Page 3 David Cameron's response

[Mumraathenoisylion]

Apologies if this story has been posted before.

d-cam response to page 3 ban

I feel helpless with this one. It's not just the children, it's the violence on women, the way it makes women into animals to look at, the self confidence issues of teenagers, the expectation of men, the acceptance of young women and men that this is ok.

It's not ok. I want to do something about it, I actually feel like screaming reading this. What can be done?

No Buffy you absolutely didn't make me feel unwelcome.

I do know I have a lot to learn though .

PleaseJustLeaveYourBrotherAlon said "I support the "no more page 3" campaign and have signed the petitions, but I'm still not sure if the ban on pornography should also include page 3 as I don't think breasts are "pornographic" iyswim? "

I do swym but I actually do think breasts are pornographic, in the context of a publication that's appealing to voyeurism. Then again, in the right place and context, breasts, bums, vulvas or penises could all be perfectly legitimate. But whatever we call it, I don't think we're ever going back to "banning pornography" that's as mild as smiling ladies waving their boobs at a reader; anything that attracts prosecution would most likely have to be pretty serious (violent, sadistic etc) and/or associated with organized crime.

What's vile about the Sun is that it's so ubiquitous, and it legitimizes a pornographic view of women. I think the best we can hope for is putting pressure on the vendors to sell the Sun in some more restricted way (keep it out of easy reach, maybe) that will have an impact on its sales, and that might lead to them getting rid of the Page 3 rubbish. I really don't see what kind of law might directly restrict sale of the paper. "Anything that the consensus of people posting to the Feminism and Women's Rights section of Mumsnet says is offensive, is hereby banned. By order. Signed, H.M The Queen." There. That'll do it.

I don't get this "if you don't like it don't buy it" argument.

I have seen it loads despite never buying it.

Often I saw it when I was at secondary school, in uniform, and the man looking at it leered at it and then at me.

I have never felt comfortable on public transport with men looking at page 3 with eg their leg pressed against mine, or looking me up and down if I was standing in front of them. Or seeing them looking at it and then eyeing other girls and women around them. Revolting behaviour.

If you don't like it don't buy it is a pathetically weak argument. Children in the UK are exposed to page 3 and all the associated messages from the word go.

Interestingly I have only ever seen a man looking at a nuts type magazine on the tube once, and once a man looking at more hardcore gay porn. And they were both in the evening. Page 3 should be in that bracket, it shouldn't be OK to sit on the tube or bus looking at tits next to a child, first thing in the morning. If the tits were in any other publication it wouldn't be, yet because it's page 3 that's somehow fine. Bonkers.

Oh wow I just read DCs response about page 3.

What a wanker.

And also thick as shit, apparently

Maybe you can stop your children ever seeing page 3 if you fit them with blinkers, don't take them outside, ever let them on public transport, and....

Well actually yes if you just never let them leave the house. And lock them in their room when any plumbers, builders, gas or electrical people etc etc etc come in.

Honestly what a load of old cock.

Actually, what Tabard has just said is something I was thinking earlier. 'Lock them (kids) in their mom when any plumbers, builders, gas or electrical people come in'. Is this a class thing?

I don't mean that only lower class blokes look at tits. But aren't they the ones who do it in public? In the pub, in the van, on the tube etc etc? I don't live in London, but do many City types read the Sun and Star? What's the typical Sun/Star reader demographic? I'm not sure really, just wondering about this.

BuffytheElfSquisher

Some page 3 images have been banned, they used to regularly feature 16 and 17 year olds. The law now classes these as indecent images of children. Do you want to go back to the days of the p3 girl being just that, a girl not an adult woman?

Biggedy men in suits read it on the tube. Not as much as when I was growing up, but certainly it's not confined to people in manual type roles.

Actually thinking about it a bloke in my dept gets the Sun as there's a copy in his desk in the morn, he probably reads it on the train. We are in the city.

I think the demographic is men in their 20s - 40s from what I have seen over the years.

TheDoctrineOfWho Tue 26-Nov-13 19:16:30
A minority probably liked the Black and White Minstrels..,

The Black & White Minstrels were never outlawed. They could put it on today and it would be perfectly legal. But no one would watch. What killed off the B&W Minstrels was a change in public attitude. People felt uncomfortable watching it and there was less and less demand.

That's the way forward with P.3. It's less popular now than it was, but not unpopular enough fore The Sun to drop it. But I'm not convinced it's the kind of thing that should be banned.

I was on the tube with my kids at the back end of rush hour a week or so back (lomg story - we don't live in London). It was just after 9.30am on the Northern Line so me and the kids found seats but there weren't any others to move to. A man opposite me and my 8 y.o. DS was reading the Sun. He didn't look 'posh' but nor was he a manual labourer - he was wearing a suit - and in his 50s I would estimate. He was reading page 2 with the page turned over so a woman with her boobs out for that man's enjoyment was directly facing my son and I. What, as a parent, was I supposed to do Mr Cameron? Is the tube a no-go area for kids now? My DH (who was standing) and I just looked at each other hardly able to believe it. It seems crazy this is just normal!

There is also a contradiction in the laws. It used to be you could hang up calendars with naked women and peanut (WTF) holders that revealed naked women....and these have been banned from work places, without much bother from anyone and clearly with a recognition that these images are sexist and harmful to women.
So if the law accepts it is harmful sexualising women already why is it still acceptable to do this in a daily newspaper that has no limits on consumption ? There HAS to be something else going on.

David Cameron is more concerned about how much botox he pumps into his face than he is about women!!

I'm frequently amazed by these people who seem to think we live in a country where anyone can say or do anything they like and any restriction on that "freedom" would be the beginning of the end. There are many laws that restrict what can be said or shown, especially in a public place. As mcmoonfucker pointed out, the law recognises that showing pictures of naked women in a workplace creates a hostile environment for women and is not permitted. There are restrictions on what can be shown in advertising and this includes prohibitions on using images which depict women and sexual objects. Then people seem to say "who's to decide what's offensive" as if that isn't something that happens all the time and has been happening for years in relation to television, films, advertising etc.

Have a look at this (short) decision from the Advertising Standards Authority earlier this year on the Renault Clio ad:

www.asa.org.uk/Rulings/Adjudications/2013/7/Renault-UK-Ltd/SHP_ADJ_226910.aspx

It's really not that hard.

The newspapers are part of our public space and we are, as a society, entitled to decide what our public space should look like. If the newspapers don't voluntarily comply with standards that already apply to other aspects of public space, I would have no difficulty with moving this along with legislation.

I mentioned on the first page, but no-one picked up on it. Who owns the Sun?? Of course there is something else going on! Politicians are shit scared of the press. Look at how Cameron dithered over Leveson, how he tried to lessen its impact and kowtow to the editors and owners. This is much bigger than the page 3 issue alone.

Cameron is weak beyond belief. He cares nothing for people. Nepotism at its worst.

Biggedy you are right on one hand (press / politicians / big business all in each others pockets etc) but OTOH even if that weren't the case I can't imagine that many male tory politicians would give a monkeys about page 3.

I wrote to my local MP asking him to back the EDM about page 3. He basically said no, because he had traveled in Europe, and page 3 is no worse than sculpture and paintings he had seen and we wouldn't want to ban art now, would we?

I felt it was pointless to write back and point out that I have traveled all over the world, seen art in every continent and I can still see the difference between the Venus de Milo and a picture in a tabloid newspaper.

On the basis that he can't see the difference, I won't be voting for him. Well, that and he's a bloody Tory.

I am in the camp of getting rid of page 3, merely to see what happens. Inasmuch that I share this space (the uk), with many (it seems) who feel the prevalence of page 3 contributes to their feeling objectified, and reduced to a status of sex objects.

I don't think banning it will stop this objectification one iota. I think the problem is endemic and complex. However if it makes people feel more comfortable, that in my view trumps other people's right to be titilated.

When people bring up the censorship line, I am at a loss to define what is actually being expressed in printing a picture of a pair of breasts that is of such cultural import?

e basically said no, because he had traveled in Europe, and page 3 is no worse than sculpture and paintings he had seen and we wouldn't want to ban art now, would we?

Aw, bless.

BuffytheElfSquisher Wed 27-Nov-13 20:23:28

I don't know this for certain of course, but I can't believe that if someone tried to put on a public performance of the B&W Minstrel show that this wouldn't be in breach of some kind of equality legislation. Surely?

I doubt it. White people dressing up as black people is no more illegal than a non Chinese person playing widow Twanky in a pantomime. The B&W Minstrel show was crap, that's what did for it. Simple supply and demand. When more people avoid The Sun because of P.3 than buy it, they will drop it.

Though I am to use one of my favourite quotes fron this site, an 'evil man'(Yes, I actually saw this description of the male gender whilst reading a thread on this site), I am against Page 3. However, I struggle to see how to government censoring newspapers is going to end well. It's just a step down the slippery slope towards facism..

I call Godwin!

And on your first post in your current name, Origen5. Maybe we can get you a trophy.

It's called Freedom and Democracy.

You cannot ban something just because you do not like it, and the consensus of the UK population seems to oppose the ban.

Therefore, page 3 shall remain.