Britain - The Official Thread

[Famine]

It wasn't the freedom of speech that effected his charge but terrorism its self. If it was quoted better ie "What If i blow up blah blah airport" might not of got that far. How you word thing greatly affects how people read it.

And it proved that you can still be charged and taken to court for saying something without any intent, means, evidence or planning behind your words.

There was no terrorism. There was no threat of terrorism. There was no capability of carrying out terrorism. No terrorism had been planned. Terrorism wasn't incited in others. He was hauled over the coals by the police and the courts for words with no weight behind them.

 

[Maccer_42]

So looks like the Co-Operative stores in the UK are about to join the attitude of

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23486027

The Co-operative has given so-called lads' mags six weeks to cover up their front pages with sealed "modesty bags" or be taken off sale in its stores

"Adults should be left to make their own decisions about what legal sexual images they look at, but the place for these is not next to the sweets at children's eye-level. I hope other retailers will follow the Co-operative's lead."

Fellow campaigner Kat Banyard added: "Lads' mags are deeply harmful.

Glamour model Natalie Rochford, and Kat Banyard, who represents the Lose the Lads' Mags Campaign

"By portraying women as dehumanised sex objects, they send out the message that it's normal and acceptable to treat women this way, and we know from extensive evidence that lads' mags like Nuts and Zoo fuel sexist attitudes; attitudes that underpin violence against women."

Gender equality groups UK Feminista and Object joined forces with lawyers to launch the Lose the Lads' Mags campaign earlier this year.

They warned that retailers could face legal action if they continued to display the magazines or require staff to handle them.

This, they said, could amount to sexual harassment or discrimination in breach of the Equality Act 2010.

 

[MarinaDiamandis]

Yet women's magazines have a half-naked guy every few pages...

 

[PeterJB]

Cultural relativism. Topless men are considered far less taboo than topless women.

 

[ExigeEvan]

I haven't got a problem with the modesty bags at all, as long as the magazines remain on sale and the rule is applied both ways (male homosexual magazines and underwear adverts).

Cultural relativism. Topless men are considered far less taboo than topless women.

But how is it any less an example of sex selling?

 

[Touring Mars]

At what point will it become a criminal offense to read a lad's mag in a public place? I fear the day when one might face arrest for getting one's Nuts out on the bus home.

 

[axletramp]

How very Cosmopolitan of you.

 

[MUSC4EVER]

My local Co-op has been covering them up for weeks now...

 

[Liquid]

Reading Nuts and Zoo should be illegal anyway.

Rubbish publications.

 

[MUSC4EVER]

I used to read them every week when I was a bit younger but I haven't bought either one in years

 

[ExigeEvan]

Reading Nuts and Zoo should be illegal anyway.

Rubbish publications.

Womens and Teen Girl magazines are comparably terrible. And I've read more of them than lads mags. Fact.

 

[Liquid]

Oh god, all those crossword magazines that got a bit out of hand and have stories on the cover like, "My dead mum watches my husband masturbate" and stuff.

It's pure intellectual snobbery on my part, but WHO enjoys reading that bile?!

 

[axletramp]

I used to like Maxim back when they first became popular, but it's all a bit trashy now.

BTW, all your dead relatives watch you masturbate. Fact.

 

[Liquid]

Ban this before you ban two hawt babes showering.

 

[axletramp]

'Paralysed by a pork chop'?

'Next Month: Crippled by a croissant!'

 

[Maccer_42]

At what point will it become a criminal offense to read a lad's mag in a public place? I fear the day when one might face arrest for getting one's Nuts out on the bus home.

I wonder at what point will it become a criminal offense for women to wear revealing clothing in public?

Surely that is the ultimate end goal for this? Children won't be exposed to legal sexual images on magazine covers in shops, they won't be exposed to legal sexual images on online websites, but isn't all of that useless?

If a child can go to a beach or park in the summer and be exposed to the same legal sexual images in person. Whats the difference between seeing it in a magazine, picture on a website or in person?

I also wonder how feminist Kat Banyard and Natalie Rochford feel about feminist movements like this.

http://sgvnowproject.weebly.com/slu...st-rape--victim-blaming-around-the-world.html

Isn't what these feminists claim that dressing like a "slut" isn't an invitation to rape them ( which of course it isn't) contradictory to their attitude of

"Glamour model Natalie Rochford, and Kat Banyard, who represents the Lose the Lads' Mags Campaign

"By portraying women as dehumanised sex objects, they send out the message that it's normal and acceptable to treat women this way, and we know from extensive evidence that lads' mags like Nuts and Zoo fuel sexist attitudes; attitudes that underpin violence against women."

 

[ExigeEvan]

Oh god, all those crossword magazines that got a bit out of hand and have stories on the cover like, "My dead mum watches my husband masturbate" and stuff.

It's pure intellectual snobbery on my part, but WHO enjoys reading that bile?!

I used to just read the sex tips

 

[DK]

Ban this before you ban two hawt babes showering.

[IMG.]http://blog.nouveaubeautygroup.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/take-a-break-oct-11.jpg[/IMG]

I find the Daily Fail and the Waily Express far worse, TBH. At least Take A Break doesn't hire Peter Hitchens.

 

[Touring Mars]

I used to just read the sex tips

At long last, the mankini is explained!

 

[homeforsummer]

I used to read them every week when I was a bit younger but I haven't bought either one in years

I remember the first issue of one of them being free - Zoo, I think it was. So I picked it up.

Decided not to buy any more when that first issue had a two-page spread of Zanardi's Indycar accident, bits of his legs and all.

That they show naked norks doesn't really bother me (as a straight guy or as a non-prude) so much as other representations of what a "lad" should be like. Voyeuristic gore, Jackass-style depictions of stupidity, drunkenness etc.

I don't see why they should be covered up though. If it's not your sort of magazine, surely you won't spend much time looking at it anyway. If someone decided pony magazines or magazines about fishing were offensive and needed covering up, I'd probably not even notice as I never go near them anyway.

It's the same mentality that sees people tune into TV shows they know they hate and then moan about them on Points of View.

Morons, basically.

 

[PeterJB]

But how is it any less an example of sex selling?

It isn't, it's just that our society doesn't consider pecs to be taboo in the same way as breasts. Plus, I think it's also a reflection of how we still live in a patriarchal society.

 

[Youngun]

Well a women wouldn't walk around with her breast out in hot weather but guy can walk around topless (maybe even with his breasts out) and no one would bat an eye. But man, that means i'll have to buy the mag to read it now, no freebie reading then.

 

[Crumpet]

Well a women wouldn't walk around with her breast out in hot weather

They like to do that in Spain.

It would probably be the same over here if we had super hot weather, I mean, its not like people have any dignity nowadays

 

[Carbonox]

Remember the instance where the soldier was hacked to death? Well, the killer's being targeted in prison big time.

Not that I'd give a damn (about his sensitive feelings), but it could be nice to have some good news in this thread for a change.

 

[Dotini]

Remember the instance where the soldier was hacked to death? Well, the killer's being targeted in prison big time.

Not that I'd give a damn (about his sensitive feelings), but it could be nice to have some good news in this thread for a change.

Things must be pretty bad when it's good news that the law of the jungle prevails inside a secure government facility.

Has the perp been convicted yet, or is he still awaiting trial?

 

[Mark T]

Most newsagents/supermarkets that I go in to have the black sheets which go in front of the magazines. They are also placed on the higher shelf so they cannot be picked up by the very young.

Thinking back to my childhood, I don't remember seeing lads mags (apart from the Viz type) which were always close to the top shelf. Oddly, the Daily Sport was always placed next to the other daily papers. If you have never looked inside the Daily Sport, it's probably worse than any glossy lads mag.

Then we move on to ladies magazines, which normally have some kind of scantily clad model on the front with headlines relating to sex and fad diets (which we know are not good for your health).

I think parents should be more concerned with the music videos their kids are watching on YouTube. I've said it before; there is more sexual orientated content in some music videos than there is in these lads mags. Many of the music videos also don't require any kind of age verification.

I don't like the way this country is heading in respect to censorship.

 

[Touring Mars]

Has the perp been convicted yet, or is he still awaiting trial?

He's still awaiting trial...

I wouldn't be so quick to lend much credence to what a vicious murderer or his family have to say. But even according to his own brother, he was resisting being restrained at the time of the alleged 'assault'... but I'd like to hear what their definition of assault is, since clearly the same rules on physical contact do not apply when you are dealing with such a high risk individual - someone who has already publicly admitted to an extremely violent murder. Also, he ought to realize that he waived certain rights when he publicly confessed to that violent murder, and from that point on he must be treated accordingly. And those unfortunate enough to have to deal with him on a daily basis should be afforded the right to protect themselves from the physical threat such a violent person poses to them. While I'm not saying that prisoner guards cannot be guilty of assault, I am suggesting that the definition of assault changes somewhat when the person making the accusations is no longer entitled to the same rights as innocent people are.

Remember the instance where the soldier was hacked to death? Well, the killer's being targeted in prison big time.

So he doesn't feel safe in jail... how prophetic (and ironic) his "You will never be safe!" comment has turned out to be.

 

[Robin]

Reading Nuts and Zoo should be illegal anyway.

Rubbish publications.

If they put posters in them every week (I don't think they ever do any more) I'd read em!

I think kids probably see worse under their parents bed or on the internet than what's on these magazines covers.

 

[Sanji Himura]

More good news, and a touching story. Man loses keys, finds 15th century coins instead:

http://shine.yahoo.com/healthy-livi...ds-15th-century-relics-instead-191705805.html

 

[Liquid]

Marlon King in trouble again.