Mindful of the desire of the new commissioner for children, Professor Al Aynsley-Green, for all young people in England to know of his existence, I told the nearest child that she now had her own, dedicated tsar, one determined to raise debate "on the construct of children and childhood in society". He was ready and apparently eager to hear her views. On any subject. Children's participation would be vital to his work. Within a few minutes, the first letter was ready for forwarding. "To the childrens zar" [it began], "I think we should have loads more sweets and crisps. Sincerely, A Kid." The second letter requested longer school holidays, the third no more homework, and the fourth, more pizza restaurants.  Given the Zar's record, you feel that he might not be entirely unsympathetic to proposals that would make the world a better place for year 3. After all, as he this week told children at a London primary school, he voluntarily watches Dick and Dom. A couple of years ago, as the government's clinical director for children, he suggested that children in hospital should be tempted with snack boxes including crisps and chocolate. There was no point in offering guacamole, he pointed out; the children wouldn't eat it: "I make no apology for including a Mars bar and crisps, because it's what children like."    Sadly for his client base, Professor Aynsley-Green is not empowered to hold back the tide of guacamole now advancing from Jamie Oliver's busy blender, in order to replace it with his own crisp and Mars bar snack boxes. Actually, looking at his role as children's commissioner, he appears to have very few powers at all.   He will not, for example, be able to help individual children from being put in custody in Britain, where, as the UN pointed out last year, 27 of them have died since 1990. He cannot stop badly behaved 10-year-olds from being named and shamed on the front pages of their local paper, with the encouragement of the home secretary, who warned young misbehavers this week, "Your photo could be all over the local media; your local community will know who you are ...."   Similarly, it will be beyond him to protect children from being assaulted by their parents, who are authorised under the government's recently introduced moderate-slapping legislation to use violence against minors (including babies) as long as they don't leave marks. With the wisdom that comes of   having presided over the Islington children's homes scandal, the children's minister, Margaret Hodge, reassured everyone last year that "there is a world of difference between a light smack and violence and abuse". No doubt many of the children whose aggressive, prematurely sexualised, "challenging" behaviour was described by Ofsted this week would applaud this recognition that a little light violence is only to be expected when tempers get frayed.   In an opening contribution to his debate on the "construct of children and childhood in society", Aynsley-Smith observed that English society lacks a "warmth" towards children evident in other European countries. Though the popularity of programmes offering advice on child-rearing and the emergence of celebrity nannies such as Gina Powell and Jo Frost surely suggests that parents nowadays are not so much cold as   anxious and confused about how to engage with their children. And why shouldn't they be, when you consider the government's simultaneous support for child-whacking (Mr Blair has personally endorsed the loving smack) and persecution of little blighters who go round frightening other people?   If the commissioner's job is designed to stop him placing boundaries on such lamentably inconsistent behaviour, he is at least empowered to represent the views of its victims. Do our children feel better for a good slap? Would they like to eat more guacamole? Is there anything about being a child now that the children's commissioner really ought to know? We would be interested in your children's thoughts; contributions welcome at the usual address.