NOW and again, in a belated and forlorn attempt to improve my mind and morals, I dip into one or other of the posh papers. You find some exquisite contradictions there.

For instance, can anyone explain to me why The Guardian - so zealous for human rights, women's rights, democracy and freedom in this country - vigorously supports (against democratic Israel) the Arab nations where these freedoms are denied?

But there is something nearer home than that question. I mean, all the newspapers agree upon the danger posed by child abusers. Last week I was reading The Times where there were two reports of sexual molestation of children and, as you would expect, the newspaper was very severe on the perpetrators.

But turn to the features pages of the same newspaper and what do you see? There was an article about "the teen pound" and fashions for children. "It's thongs and frilly bra-tops, low rise hipsters and micro minis... ever more revealing grown-up styles on young girls aping the looks of women whose livelihoods depend on daring to bare."

Now, was The Times disapproving of this child pornography? Far from it. The article was an interview with the woman who owns the shop in question. She is called Jane Shepherdson and this is what she says: "It's not my responsibility to tell kids what to wear or to stop them from wearing certain things. Obviously I feel a bit uncomfortable when I see some six-year-old dressed up like that; but really it's down to the parents."

If you feel "a bit" uncomfortable when you see six-year-old girls dressed up like tarts, then why do you sell them those clothes, madam? And what, dear Mr Editor of The Times, are you doing giving what amounts to free advertising space to the purveyor of child-corruption? The shop in question - it's in London - will also sell even more obnoxious articles.

The article continues: "It will be up to the parents to steer their little darlings away from the sex shop soon to open in the Oxford Circus store. Yes, Jane Shepherdson is facing surely the most controversial challenge of her career so far: the last taboo of retailing is about to be broken.

"So bring on the handcuffs - 'and whips!' - she says with a twinkle in her eye. And fluffy handcuffs and lots of really gorgeous lingerie'."

I couldn't believe I was reading this stuff in an ancient and venerable newspaper which has always taken pride in its high moral tone. It is worse than the News of the World of the 1950s which used regularly to publicise the white slave trade and the doings of naughty scoutmasters. There are severe restrictions on cigarette advertising. Why not similar prohibitions on what amounts to advertisements for under-age sexuality?

It's not just the "quality" newspapers. The sexualising of children goes on everywhere. The most disgusting magazines are not to be found on the top shelf, but among those directed at pre-teen girls. Or, just take a look at children's television where so many programmes foster sexual awareness in children whose delights ought still to be dolls and toy soldiers. Forgive me the clich: it makes you sick.

* Peter Mullen is Rector of St Michael's, Cornhill, in the City of London, and Chaplain to the Stock Exchange.

www.thisisthenortheast.co.uk/ features/