstrate the ubiquitous nature of highly sexualised material in our society.  As it was so eloquently described in the Bailey Review, this is part of ‘the wallpaper’ of children’s lives today and what the long term consequence of this might be remains to be seen.  We cannot afford to sacrifice the next generation as guinea pigs in a great social experiment.  This is why your support remains so vital.

A great week for child protection

These are exciting times!

The fight for meaningful protection for children from online pornography is not yet over but this week has been a milestone in the journey towards our goal.

On Tuesday morning a meeting of MPs heard from Professor Gail Dines about the reality of the pornographic material available online, the practices of the porn industry and the effect it is having on those who consume it.

On Tuesday afternoon a symposium organised by the Sunday Times and the Policy Exchange considered the impact of pornography on children and the best way to protect them moving forward.

I was delighted to be present and to see that the event was packed with a disparate audience which included campaigners, academics, clinicians, journalists, therapists, technical experts and charity workers.  The overwhelming feeling in the room was that something must be done to protect children and it must be done now.

Tomorrow, Friday, I will be attending The Westminster Media forum - an event attended by politicians, media policy makers and academics.  Once again the subject under discussion is what the next steps to protect children online should be.

This event will be followed by a ‘Council of War’ on Monday 17^th.  The Culture Secretary, Maria Miller, has summoned web giants - including Google, BT and Facebook – to a meeting where they will be expected to come up with plans to do more to stop access to harmful material on the internet.

Protecting children online is an issue which is not going to go away. 

At Tuesday’s event the delegates heard that:

• The most popular, and fastest growing, online search category is for ‘teen porn’.  This means images of girls who are, or who appear to be, under the age of 18; the kind of material which was recently implicated during the trials of the murderers of April Jones and Tia Sharpe.

• In a recent survey conducted by the Portman Clinic 25% of young men aged 18-24 reported that they were worried about the amount of internet porn that they were consuming and the effect it was having on them.

• Thousands of people in this country are regularly looking at pornographic images of child sexual abuse online.  More people than the police can realistically arrest.

We cannot ignore facts like these.  To paraphrase Diane Abbott speaking at the Sunday Times event: this a public health issue, a chance to stop the aggressive sexualisation of young people and to defend their human rights.

Thank you for your support on this issue which has been an important contributor to the climate which has enabled this to happen. 

We have some way to go but there are things that you can do now:

We are still waiting for a date for the 2^nd Reading of Baroness Howe’s Online Safety Bill which has been introduced to reduce children and young people’s access to inappropriate and potentially harmful online material.

If you have not yet done so, may I urge you contact a member of the House of Lords and ask them to support the Bill and push for an early 2^nd Reading.  You can do this quickly and easily using our campaign website Safeonline.org.uk.  The site also includes links to useful information on how to go about protecting your children and grandchildren online which I hope you will also find helpful.

Vivienne Pattison

Director

Family viewers are being failed

In the news over the last week has been the backlash against Jennifer Lopez’s extremely sexualised performance in the family show Britain’s Got Talent.  Her lewd routine resulted in 161 (so far) complaints to Ofcom and many column inches condemning the broadcast.  But haven’t we been here before?

In 2010 The X Factor final featured highly sexualised performances and provoked around 3,000 complaints to Ofcom.  The regulator ruled that the broadcast was ‘at the very margin of acceptability’ but did not censure the broadcaster.  This effectively re-defined family viewing and such material became mainstream.  

The 2011 Bailey review found almost half of parents were concerned about pre-watershed television.  The report concluded ‘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’ citing the sexualised dancing on the 2010 X Factor final as particularly problematic.

Shortly after the report was published Ofcom issued new guidance for broadcasters stating that ‘particular areas of concern include the sexualised clothing and dance routines of performers’.  However since this guidance was published we have seen a burlesque stripper on Britain’s Got Talent (justified because the dance ‘required skill and training’), a contestant on The X Factor straddling a judge dressed only in a bikini and fishnet bodystocking (justified because it was ‘presented in a style which sought to derive humour from the participant’s conduct’) and most recently a contestant on Britain’s Got Talent lap-dancing for Simon Cowell.

The reaction to the broadcast last weekend shows that many viewers are not happy with this.  The government has tasked Ofcom with the responsibility to ensure that children are ‘protected by appropriate scheduling from material that is unsuitable for them’ (Broadcasting Code 1.3) but we are of the opinion that Ofcom are failing to act in the best interests of children.

We are delighted that last year the Prime Minister appointed Claire Perry MP as his special advisor on preventing the sexualisation and commercialisation of children.   It is good that this government is serious about protecting childhood and Mrs Perry has been doing some excellent work to ensure that children are adequately protected online.

It is our opinion that television programmes which are marketed at children yet contain explicit material are making a significant contribution to the culture in which children are becoming increasingly sexualised.  In our experience most parents want to take responsibility for protecting their children but it is increasingly difficult to do so when even pre watershed television is contributing to the problem. 

We’ve written to Claire Perry pointing this out and asking her to consider broadcasting within the scope of her remit.  We’ve offered to provide further information and material to help her in her work.

Porn is harmful and must be blocked

At the end of last week a report was issued by the office of the Children’s Commissioner for England.  It presented evidence which showed that significant numbers of children have access to sexually explicit images online and those exposed to such pornography were more likely to develop sexually risky behaviour.  The report called for urgent action to ‘develop children’s resilience to pornography’. 

But children are not the only ones to be effected by pornography. 

This week’s news has included details from the trials of the men found guilty of murdering Tia Sharp and April Jones.  It has emerged that in both cases the men who murdered these girls had been viewing online pornography.  This must serve as a stark reminder that online pornography impacts not only those who see it but wider society too. 

Although ISPs and Google respond very quickly to remove images of child abuse the degrading and violent material that is routinely available online is just as damaging.  Speaking about the killers of Tia and April, John Carr, of the Children’s Charities’ Coalition on Internet Safety, said: ‘we cannot blame the internet for these people but it has opened pathways that lead them on to violent pornography’. 

This is why Baroness Howe’s Online Safety Bill, which calls for a default block on online pornography, is so necessary.

If you have not already done so please do take a moment to have your say.  Peers should be in doubt about the strength of public feeling on this issue.  Our website Safeonline.org.uk is quick and simple to use;

• it is free to use – no hunting around for a stamp
• it includes tips on who to write to and what to say
• emails sent using the site will go straight into the personal inbox of the Peer you contact

Thank you to everyone who has already used the site to express their support for Baroness Howe’s Bill.  We would be really grateful if you would spread the word about this resource: could you include a link on your Facebook page, tweet it, email your friends…

Parents want more information

How do you make a choice about what to watch on television?

Many of us make our choices using a newspaper or TV listings guide – the three highest circulation guides sell a combined total in excess of 3.5 million copies every week.  However the electronic programme guides (EPGs) from digital providers such as Freeview and Sky are increasingly important as the number of channels available grows.

A member of Mediawatch-UK recently pointed out that Sky’s EPG details for films do not always include the film’s BBFC rating.  Some broadcasters – including Channel 4 and More 4 – always include the information but other broadcasters – including the BBC – do not.

We wrote to Sky to ask them if they would consider updating their listings with BBFC classifications on all films but they told us that the information they use is provided at the discretion of broadcasters and is not controlled by Sky.  Presently there is no mandatory requirement to include BBFC ratings on films shown on non-dedicated movie channels.

Parents are continually told that it is up to them to protect their children from potentially harmful media but it is important that broadcasters provide them with the tools they need to do the job properly. 

We have now written to Ofcom requesting a change so that BBFC ratings, where available, are included in electronic listings guides.  There is a large difference between films rated U, PG and 12 and yet all can be shown pre-watershed.  Parents need to be able to make informed choices about what is suitable viewing for their children and BBFC ratings are an important factor in making that choice.

We await Ofcom’s response with interest.

Have your say in protecting children online

At the end of last year David Cameron said he would like to ensure that all households with children would have to install web filters.  This is a great step in the right direction but it falls some way short of blocking harmful material as a default unless users opt in to access it.

This ‘default-on’ option would not offer the same degree of protection as the ‘opt-in’ option. 

• It is a promise that has yet to be delivered
• It will only apply to large ISPs and not smaller ones
• It is a voluntary arrangement and will have no statutory backing
• Will not protect the most vulnerable

Last Tuesday The Online Safety Bill had its first reading in the House of Lords.  It has been introduced with the aim of reducing children and young people’s access to inappropriate, potentially harmful, material online.

The Bill has been introduced by Baroness Howe.  Should it become law, it would require:

• Internet Service Providers (ISPs) and mobile phone operators (MPOs) to provide an internet service without access to pornography as a default - with adult subscribers able to opt-in to receive such material.
• Electronic device manufacturers to provide a means of filtering internet content at the time of purchase.
• ISPs/MPOs to make available information about online safety - which would be broader than just filtering information - as part of their on-going relationship with subscribers.

If you agree that these measures would offer children the best protection from harmful online content: have your say!

The Bill had its First Reading on 14th May; the next step will be a Second Reading debate which should take place later this year. 

Safeonline.org.uk has been updated to you to contact members of the House of Lords to urge them to support the Bill and press for an early Second Reading.  The website is a one-stop-shop which includes facts about the issues, links to key resources and tips on how to write to Peers.

With your help we can give this Bill the momentum it needs on its journey through the House of Lords.  This is an opportunity for everyone to have their say; it is an important first step towards seeing online pornography ‘switched off’.

Please help up spread the word.  Do consider emailing this to your friends and contacts and linking to us via Facebook and Twitter.

Our voice is heard

An important part of the work we do at Mediawatch-UK is alerting broadcasters when their output is questionable and has fallen short of the standards set out in the Broadcasting Code and the BBC’s Editorial Guidelines.

This can often be a frustrating process but it is vital because if we do nothing our silence condones that which is broadcast.  Happily our views are being noted.

Before Easter we wrote to the BBC about their Red Nose Day broadcast.  Although fully supportive of the aims of the broadcast we emphasised extra care should have been exercised over the inclusion of some of the items shown before the watershed.

We pointed out that because Red Nose Day is heavily promoted in primary schools, an associated broadcast is very likely to be watched by younger children.  Many schools encourage pupils to raise money for Comic Relief which means children identify with the brand making them more likely to want to watch a related broadcast.  The BBC Editorial Guidelines state that ‘programme makers and schedulers should also take into account the nature of the channel and viewer expectations’; on this occasion we did not feel that the strong likelihood of a younger than usual audience was taken into account.

Of particular concern was a sketch featuring Rowan Atkinson as the Archbishop of Canterbury.  The sketch was broadcast pre-watershed but contained strong language.  Our complaint was not the only one and we understand that over 2,000 people also expressed their concern.

The BBC responded to our criticism: ‘as a direct result of viewer feedback we took a swift decision to remove this from BBC iPlayer’.

It is heartening to know that our views are
being listened to and action is being taken.

If you see anything which you consider unacceptable may I urge you to make your views known.  Our new improved website has all the emails, addresses and numbers you need to get in touch and an updated directory including this information was sent out to you with the Spring 2013 newsletter.  If you are not sure who to contact you can use the new website Parentport (you don’t have to be a parent!) which is a one-stop-shop to make your views known about anything you have heard or seen.