Beauty, they say, is in the eye of the beholder. There's a difference between dressing children comfortably and making them look like a cheap tarts. There is, in our view, absolutely nothing beautiful in the latest madness that leads parents to buy supposedly sexy clothing for their children, especially girls.

Beauty, they say, is in the eye of the beholder. There's a difference between dressing children comfortably and making them look like a cheap tarts. There is, in our view, absolutely nothing beautiful in the latest madness that leads parents to buy supposedly sexy clothing for their children, especially girls.

We find it completely inappropriate that innocent children are being sexualised at such a tender age in the name of fashion, as reported on page 5 of this edition.

Call us old fashioned and boring, as some mindless slaves of fashion are wont to do, but we hold the view that it is immoral for clothing shops to bombard impressionable children with outfits that enhance their breasts, for example.

Believe it or not, some of the clothes are emblazoned with such suggestive slogans as "Hot Babe, Booty Queen, Hotty Totty".

Of course, there would be no problem if our national goal were to produce hordes of professional hookers in the same way other nations train their little girls to excel at gymnastics, ballet or other demanding careers.

Manufacturers of such suggestive "children's clothing" can afford to be smug about their culpability in nurturing a nation of hookers. They are in it for the money, after all.

The blame lies squarely with bad parents who do not know where to draw the line that separates beauty from immorality.