A glaring hole in child protection

Maybe it’s just a 40-something crisis. But am I the only person raging against the increasing deluge of sleaze in our newsagents and corner shops?

If you are not familiar with the worst offenders, take a peek at the Daily Sport, Loaded, Nuts, FHM, or Front. It will not be difficult as they are intrusively displayed in almost every newsagent and petrol station, beside the tills, above the comics, among the newspapers – in full view of children as young as eight. The Daily Sport calls itself a newspaper, the others “male interest” magazines. Every week the covers and contents become more sexually explicit. The current theme appears to be the stereotypical male fantasy of beautifully formed pseudo-lesbians, alternating with schoolgirls falling out of uniform.

I complained to WH Smith one day. Loaded was the shop’s “magazine of the week”. This honour consists of a floor-to-ceiling display in the most prominent place, beside the tills. I explained that I felt that a display of two absolutely naked women, pouting suggestively at all passers by while their breasts nuzzled each other, was pretty inappropriate where kids and families were milling about. I was told that the decision on where to place these “male interest” magazines was made by head office. This magazine was a big seller and they were bound to display them exactly where the publisher demanded.

OK, these magazines may be popular – and if adults want to indulge in a bit of soft porn, fine. But they are not being directed solely at adults.

These days there seem to be laws against all sorts of things where children are concerned. You cannot sell cigarettes to under-16s, or alcohol to under-18s. The Protection of Children Act goes out of its way to prevent harmful contact between adults and children. It is a criminal offence to have sexual relations with a girl under 16. But there is no restriction on the availability and sale of these increasingly sexually explicit magazines.

I was so fed up with the situation that I wrote to my MP. His enquiries elicited a response from a junior Home Office minister. In an utterly patronising and vacuous manner he explained to me that while he understood such publications may offend certain people (inferring people who really need to drag themselves into the 21st century), the government could not interfere with the freedom of the press. Reluctantly giving him the benefit of the doubt, I fear he has missed my point. What has freedom of the press to do with the prominent display of sleazy magazines? Adults will know where to find them even if they are confined to the top shelf. There is no legitimate argument supporting their continued display where children are indiscriminately and consistently exposed to them – not to mention people like me who really do not want to be bombarded by their explicit images.

And what about the content of these images? We criminalise people who prey on young children, yet we allow those same children to be exposed daily to sexual images when they go to buy their comics or sweets after school. A recurring theme is the young girl in – or more accurately falling out of – school uniform. One edition had a special feature focusing on models dressed up to look as young as possible, complete with no body hair. That may be the fashion, but in this context it was disturbing. Please explain to me why it is a serious crime to have sexual relations with underage girls, but acceptable to have suggestive images of women dressed up as young girls freely available. It really is too sinister for society to practise the double standard of demonising paedophiles while at the same time peddling underage sex in these magazines.

The man from the ministry also claimed that as there was no evidence that these publications caused any harm, the present legislation was adequate to deal with any problems. But the law which apparently is adequate protection is steeped in out of date language and based on archaic principles. In 2005 when we accept that a person’s sexual preferences are a private matter which no-one else has the right to condemn, the use of terminology such as “deprave”, “corrupt” and “indecent” is outmoded and any attempt to outlaw publications on that basis would be doomed. Surely the law should be brought up to date.

I urge the government or the Executive here in Scotland to commission a study immediately. If it finds that children are not adversely affected by exposure to this material, the contents are not potentially nefarious, and in fact no-one minds the free and unrestricted display – pointing to my being completely out of step with the rest of society – then I will put up and shut up. Otherwise we should have sensible laws which allow freedom of choice to be enjoyed by us all, whether as adults we want to buy male interest magazines or not.