Fixed penalty notices for a skirt’s length?

News this week that a group of high street chains have got together to announce they will no longer sell ‘inappropriate clothing’ to pre-teen girls is clearly welcome.

Nobody in their right mind thinks nine-year-olds should be parading around in skimpy lingerie or T-shirts bearing sexual slogans but have we all taken leave of our senses?

Of course we should let ‘children be children’ but the hysterical reaction of some campaigners appears to suggest unsuitable underwear is, unavoidably, a staple of every child’s wardrobe.

Memo to mums: Don’t buy this tat. Nobody is stealing your child’s childhood except you.

This voluntary moratorium on porn-star outfits for the under-tens is apparently part of a wider move to protect our youngsters from ‘explicit images’. Quite right too. But how the hell is all this moral do-gooding going to be enforced?

What exactly is too raunchy to be allowed on posters near schools?

Are those self-same images less harmful to children when they are more than 500 yards from the school gates?

Rules to clean up pre-watershed TV is pointless when children have access to on-demand streaming of video on their computers and mobile phones.

Many homes have access to a dizzying number of channels on television – including adult material.

The clean-up is backed by David Cameron – and why wouldn’t he? But it is also reported that unless voluntary measures make a difference, legislation will be introduced to enforce the new guidelines.

Are we to employ an army of snooping bureaucrats with smut-o-meters watching our children’s every move?

Will they swoop into action and impose an Asbo on parents who allow their daughters to watch a Brittney Spears music video or a fixed penalty notice to anyone allowing a child to wear a skirt shorter than the nationally-prescribed limit of 3cm above the knee?