Let's just be 100% certain - the only reason for the programme, as in everything these days, is because it was a good story. Made a good programme. Got a lot of media coverage.

No other reason, I guarantee.

The result? Primark will stop employing (and paying) children to make clothes. And those children will have less money, eat less - probably some will die.

Very ethical - as always with the media.

I also believe that they are picking on Primark because their clothes etc are far cheaper and to be honest they are not bad quality.

You watch they will pick on Poundshops next.

I certainly agree with your other statement regarding the children.

Unfortunately very true. The alleged "sweat shops" were children doing 'piece work' at a casual pace in their own homes. They seemed quite happy and were helping to support their familes. There is little or no State benefit in such places, so the whole family chips in. This kind of work is better than begging on the street, which is what these children might now be reduced to.

Why do always judge other cultures to be wrong just because they are different?

Are people suggesting that employment or "culture" can justify or excuse things done to others that we would refuse to be foisted on ourselves?

The idea that a wrong can be completely absolved because there is some debatable minor benefit is absurd.

At what age do you think your children (Or your nephews/nieces) should be earning their living?

Work ages vary across the globe. In the UK we allow kids to deliver newpapers and milk, and to work on market stalls. There was a time in the UK when we sent 6yr olds to the mill and 12 yr olds down the pit. No other culture forced us to change, we did it through a process of introducing alternative and better ways for the families to survive. The same will possibly happen in other cultures.

The main fact remains that the children in poorer countries often do have to either do this kind of work as be forced to beg or raid rubbish tips. Doing a bit of sewing for a company is probably the lesser of the evils. It's no good getting all sentimental and righteous over whether we would send our children to work. The reality is that we don't need to, but they do. To cut off their money supply without providing an alternative is just blind stupidity.

The one thing that stands out in the BBC coverage is that neither the children or their families are complaining. We see smiling children doing some leisurely sewing.

A child I used to support in Equador spent his first ten years cleaning shoes on the street because both of his parents were blind. They lives on the edge of a refuse tip because they had nowhere else. My opinion was that a child his age should have a better life, to which I received the response "You give him one then, because nobody else will." Such is the reality of poorer communities.

We don't have child labour in Britain because people spoke and acted against it. It didn't go away of it's own accord any more than it will today.

The argumants for and against it are the the same now as they were then.

It's not good enough for us but it's good enough for them?

Yes Zoo but intelligent persuasion and assistance is the route to change.

Not the irresponsible media pretending to care but only wanting headlines and ratings.

Very poor documentary and the guy was putting pressure on consumers saying 'knowing what you know now, would you buy from them again'.

It's a very different culture in India and whether it's right or wrong for children under 14, we shouldn't be interfering. People will still buy from there because it is cheap and the products are half decent.

I suspect that maybe a few clothing outlets are getting jealous of Primark.

Denise makes a good point that if we are to remove this income from families in poor communities we must provide an alternative. Not every house has a charity knocking on it's door with handouts. I hear people saying how wrong child labour is, but few offer any solution.

In an ideal world things may be different, but this is not an ideal world. Reality shows us children scavenging among rubbish tips just to survive from day to day. We in the wealthy West see this as wrong, but unless we dig into our wallets and help provide a better alternative our objections are just 'white noise'.

Yes, Zooloo, the arguments are the same now as they were when we sent children to work, but before we stopped the children working we introduced free education and an adequate welfare state. Many poor countries do not have either of these. Your principal is a good one, but it doesn't tally with reality.

If Primark have made a promise to not employ children, then I guess they should keep to that promise - but then what happens to those children? School is not always free. Food is too expensive. Parents are unable to work. They beg, scavenge or die.
But I'm sure they'll die happy in the knowledge that Panorama's intentions were good.

The BBC have yet again proved that they have lost the plot. Now happy contented children will be deprived of work, money and food. They will inevitably end up as amputees begging on the streets of Bombay.

Well done BBC!! You cretins!

JK2006 wrote:
Yes Zoo but intelligent persuasion and assistance is the route to change.

Not the irresponsible media pretending to care but only wanting headlines and ratings.
How else can intelligent persuasion and assistance come to the attention of the general public if not through the media? I don't think "irresponsible media" fairly describes the BBC anyway.

Primark have dropped some of their suppliers as a consequence of the programme.

Granted it will be a fad like battery chickens but until we have a population that is not so benighted it's the best we can hope for... which is a bit scary and rather shameful.

I only hope Panorama have given some of the salaries paid to executives for making the show and a percentage of our licence fee to the now unemployed and starving, unhappy children fired by Primark who seemed so happy before.

Exactly, they didn't exactly look like they were in distress and the money they were making was helping their families.

I think the BBC scored a big own goal and it is ironic that they do the appeals like Children in Need etc and state the costs of various things if you donate, yet that documentary has stopped children from earning money.

We should be concentrating on our current affairs rather than poking our noses into our countries.

Dominic Dee wrote:
Yes, Zooloo, the arguments are the same now as they were when we sent children to work, but before we stopped the children working we introduced free education and an adequate welfare state. Many poor countries do not have either of these. Your principal is a good one, but it doesn't tally with reality.

erm... we didn't have them until we had them either. Why can't they have what we demand for ourselves?

It's good enough for them but not good enough for us - how come?

In general I'd like to know if it is being poor that justifies child labour or being foreign?

JK2006 wrote:
I only hope Panorama have given some of the salaries paid to executives for making the show and a percentage of our licence fee to the now unemployed and starving, unhappy children fired by Primark who seemed so happy before.
I didn't see the Panorama programme but the BBC website on it seems to lack these happy contented children you have in mind.

Has the BBC website contradicted the programme or is there another reason?

It seems to me we all agree - naturally - that in a perfect world, children should be educated and allowed to play until they start work. But this is not a perfect world - so the discussion here is - do media shows like Panorama actually help the situation or, as I believe, make it much worse whilst piously pretending to help and actually concealing the REAL motive - ratings, headlines, a good story?

JK2006 wrote:
It seems to me we all agree - naturally - that in a perfect world, children should be educated and allowed to play until they start work. But this is not a perfect world - so the discussion here is - do media shows like Panorama actually help the situation or, as I believe, make it much worse whilst piously pretending to help and actually concealing the REAL motive - ratings, headlines, a good story?
Perfection doesn't come into it. In this world children shouldn't be used as cheap labour.

Panorama's motives may be questionable and on it's own it doesn't help at all.

Change can only come if we admit this is wrong and stop trying to justify it with nonsense like "In a perfect world..."

When we point the finger at Panorama for acting in a selfish and self-serving manner we would do well to remember there are three fingers pointing back.


ETA - In a perfect world there would be no miscarriages of justice, we are not in a perfect world so does that make injustice acceptable and irrelevant or is the lack of worldly perfection irrelevant?

Young volunteers from the US Peace Corp have visited plenty of these slavery factories but the overwhelming response is that the people do not want to lose their jobs no matter who pitifully they are paid.

Some even asked one Peace Corp member if he could ask George Bush to try and get them one day a week off and a few more dollars a week.

The best action is to pressure these stores and manufacturers to act more ethically. Michel Moore did it with Reebocks by just embarrassing the owner.

I think you may have missed a very important point. The programme has highlighted that when powerful corporate companies such as Primark state that their products are not made unethically. The opposite is probably the case.

Yes that is fair and is (officially) the angle taken by Panorama.

"Hypocritical big corporation".

Or even "Lying" big corporation.

But is that worth doing when the results will be so spectacularly damaging?

Bright capitalists will continue to make profits. Impoverished countries will continue to provide services and products at knock down costs in order to benefit their citizens. It is the way of the world. That's life.

Fair enough to say "things ought to be better", like the missionaries used to say "here's money and food in return for you believing in God".

But the consequences and ramifications are often - always - different from the expected.

Human nature.