Too Late Nanny State

In a move regarded by some as trying to close the stable door after the horse has run off and died of old age, Culture secretary Andy Burnham, MP has demonstrated shocking ignorance of the Internet. The father of three told the Telegraph that standards were needed to protect children from unacceptable imagery and videos.

"You can still view content on the internet which I would say is unacceptable. You can view a beheading," he said, presumably alluding to the Ken Bigley execution video although there have been others posted by Islamic terrorist groups.

No shit, Sherlock! When asked about film-style ratings for websites, Mr Burnham shockingly revealed a complete ignorance of the subject:

"That would be an option." He said, "this is an area that is really now coming into full focus."

Perhaps no one told him that we've being doing precisely that for many years. Safesurf, for example, has been managing voluntary website content since 1995 and most other providers (particularly the smut pedlars) already clearly mark all offensive content. Game sites that carry violent imagery (such as advertising for the PEGI-18 rated Gears of War) already check the user's age.

Trying to enforce such a system is unworkable: the Internet is simply too damn big and just because one remote website operating out of Mydadisstan, is promoting Islamic terrorism, we can't just block every single site coming from the region because apart from the technical difficulties, it goes against the principals of free speech and freedom of expression.

The best and most effective censor in the world is informed choice.

In "A Clockwork Orange", Alex (played by Malcom McDowell in the Stanley Kubrick film adapatation) is exposed to masses of imagery while his head is firmly clamped in place and his eyes pinned open.

Alex has no choice - but we do.

The BBC reports on a poll carried out by the children's charity, the NSPCC which found that 75% of children had been exposed to images that had disturbed them. It doesn't elaborate.

I'm frequently disturbed by the verbal abuse and endless conflict in the popular TV dramas Eastenders (BBC) and Coronation Street (ITV) yet they are broadcast before the 9pm watershed without so much as a "by your leave" even though they occasionally garnish a knuckle-wrapping from viewers when they cross a perceived line.

I have informed choice and I choose not to watch them but remain convinced that some of the problems I face within my own family are as a direct result of my nearest and dearest spending hours glued to them.

The question remains of whether children can make an informed decision of what they are exposed to on the Internet. Observation of my children is that they can and do - although that did not prevent me installing a modest parental control filter as a belt-and-braces approach.

Nevertheless the best parental control remains a decent parent.

No amount of software is going to stop your 12-year old son looking at gaping arse, mature lesbian strap-on hardcore if he tries hard enough. He's just not going to do it if you happen to be stood right behind him. Girls, on the other hand, are more interested in inane teenage chatter - so a simple keystroke monitor is a great bonus, but sotftware and common sense is no replacement for having the computer in a well occupied family area.

Parents who abdicate their responsibility are the ones we should blame - the rest of us can manage perfectly well without MPs getting hot under the collar and trying to make a name for themselves.

Now I have go change my socks because I just stood in cat sick. Take that Andy Burnham.