Not sure this is a useful campaign. More like something a bunch of nerds cooked up without reference to the real world. It's about so narrow a figure of speech that even its supporters trip themselves up when trying to explain it, as Richard himself did during the interview.

Firstly, if a child very likely adopts the religion of their parents, then labelling them as such (if the need arises) is useful shorthand. Children are part of the family team until they get old enough to start rebelling away from it, so labelling them as such is natural. Yes I know we shouldn't label people but we do and this particular kind of labelling really isn't that important.

Secondly, that campaign poster talks about labelling the child in the first line and the child making its own choice in the second. That's a non-sequitur. For it to make sense it has to use the word indoctrination in the first line.

Indoctrination is what the campaign should be about, but perhaps that was too long a word to fit on the posters? Indoctrination is what everyone initially assumes the campaign is about (eg Jeremy Vine), but Richard shot both his feet off when he made it abundantly clear that it is not and that he has no problem with parents teaching their children religious nonsense.

Even if he was being strictly accurate by saying that for the purposes of this campaign he has no problem with indoctrination because this campaign isn't about indoctrination, then that just adds another layer of confusing nerdism.

Please get some advertising advice next time!!