Sometimes you have to know what all the hype is about. So, I gave in and binged on Adolescence in a single 24-hour period. It was good stuff, I thought. Gripping, in fact. The acting was great. The filming was clever, too, the way they made each of the four episodes in a single shot. As TV drama goes, I’d give it eight or nine out of ten. I’m sure it’ll win awards.But the key word there is “drama”. The Prime Minister might get all muddled, and think it’s a documentary, but it most certainly is not. How do we know? Because it’s got actors and it’s scripted. Nobody really dies. Nobody really goes to prison.

Not only that, but much of it doesn’t ring true. I could be picky about quite a few moments over the hours of it I watched. But the biggest point is this: boys aged 13 vanishingly rarely kill their schoolmates. Even if they are being bullied. Even if they have an Internet connection. Even if the dad has a bit of a temper and is out at work till late each evening. This is especially true if they come from a good, loving home.

Oh, and why did the production company make the murderer a white working-class lad? Alright, sorry, silly question. Wokery strikes again.

But we can legitimately ask why, with all these faults, and given the fact that this was a drama, not a documentary, the Prime Minister saw fit to invite the makers of the TV series into Downing Street for a “round table” (no, me neither) to discuss the issues raised.

Don’t get me wrong. We clearly have a huge problem with Internet culture and radicalisation. We have a huge issue with boys lacking father figures. The life chances of white disadvantaged boys are particularly shocking. These boys are too often the victims of the feminisation of our society and the globalisation of the economy. We’ve let them down badly.

But how on earth can those who produced Adolescence help? They are brilliant at producing compelling telly but are hardly experts in the fields of education and social support for troubled kids. It would be like asking Larry Hagman to lecture us about corporate bullying on the grounds that he played JR Ewing in the hit series Dallas. Or it’s like asking Hugh Laurie to teach trainee surgeons about heart operations. You get the point.

And if we really want to help disadvantaged boys, one of the first things we can do is to stop demonising them. And, while we’re at it, let’s stop demonising masculinity as a whole by introducing the word “toxic” before it all the time. It’s tragic that we have to say this, but there’s nothing wrong with being a boy. Or a man. It’s only when we continually suggest that there is a problem, and that it’s toxic, do some boys and young men get into difficulty. We’ve done it for years, then wonder why it’s all gone wrong.

I read that Keir Starmer has no truck with political gimmicks. If true, I applaud him. But if there was ever a gimmick it’s using Adolescence to help formulate policy. Enough, Prime Minister. Get real. Boys need respect, encouragement and plenty of affirmation. They need to be told that masculinity is good, not toxic. They need father figures and other good role models. Showing Adolescence to them in school, as some sort of warning, might cause more problems than it solves.