blonde poker forum

Totally missed this story, Good wind up lads letting the PC tossers think they had scored a victory and then sticking 2 fingers up to them  ;hattip; ;cheerleader;

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-30928544

Watched a segment on this week about this. I think Alan Johnson had a very good point. It's not about censorship it's just about decency. Think it's very outdated and doesn't belong in our best selling daily newspaper however im not as outraged as some about it

Just a ridiculous move on their part. I've never been particularly vocal orbothered about page 3, but when i read it had been scrapped i, like many others, thought it was good that times had changed and this kind of thing wouldn't be considered the norm for the next generation. All this stunt has achieved isprobably making people who were pretty lackadaisical about the whole thing now being a bit more wound up and militant about it.

Pretty sure the only reason they changed their mind was because the campaigners corwed mercilessly about "winning".

A valuable lesson against after timing and over celebrating if ever I've seen one.

#getitquietly

I thought they were just bringing back girls with their knockers out, but if they're now sticking 2 fingers up them then I think that's a bit far for a newspaper - keep that kind of stuff to specialist magazines.

Pretty much this. Still think they will get rid of it, but on their own terms

I think the market will decide, they will do what's best for their bottom line most likely.

Pretty sure the Sun are a bunch of two faced tossers.

I personally thought it was ridiculous that they were scrapping page 3 girls. It puts a smile on many people's faces in the morning so what's the harm?

I also think that they were genuinely getting rid of it until they realised that loads of people were going to boycott the paper. Now they claim they were never going to do it in the first place. Absolute bollocks!!

That article says that 215000 people signed a petition against page 3. How many of those people buy it? More importantly how many would start to buy it if page 3 was dropped? I'm going to hazard a guess that it's somewhere in the region of none.

They've done a u-turn because it turns out the number of newspaper buying people who like boobs on page 3 far outweighs the number that don't. They've had a great opportunity to test what would happen and they've been able to cover it up by claiming it's all a big joke and they were just being 'mischievous'.

Tossers!!

I would go so far as to suggest the fact that they never commented on it themselves it was a stunt from the start.

They had such great lines "We've had a mamory loss" lined up, it was clear this was one of the final flings in the slow death of the newsPAPER industry.
 
As people have suggested, it wasn't going to bring in more punters, and if you're that appalled, i suspect you don't buy it anyway.

FWIW, if buying the Sun for page 3 gets you your cheap thrill, I reckon the purchaser is more likely to move up to a Nuts type publication, thus defeating the object somewhat.

I know if ever I have bought the Sun, and ever caught reading the article next to it, naturally, I am most ;ashamed;

why not bring back page 7 fella to balance it up a little?

http://80sactual.blogspot.co.uk/2005/05/equality-in-80s-page-7-fella-and-story.html

Its The S*n.

Bunch of pricks.

Wait.....you're saying you don't like political correctness?

Seems like a reasonable concept to me.

Political correctness or political correctitude (adjectivally, politically correct; both forms commonly abbreviated to PC) is an attitude or policy of being careful not to offend or upset any group of people in society who are believed to have a disadvantage.

Wikipedia.

YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1IYx4Bc6_eE

Excellent!

Pretty shite..

Which part do you disagree with?

Because Page 3 belonged in the days of the 1970s Stewart Lee is talking about. When racism, homophobia and sexism was seen as acceptable.

It objectifies and belittles women and there is no place for it in 2015 UK.

I'm anticipating this thread is about to turn into quite a heated and polorising debate, so to lighten the upcoming mood, check out this funny dog:

(http://rs2img.memecdn.com/Cute-Puppy-Bought-You-a-Pepsi_o_94679.jpg)

I don't particulalry care if the sun keeps page 3 or not mate, market forces should take care of that, if people want to buy it as it is they should be allowed to, equally those that don't like it can choose not to buy it.

Racism, homophobia and sexism are all wrong, it's just where the line is drawn. The thing is there is no official line despite what some people will try and argue, your line is different to mine and that is only defined by our difference of opinions, in reality the whole thing is just a massive grey area. Liberals want to jump on any minor skirmish of the line they have drawn, less liberal minded people just see that as ultra nit picking and being too PC.

That pretty much it mate, I don't expect either of us to change our opinions, and we are all allowed different opinions right? Yours is not better than mine and vice versa, but it's easy to get into arguments about it because we both feel very strongly our opinion is the right one.

If market forces allowed it would it be ok to post child pornography?

No, but your going to extremes now. Page 3 is still in the grey area for now.

Extremes? Political correctness gone mad

What a crock of shit!!

How's that for polarisation?

That's all fair enough.

But I'm genuinely interested to know what part of that Steward Lee clip you think is "shite" and why.

Not even close, not a very good example.

I was being facetious because red dog wrote excellent, I didn't even listen to it if I'm honest mate.

It's all point of views tho. One person may think it's a good example, another may think it's bad. Grey area kinda thing

Andrew T wins again 😄

Come on mate be fair, child pornography is illegal, at least if you said something like showing fully naked women with their bits out that would be legal and probably be within someone's grey area.

So you disagree with me before you know what I'm referring to? Fair enough.

FWIW I have absolutely no problem with page 3. I don't think anyone is being exploited. I do however disagree with adding the word 'tossers' every time you say PC.

It isn't always a bad thing.

In a democratic world if everybody thought that child porn was great then yes it would be.

Which just helps to show how insane and pointless your comparison is.

The girls on Page 3 are usually in their early 20s - I doubt there would be grey areas yet.

Interesting:



@UndercoverMutha

Sam Fox's first #page3 shoot for @TheSunNewspaper on her 16th birthday is now a child abuse image under s45(2) of Sexual Offences Act 2003

Yeah I remember seeing something in the Sun which disturbed me greatly, about 20 years ago. It was a 15 year old girl, fully clothes on Monday, then every day they removed an item of clothing, then when Friday came around, she had officially turned 16 and had her norks out. The whole thing was framed as a countdown. Pretty fucked up.

Today's Mirror features lots of tits...


(http://i4.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article5032292.ece/alternates/s615b/PAY-Variation-of-some-of-the-birds-that-visited-the-bird-feeder-at-Stover-Park-in-Devon-in-one-hour.jpg)

Agreed. When I look at page 3 I see a strong independent woman who is an equal in every which way, apart from the nice rack obv. Must have a pretty low opinion of women to think a topless image destroys their credibility in the world.

I don't see an issue with page 3, agan as long as the gils are happy to be doing it and are not being exploited.  Thy are consenting adults so each to their own. 

The Sun, however is a total c**t of a newspaper.  Not even worthy of wrapping up the fish suppers imo. 

What really pisses me off is the arguement that it objectifies woman and encourages young men to behave inappropriately towards woman.  What utter shit in many othr Euro countries where they take a far greater liberal approach to sex/pornography and magazines aren't hidden away on top shelves or the like they seem far more progressive and don't have the domestic violence problems we have here.  Interestingly as well the rates of teenage pregnancy and STI's is also much lower in many of these countries. 

To be fair to the Sun (as if they are to anyone else but that's another story), I am pretty sure it was either The Sport or The Sunday Sport that did that countdown for Linsey Dawn McKenzie.

EDIT: Confirmed Sunday Sport http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linsey_Dawn_McKenzie - blimey it was 1994!

No arguing with this statement.

Are these strong independent women or are they being exploited?

YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eW9aqBDp6fc

Watch the whole thing if you like a laugh. Forward to 5:55 for the important bit.

Warning. Contains naughty words!!

This is an example of how times change thouigh.

I don't remember any fuss or outcry about the countdown back then.

If a newspaper tried it now, there would be outrage.

In fact I'm nearly 100% sure a newspaper (even Sunday Sport) wouldn't try this stunt in 2015.

Page 3 is completely outdated, it will be a footnote in the history of faminism sooner rather than later.

The one I saw wasn't Linsey Dawn McKenzie (I only know because LDM got me through a lot of baron years with the ladies), so I guess it was pretty common.

I also saw one once where a father posed with his page 3 daughter, who had her norks out, which I found infinitely more disturbing.

Eww pretty grubby.

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Bodr5DTCcAAnHMW.jpg)

Read this blog and I'd be surprised if you still thought it was a crock of shit.

http://www.bloglovin.com/blogs/rachel-in-real-life-13047367?post=4131900661&group=0&frame_type=a&context=expanded_post&context_ids=&blog=13047367&frame=1&click=0&user=0&viewer=true

Pretty much sums up exactly my own feelings on the subject

I'm far more aginst it now than I was before the Sun's stupid stunt.

I was "meh, I don't think it should be there, but I'm not going to buy the paper, let them get on with it" to 100% sure it should be dispensed with.

And their PR man is a complete disgrace.

That blog is liberal lunacy and seems to be saying that page 3 makes you beat your wife?!? As for the comment that page 3 means woman are objects without opinions? Ahaha not true! Page 3 girls often make intelligent comments about world affairs and political situations these days! Very interesting and very educational I think you'll find!

I'm surprised people have nothing better to do than campaigning to get rid of page 3.

Sexist pig*  ;melissa;





*disclaimer the pig comment does not mean I'm fattist  :-*

Hippos can't be fattist...

I mean, there isn't anything bad going on the world, well, nothing worse than women getting their breastlets out and earning a few quid.

That blog and video do absolutely nothing to convince me that page 3 belittles or objectifies women.

She seems to have had a bit of a eureka moment after she watched a 5 minute video on yoututbe. She even says that she 'wasn't the least bit bothered before'. If she's still campaining in a year then her ramblings may be more deserving of my attention but I suspect this is just a temporary rant and she'll go back to 'not bothering' once she realises she's wrong.

Also the font was so tilting.

Difficult to take seriously when the 'e' looked a bit like Pacman.

Yes, just last week Stacey (23) from Bournemouth shared her opinion that everyone should exercise their right to vote in the upcoming General Election.

I admire your self confidence that you can be so certain that you are right and she is wrong.

Kelly Bell i think with her old man.  Ex sport bird also appeared on Jezza Kyle on the same issue years ago.  He did look extremely dodgy bragging about his daughter getting her tits out.

I always have to laugh about the sun being a family newspaper as well.  Where does that come from?  It's no more family than nuts being described as a family magazine.