David Cameron has given TV news cameras access to film his three young children with their parents.

David Cameron says he knows it was controversial to let ITV News broadcast pictures of the family having breakfast. Normally politicians jealously guard their families from media intrusion and most media codes of practice put them off limits until they reach the age of 18 at least.

What do you think ?

Should David and Samantha have asked the cameras in? Should ITV have exploited this genuine exclusive? Have the children been exploited - and by who? Or is it all a fuss about nothing?

Comments

[Madnurse 17 Mar 2008 14:35:05]

Carol-Ann:

Sorry I forgot to mention, for the record, I think Mr Cameron is wrong to expose his family in this way, just as I feel it is wrong for all rich and powerful people to do so, but I suspect, for different reasons to yourself.

I fear that terrorists and criminals will know what these children look like and that frightens me. Taking the decision to expose one's family to such risk is in my view, real abuse.

[Madnurse 17 Mar 2008 14:27:30]

Carol-Ann:

I have no difficulty in understanding children's rights or anyone else's rights for that matter.

Since those of your political sympathies have been running the asylum, the behaviour of many of our young has declined to such a level that society is well and truly on the way down.

Just because someone does not agree with your views, it does not mean they are either immoral or intent on child abuse.

Children are by legal definition incapable of making many of the decisions you suggest they can make. This is why young children were always, prior to the knee jerk legislation following the Bulger case, deemed to be not criminally liable under the age of twelve.

Do not get me wrong, despite being a misanthrope (your description) I find child exploitation and abuse disgusting. I do however feel that there is a great deal of difference between a parent that makes sensible decisions on behalf of their offspring with the intention of protecting them or making life safer for them, than someone that abuses their children by knocking them about etc etc. I personally feel that those that knock kids about or sexually abuse them should be locked away for life.

I see that the censors there in the People's Republic of Liverpool are trying to impose an Eighteen certificate on any movie that shows someone smoking: where will that end? An over Eighteen certificate for any movie that shows someone drinking beer or someone that is overweight? Is this policy anything to do with you as it sounds like your logic to me?
Is this child protection or a step too far?

[carol-ann liverpool 17 Mar 2008 13:19:47]

madnurse

You have a legal duty as well as a moral duty to send a child to school. If they didn't go to school it would have a deterimental effect on their welfare and future; you can hardly compare that with deliberately exposing your children to the pubic gaze when it is politically expedient to do so.
In the first case you are doing your duty as a parent in the second case you are exploiting your children for gain - which, to people who care about Children's Rights,
is immoral.
However, given that many people ignore their child's rights on a daily basis and think they have the right to do what they like with them, believing, wrongly, they have that right as a parent, I am not surprised that you cannot grasp the concept of Children's Rights.

[Pantherman 17 Mar 2008 10:13:43]

Parents have no chance to make a family when both parents are forced to work part-time jobs as a result of Labours stupid, daft and hopeless family breaking policies to sign us up to Euro laws which are stupid, daft, and hopeless along with the people who support a Labour family breaking, stupid, daft and hopeless Party.

David Cameron will sort it all out, he's a proper family man and a good bloke and he's not stupid, daft and hopeless.

I can't wait to see Britain and it's families rise again once the stupid, daft and hopeless lot in government have been outed by sane, rational, intelligent family loving conservatives who are not stupid, daft and hopeless.

[G.KING SUSSEX 15 Mar 2008 10:16:17]

Bottler bloggers always use derogatory names for Cameron "toff".It is so ridiculous.So being related to royalty and having a good education should be ridiculed should it?.Majority of Nu-labour MPS are from privelaged backgrounds but because they belong to Nu-labour it is overlooked and ignored.To name just a few
Edward Michael Balls,Darling great nephew of sir william Darling(ex Tory M.P).Anthony Charles lynton Blair,Tessa(Jowellgate) Jane Helen Douglas Palmer,James (Photofakeman)Purnell.All privelaged and privately educated.It seems that Nu labour bloggers are still trying to spin some sort of Class war making out that they are all working class and proud of it but in reality their leaders have absolutely no idea of the real England and frankly dont particularly care as long as they can keep the class card an issue and get their votes.

[Patricia 14 Mar 2008 20:37:18]

" I could be the same age as you for all you know, so please keep your assumsptions to yourself"
Posted by Stephen Williams to Jim McLeod.

I knew someone else on this blog who was a dab hand at making false assumptions and J. Mcleod reminds me of them with his every post. Now, if I could just remember the name...

[Madnurse 14 Mar 2008 17:20:58]

Carol-Ann:

You really live on a different planet to the rest of us.
One of my children did not like going to school. Should I have let him do what he wanted and let him have stayed at home?

The most important thing that parents have to do is, BE PARENTS; this means sometimes saying no. It means setting boundaries. It means leadership.
I see too many parents in my local supermarket whom ask their five year old child what the family should have for dinner tonight...The reply is often pizza or pie and chips. Kids are kids. They need to be taught the benefit of a balanced diet. All too often it seems to me that "modern" parents want to be their kid's best friend rather than their mum or dad.

Parents have a duty of care to their children. They must protect them, they must teach them right from wrong.
With every right comes a duty, too many kids know their rights but do not accept the duties that come with those rights.

Oh and before you come up with your normal response to this type of posting; I am not advocating child abuse, I am advocating parents being parents and taking responsibility for their off spring.

[E Welshman 14 Mar 2008 15:55:56]

carol-ann liverpool

Did you buy one of Teflon Tone's Christmas cards?

[carol-ann liverpool 14 Mar 2008 15:07:18]

Victor,

Speak for yourself!
I do, infact, ask my grandchildren or any children of friends etc their opinion and ask their consent if I want to do something that could involve them.
Those who do not, are infringing their children's rights and are, at the same time, teaching their children how NOT to respect others.
Parents who 'bully' their kids into doing something that they don't want to do are infact abusing their power. However, as well as rights children should be taught responsibilities and the best way to teach that is by explaining what that means and parents role modelling those two principles.
How can we expect children to respect others if we don't respect them? How can we teach chldren their responsibilities if the parents blame everyone else for all their problems instead of taking responsibility for them?

The way children and young people are treated in this country is appalling with two children being murdered by people they know every week.
Not to mention the thousands and thousands that are exploited, sexually, physically and psychologically abused.

[Philip, Bristol 14 Mar 2008 14:04:54]

Lol...I have heard of people saying " I am on a train" with their mobile phone...

Is it one upmanship to be saying it with their laptop..?

How very, very bourgeois..:)

[Khalid 14 Mar 2008 14:04:00]

"David Cameron has given TV news cameras access to film his three young children with their parents." If I read this sentence correctly it is a bit [Extreme] that DC has given access to his kid with their parents. So, is it [Our Father} if so, only Sky.

[Stephen Williams 14 Mar 2008 13:41:59]

Jim Mcleod,

What the hell are you on?

What is your problem?

Point out exactly what the so called offending remark was in Phillip’s initial comment because I am very intrigued.

I am not ‘a wet behind the ears kid’ as you so eloquently put it with your “naïve” remark, I’m certainly older than a “lad”, you don’t now me from Adam, I could be the same age as you for all you know, so please keep your assumptions to yourself

I know I’m not “naïve” enough to believe the rubbish that our government spout off with.

You should wake up to this government before it’s too late because I certainly did years ago.

[Philip, Bristol 14 Mar 2008 13:33:18]

Ahhhh Jim

There We Are Then....:)

[Jon, cephalonia, greece 14 Mar 2008 13:27:01]

Whats is the Beef over this issue? It is political PR at its best, thats all. Blair did it, Brown has done it, and Big Dave is just following suit.

A politicain needs to be counted on their profomance to run a goverment and a country. Like it or not Nu Labour have failed to do this. The questions is will Cameron fail when he gets elected next year? If the Bottler has the guts to call one that is.

[Madnurse 14 Mar 2008 13:14:15]

I was just watching Mr Brown's news conference from Brussels and thought, why has he got his kid with him over there, is this to get one up on Mr Cameron, then I realised, it's not Mr Brown's son, it was the foreign secretary:-)

Have a good weekend!!

[Jim Mcleod 14 Mar 2008 13:07:41]

And Jim

As a matter of interest...do you ever actually get anywhere on that train..or are you going round and round the circle line?

Posted by: Philip, Bristol 14 Mar 2008 12:35:17

Yes to the first question, destination in 20 minutes, no to the second.
Are you still a big eater?

[carol-ann 14 Mar 2008 12:43:34]

This a is a difficult one to call. On the one hand the children, by the very fact of their parents jobs, are brought up to some extent in the media spotlight.
Even if they don't actually get filmed they must often see their parents on TV and know that they are a bit different. The may see the media scrums outside their home, sometimes, when big stories break. Therefore, the children are already affected by the media interest in their father/parents.

It is, in modern times, a bit unrealistic to pretend that a politician doesn't seem to have a family.
Gordon, Cammers and Clegg are all family men so this must be a difficult dilema.
However, children do have rights and, even in law, in such as custody cases can be asked for their opinion/consent on access from around 8 years old depending how much the child can understand, and it is taken into consideration - but, should children who are too young to properly give consent to being filmed, be filimed?
I think if children are too young to give proper consent they should only appear in 'family photographs' and when they are old enough to give proper consent, then it is up to them whether they want to appear in fly on the wall type filming.

I am sure that Cameron wants to appear as 'one of us' - his toff background can sometimes make him seem a bit out of touch with the less well off members of society and therefore, have a stereotyped view of them, so one area where he can be seen as an 'ordinary Joe' is with his young children.
There is no doubt that it is a powerful image that does have an impact on how the pubic see you, so, because of that, I think it should not have happened because it is exploiting children if the reason you are doing the filming is to be seen as' like everyone else' with the same family issues and are therefore using your children (if they can not give proper consent)in a 'political' way.

Cammers' previous form is that when his popularity is waning, as shown by opinion polls, he usually comes out fighting with a bit of media manipulation, so this latest 'scoop' could have something to do with that.

I also suspect that, given that Samantha Cameron is a business woman and Cammers is an MP as well as leader of the NuCons, it must be a rare event when they are all home together and without nannies or childminders so this was not exactly a true representation of their normal everyday life, perhaps.

[Philip, Bristol 14 Mar 2008 12:35:17]

And Jim

As a matter of interest...do you ever actually get anywhere on that train..or are you going round and round the circle line?

[Philip, Bristol 14 Mar 2008 12:17:16]

Chris

You can't worry about the thought process of everyone...if people want to read into things something that isn't there...well??

Perhaps it's a NuLab mentality...who knows.

All postings on this site are moderated before they are posted...obviously no one at Sky thought there was a problem..

I will be very careful next time not to wind up NuLab trolls by saying we have had 10 years of spin...'onest I will....yeah...lol

[Jim Mcleod 14 Mar 2008 12:03:39]

: Chris Mumby 14 Mar 2008 11:57:05

Ask Philip he knew what he was implying.
As did the rest of the people travelling with me.
I take it you have heard of technology, one can use laptops on trains!

[Chris Mumby 14 Mar 2008 11:57:05]

Jim McCloud

5 blokes sitting in a compartment - I thought you were writing a joke - if you were - not much of a punchline.

I can't see anything wrong with Phillips remarks - but you obviously can - so can you please tell me and a few other people what you think he meant

All this cloak and dagger stuff is boring.

[Jim Mcleod 14 Mar 2008 11:45:55]

Stephen

Don't you know that people like Mark are afraid of free speech....

Posted by: Philip, Bristol 14 Mar 2008 11:34:26

5 Fellows all sitting in the same compartment with two laptops between them.
All read the same implication as Mark did.
I would say more than just a coincidence. We all know what was being implied.
Philip knew exactly what he was saying he now feigns innocence as for Stephen take care lad you are naive.

[Philip, Bristol 14 Mar 2008 11:34:26]

Stephen

Don't you know that people like Mark are afraid of free speech....

[E Welshman 14 Mar 2008 11:05:03]

What's the matter with the NuLab crowd on this blog?

Blair did exactly the same, I seem to recall, Bottler paraded with his wife and his new-born, but the moment David Cameron decides to put his family in front of the cameras, the NuLab cynics burst a blood vessel and cry foul.

Is it the fact that ITV have the exclusive that has prompted this blog in the first place?

[Stephen Williams 14 Mar 2008 10:56:41]

Mark,

I can't see anything in Philip's initial posting that warranted the type of answer that you relied back to him with, were are the insulting comments that you speak about?

[Philip, Bristol 14 Mar 2008 10:34:31]

Mark

I really don't know what you are implying....I cannot be responsible for your thought process...

[Qwery Midlands 14 Mar 2008 10:20:10]

Just another naff stunt by Brand Cameron.

[Mark, Swansea 14 Mar 2008 10:18:58]

Posted by: Philip, Bristol 14 Mar 2008 09:41:40

I think you should really keep your peurile thoughts to yourself. We can all throw insults and everything, but to imply what you are implying is a disgrace and just goes to show how low you will go. Bad show.

[Victor, NW Kent 14 Mar 2008 10:02:20]

Right, you Labloggers - it is entirely the affair of Mr & Mrs Cameron. You are all so blinded that you would deride Cameron if he gave you £10,000 for nothing, after you had banked it, of course. Some pathetic wet said on TV last night "Nobody asked the kids". Do you ask your kids permission to do things?

Blair paraded his kids at every opportunity - sent Christmas cards with them on, even gave Chirac a framed photo of little Leo!
However, when questioned as to whether Leo had been administered the MMR jab he would not answer as it was "medically confidential".

Did you Labloggers protest then? No, you didn't because these matters are so, so trivial. In this instance it just an excuse for you to get on your high horses and pretend indignation.

I really don't care if you admire each other's verbal brilliance in pairs - you are talking only to each other.

[Philip, Bristol 14 Mar 2008 09:41:40]

What right has anyone to put Cameron down for this? Just because 10 years of this government has meant total spin is there any reason why it should not change.

DC is a proud parent..and why shouldn't he be.

This is how cynical NuLab have made us...and that's why we need a change.

As for Sky...sour grapes methinks...better luck next time lads!

[Mike Simpson 14 Mar 2008 09:20:30]

Posted by: Mark, Swansea 14 Mar 2008 07:32:34

Mark, well said. It was quite stomach-churning and puerile in the extreme. Is there any depths that this man won't sink to in a cheap and cynical effort to garner support? ITV should be thorougly ashamed of themselves for becoming a patsy for Conservative Party HQ. At leats we can rely on the excellent and fair news coverage given by Sky news. Keep it up lads and lassies!

[Mark, Swansea 14 Mar 2008 07:32:34]

Well, ITV News seems to have turned into Tory TV, with Tom Bradbury as Cameron's Cheerleader-in-Chief.

Why am I not surprised to see Cameron hawking his kids on TV? I used to think Tony was bad, but this is sick-making. Opnion polls not working out, eh Dave?

[The Morning Mail 13 Mar 2008 23:19:08]

A shameless publicity stunt but hey Cammers is a class act at PR....all spin and no substance, david 'Charlatan' Cameron.

[Peter, Fife 13 Mar 2008 22:22:15]

Truly the desperate act of a desperate man; I feel there is no level too low for David Cameron to stoop to make himself appear acceptable and electable.
He must be under immense internal pressures from within his own party that we are unaware of; no leader worth their salt, with confidence in their own ability would even consider turning their own family into a media circus.

ITV turn down the chance, of course they wouldn’t; ITV do not have to feign neutrality unlike another National Broadcaster

[neither/niether 13 Mar 2008 20:38:50]

Of course it's a fuss about nothing. People will make up there own minds, as to who is exploiting the kids, if they are, actualy being exploited. If there is blame to be laid at anyone's door, Labour supporters will say its a cameron stunt, torys will say it's a media stunt. Why should it be either, what if it is a genuine attempt to show MPs as human beings with families. Leaders of political parties are accused of being distand and unapproachable, maybe this is the human side of politicians the public want to see, and can relate to, with children of their own. One thing Cameron can't be accused of is hypocrisy, he has from the beggining spoke up for the importance of families, and marriage. I personaly will give him the benifit of the doubt, because I believe he is sincere regarding his family, and wouldn't expose them to a publicity stunt.

[Northernhousewife 13 Mar 2008 19:40:03]

Blair was never pictured with his kids on TV or on a Christmas card or anything was he?

There is going to be interest and it might be better to manage it, rather like the royals do in having 'official' access, but it is still a risk.

Is your problem that it is an ITV exclusive?