The controversial cot-fight between Tommy ‘Rusk-crusher’ Jones and Benny ‘Bedwetter’ Benson was eventually stopped in the third round because it was time for the challenger’s afternoon nap. Club owner Barry Hardwick defended the contest, saying ‘No one forces these toddlers to fight – all we do is put one really nice toy in the cot; after that, it’s up to them what they get up to.’

When it was pointed out that Tommy was crying loudly throughout the bout, Mr Hardwick said, ‘Well they do that, don’t they?’ He also defended the lack of gum shields on the grounds that ‘they haven’t got many teeth yet and they’re going to fall out in a few years anyway.’ He also pointed out the extensive padding worn by the youngsters, all be it mainly in the nappy area.

Defenders of the event point to the educational and health benefits of cot fighting. ‘Toddler boxing is a noble and ancient sport and gives the under-twos a regulated outlet for their aggression,’ said Hardwick. ‘If they weren’t knocking each other unconscious these youngsters might be out rioting or mugging or something. Now that can wait until they start nursery school.’

The two toddlers were unavailable for comment, as it was way past their bedtime. However, Benson’s manager told the press, ‘My boy Benny is hoping to grow up and become a cage-fighter by the time he’s four,’ adding, ‘Just as long as no one forces him to marry Jordan. Now that would be cruel.’

‘And despite several attempts to contact him, thus far it must be said he has been highly uncooperative. Not only does he appear to operate under several pseudonyms, including ‘Santa Claus’, ‘St Nicolas’ and ‘Dad’, but when we went to investigate his given address in the North Pole, all we found were a few scientists measuring the recession of the polar ice caps.’

Further questions were being raised as to the legality of Father Christmas’ business last night as investigations were launched into the validity of his aviation licence and reports of millions of unpaid migrant workers being kept in sweet shop conditions.

But as Father Christmas has repeatedly failed to respond to Home Office correspondence sent to 1 North Pole, more direct action has been considered appropriate. ‘We have received intelligence that Father Christmas will be operating out of the Kingston John Lewis this Saturday,’ said Mr Johnston. ‘We will have several armed response units in place ready to bring him into custody, all with instructions to shoot to maim or kill if he attempts to abscond. After all, we have a duty to protect our children.’

‘In a rigorous series of experiments, we have dropped children from heights, shot them from cannons and allowed anvils to fall on them, and we can now say without doubt that the subjects wrapped in cotton wool fared far better than a control group without such wrapping.’

Mr Thigh admitted that this new direction in childcare has not been entirely trouble-free. ‘Yes, we lost several hundred children to suffocation,’ he admitted candidly yesterday, ‘It turns out that cotton wool is a lot less breathable than you would expect, and we did have problems at first until we started leaving air-holes. But these initial difficulties are largely behind us.’

The whole cotton wool wrapping issue has provoked a sceptical reaction from the teaching industry. TUC representative Roger Beard insisted that his 30 years’ experience teaching chemistry had convinced him of the dangers of an over-protective attitude.

‘These days, it’s all protective goggles and safety first,’ he complained. ‘Now, when I was a keen young trainee teacher, we thought nothing of blinding a child with a controversially dangerous chemical experiment before breakfast, and that’s not to mention the asbestos casualties. They were fine days, fine days…’