Letter: Video nasties: the case for protecting children, a false advertising analogy

Sir: What a pity Steven Barnett's 'rigorous social scientific inquiry' doesn't extend to reading the paper he criticises (Letters, 5 April), instead of believing everything he reads in the newspapers. In relation to my discussion paper Video Violence and the Protection of Children, there is no such identifiable group as 'the Nottingham University psychologists' and I have never claimed that the paper was based on 'new research', as he would know if he had scanned the reference list.

I briefly reviewed existing research, discussed its import, and sent the paper to the first three dozen eminent psychologists, paediatricians and child psychiatrists based throughout the UK that I could think of, who I thought might have an opinion because of their professional specialisms; I only knew their opinion beforehand in three cases.

Thirty-two have now endorsed the paper, one agreed but preferred not to be named for personal reasons, and one felt control of videos should be left to parents. So far as I know, none of us has changed our minds, since we have not previously expressed an opinion on this issue.

Of course we know that the background of violent behaviour is complex; but we now believe that evidence on the effect of brutal and sadistic images is sufficient for action, especially where the protection of children is at stake. Yours sincerely

ELIZABETH NEWSON

Professor of

Developmental Psychology

Child Development

Research Unit

University of Nottingham

Nottingham

5 April