This post was mentioned on Twitter by macsithigh: New blog post: Thinking of the children [re Home Office report on sexualisation etc] http://is.gd/9epIQ...

You are rather charitable in saying that there is “no serious” discussion in relation to network level blocking. In fact, there is no discussion at all. If we consider the Byron Report, in that document blocking is the subject of a nuanced discussion taking place over three pages. In this report, by comparison, the entirety of the “discussion” is as follows:

Pro-anorexia (pro-ana) and pro-bulimia (pro-mia) websites advocate and encourage the perception of eating disorders as lifestyle choices rather than serious psychological disorders.
They often provide tips on how to lie to doctors, which foods are easiest to vomit up and advice on initiating and/or maintaining anorexic or bulimic behaviour.

I recommend that:
• The government should work with internet service providers to block access to pro-ana and pro-mia websites.

Hardly a discussion as much as one statement of fact and one (unsupported) recommendation.

Also noticeable are the research gaps reflected in the bibliography. For example, despite frequent calls for changes in the law and regulation, it appears to cite only two legal sources. It’s not surprising, therefore, that elsewhere the report makes such basic mistakes as getting the holding in Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition entirely wrong (p.47). Meanwhile, many of the citations do not refer to original peer reviewed research but rather to (questionable) summaries of research, sometimes expressly agenda-driven. My favourite example is this remarkable entry:

Misc. (2009). The Impact of Media Images on Body Image and Behaviours. A summary of the Scientific Evidence, signed by 45 leading academics, doctors and clinical psychologists from the USA, England, Australia, Brazil, Spain and Ireland can be accessed online: http://www.libdems.org.uk/siteFiles/resources/PDF/The%20Impact%20of%20Media%20Images%20on%20Body%20Image%20and%20Behaviours.pdf

Perhaps I am being overly picky in making these complaints. However it strikes me that the report makes rather exaggerated claims for itself. At p.3 the author states:

Over the past months, my team and I have reviewed hundreds of articles from the fields of psychology, sociology, education, politics and media… I wanted to ensure that the evidence was presented as objectively as possible so that a public debate could ensue and informed decisions about how to address these issues could be made. This is not an opinion piece, the evidence and arguments presented within this document are not based on conjecture but on empirical data from peer reviewed journals, and evidence from professionals and clinicians.

To my mind these claims have not been met.