Page 3

**spireitematt** · 19-01-2015, 23:32

Yeah I know the board you mean as well. No human should be treated as a piece of meat, you should treat and respect people like you would want to be respected and treated.

**St Charles Owl** · 19-01-2015, 23:35

Interesting that they are not removing the model on Page three, they are just making her wear a bra!! Still its probably the right decision and a step in the right direction.

I also think there is alot of hypocrisy surround this campaign to remove it and the reaction to what happened at Charlie Hebdo. Take the violence out of the CH situation, which is never ever right, but the outcry from everyone was the erosion of the free speech principle and the acceptance that CH should be able to print whatever sartitical cartoon it liked, irrespective of how many millions were offended by it. That is reality is the same as the Sun's right to print whatever it wants as long as its within the law, either we have free speech or we don't!!

**Lord Snooty** · (This post was last modified: 19-01-2015, 23:39 by Lord Snooty.)

Well Charlie Hebdo wouldn't have got away with it in this country. We're more civilised than the French.

And freedom of speech and freedom of the press is bollocks. Nobody should have the right to be so offensive.

Amelia Chaffinch · 19-01-2015, 23:39

The difference is that the people running the no more page 3 campaign have done it the correct way. They haven't gone in there with machine guns to stop it. If the opposition didn't like Charlie Hebdo, they should have protested in an acceptable way.

**Lord Snooty** · 19-01-2015, 23:41

Correct, Amelia.

**St Charles Owl** · (This post was last modified: 19-01-2015, 23:58 by St Charles Owl.)

(19-01-2015, 23:38)Lord Snooty Wrote: Well Charlie Hebdo wouldn't have got away with it in this country. We're more civilised than the French.

And freedom of speech and freedom of the press is bollocks. Nobody should have the right to be so offensive.

Completely agree, but where do we draw a line as to what is offensive and what isn't?? And who makes that decision on our behalf?? Unfortunately we live in a society where it is very easy to claim offence at something someone says where is reality a little bit of common sense could be applied and the offence could be shown up as being fake.

The Sun is absolutely spot on when it says that those opposed to Page 3 don't buy the paper, but it is still the best selling daily rag in the UK. As a paper it will only disappear if the public stop buying it, but Page 3 will be back if their sales drop.

(19-01-2015, 23:39)Amelia Chaffinch Wrote: The difference is that the people running the no more page 3 campaign have done it the correct way. They haven't gone in there with machine guns to stop it. If the opposition didn't like Charlie Hebdo, they should have protested in an acceptable way.

Absolutely correct Amelia!!

That was also the interesting thing about the CH situation though, people really only spoke about it as an afront to free speech!! We as a society seem a bit sanitized to the violence and that we expect extreme Muslims to "protest" in this way, so that fact getss lost in the uproar over an attack on free speech.

**spireitematt** · 20-01-2015, 00:11

(19-01-2015, 23:45)St Charles Owl Wrote:
(19-01-2015, 23:38)Lord Snooty Wrote: Well Charlie Hebdo wouldn't have got away with it in this country. We're more civilised than the French.

And freedom of speech and freedom of the press is bollocks. Nobody should have the right to be so offensive.

Completely agree, but where do we draw a line as to what is offensive and what isn't?? And who makes that decision on our behalf?? Unfortunately we live in a society where it is very easy to claim offence at something someone says where is reality a little bit of common sense could be applied and the offence could be shown up as being fake.

The Sun is absolutely spot on when it says that those opposed to Page 3 don't buy the paper, but it is still the best selling daily rag in the UK. As a paper it will only disappear if the public stop buying it, but Page 3 will be back if their sales drop.

Everyone somewhere is going to be offended by something or other. Page 3 is outdated its not the 1970s or 80s its 2015 and times are a changing. Music videos aren't music videos they are pretty much soft porn and they use it to defer from how bad the music is and also to increase sales because sex sells. If a car company did an advert of a woman or women in lingerie stood next to a car then it makes certain people think if I buy that car then I will get a gorgeous young blonde as well which isn't the case. Its a persuasion technique which works on gullible people to increase a companies sales. But it just isn't one sided it can work both ways I've seen adverts which are aimed at women using scantily clad men to sell perfume and yoghurts yes you read correctly yoghurts.

Amelia Chaffinch · 20-01-2015, 00:18

That's sad too. Unfortunately, women aren't generally a threat to men as men are to women if they decide to treat them merely for sexual gratification.

**St Charles Owl** · 20-01-2015, 00:26

(20-01-2015, 00:18)Amelia Chaffinch Wrote: That's sad too. Unfortunately, women aren't generally a threat to men as men are to women if they decide to treat them merely for sexual gratification.

I agree to a point but I would rather a man get sexual gratification as you call it from a Page 3 model rather than what Ched Evans did!! I agree its very dated, but that is my opinion and I voted with my pocket many years ago and haven't bought the paper for over 20 years!!

And thats the essence of free speech, we accept people or businesses can say what they like as long as its within the law and we have the right to protest, either by organized protests or by removing out patronage, which leave the "offender" with a commercial decision to make.

Amelia Chaffinch · 20-01-2015, 00:42

Yes but you've only to have a topless picture for men to start talking offensively about all women. That needs to change. I've had things said about me that, if put into action, would be worse than Ched Evans offence (not that there should be a scale). These are the same men who you say should have free speech. How do we know which ones are capable of putting their disgraceful threats into action? If none of you right thinking men ever pull them up for what they say about their own wives or complete strangers, they continue and say worse. But woe betide any like-minded men who say the same things about their daughters. That's hypocrisy. But not many men will say anything against the offensive ones. Most of you are frightened of being called names yourselves. It's a very sad but true fact. For instance, there was more sympathy for someone's pranged car on your board for goodness sake, than for the many appalling comments made about women. Many of them actually value a car above their wives! Oh I'm sure it's bullshit from most of them but, heaven forbid, that any of them would say so! And that, my friend, is pathetic!