Sun Drops Page 3

Never had sky in the first place. What's your point?

Yes Minister got it right

www.thepoke.co.uk/2015/01/22/vintage-yes-minister-script-explains-page3-hoo-ha-perfectly/

I presume all those who are angry about News International are even now cancelling their Sky subscriptions and moving their phonelines to BT?

The most annoying thing is that from a 'business' point of view the Sun has really played this well.

It's print circulation has been decreasing for ages but it isn't gaining many new online subscribers. So it quietly puts bikinis on page 3 for a few days, it's journos dop some subtle hints to their colleagues at their sister paper and bingo - coverage on every media outlet all of whom mention that while there won't be boobs in the paper you can still see them online. They leave the bikinis on for a few days to give their loyal pervs time to subscribe online.

Then, the boobs go back in the paper simultaneously ensuring they don't lose any pervy readers and giving a big two fingers to the #nomorepage3 campaign.

They are bastards, but very clever ones. So angry.

Brilliant marketing ploy.
SADLY

as mentioned before - let's work to breed this out. At least if a man is a Sun reader, you can't say you weren't warned.

With any luck they will disappear just like news of the world. Just goes to show the Sun can't sell newspapers based solely on the shite they print, they still have to rely on booby pics. Sad twats.

The Sun will die out eventually, but the people behind it are too rich and arrogant to be seen to bow to petitions. If it wasn't for the petitions and subsequent gloating, Page 3 would have been gone, probably a long time ago.

Richard Herring is on Twitter pushing #sunmannips to try and flood The Sun with there least favourite types of nipples

Well I don't think he's played it well.
Whatever the reasons it looks confused thinking to me.
And I still think it's the beginning of the end for boobs on p3.
< still hopeful but slightly peeved >

the fantastic sarah ditum

apologies if already been linked to

www.newstatesman.com/media/2015/01/return-page-3-sun-revels-chance-make-women-opinions-look-stupid

I think its more involved physically and less involved emotionally. So yes, a disconnect that is quite concerning.

DO they chockbic? Ask the school girls who have been harassed by boys and men brandishing copies of page 3.

The men that did that to me did not seem that capable of disconnecting real women from their titty fantasies - although I will fully admit that they are disconnected from women in general.

Fascinating though how some men do just disconnect women in general, from their own titty fantasies. Same with porn really.

"The Sun - For the intellectually, socially and emotionally stunted."

The above quote has been provided by an 18 y/o male (straight) apprentice currently working in my office. So far, the only people I have encountered that are pro page 3 are those that make my vagina want to sew itself up...

Buffy I wondered that too.

The Sun have behaved like an abuser - not saying whether or not they've dropped page 3, letting everyone celebrate after a (possibly leaked) story to sister paper The Times - giving it enough time to gain a good deal of traction and then fingers up to you idiots. Bit of banter, gaslighting & humiliation for LOLs.

It's the sort of male behaviour that radicalised me

Part of the campaign for Child's Eyes & No More Page 3 was to contact those advertising in The Sun re. placement of their ads. E.g. Disney's front page ad for Frozen was bove a story about a "Paedo" & with a woman holding up her tennis skirt so you could see her backside - so maybe advertisers pulling out wasn't irrelevant to this campaign. Disney had responded to a NMP3 campaigner by saying they'd be more diligent in future about where their product name was going to be placed.

Cbeebies & Cbeebies Land were quite happy to advertise with a paper that had a "mark of the devil" on their front page though.

This is beyond Page 3 for me - but about the new brand image too. The Sun has to decide if it's a family friendly, "we say who gets to be Prime Minister" paper - or we're a paper where the Head of PR mocks politicians on twitter and don't give a fuck about any of it. Remember this is the paper in the same family as Fox News who spectacularly don't give a toss about the truth.

And all this has happened in the week when the verdicts on the (latest) corruption trial (involving Sun journos) were due to be announced.

And Buffy, if I may be so bold as to move for a moment from epistemology to ontology, what is "perky"? Is it an inherent property of the boob-as-it-is-in-itself, or is it a socially constructed category, or is it a linguistic signifier telling us more about the speaker than about its purported referent?

Thanks for your input Rich
It's true though regardless of which side of the argument you're on. To insinuate that an older man who would prefer to look at a nice perky pair of 21 year old tits is a peado is quite frankly ridiculous.

they have just shown themselves up to be the absolute cunts that they are.

Also it's allowed a lot of men (not all) to show what absolute cunts they are.

The intent is obvious, to laugh at 'the wimmin' and show them who is boss.

bastards