Co-op censoring lads mags

[Woodsey]

I think all blokes are gonna have to be neutered within 10 years by the PC crew at this rate 

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

[Tal]

I don't think any magazine front cover should have a scantily clad, sexual image on full display.

If you buy Nuts, you know what's going to be inside, just as if you buy Fwoops, Open Minded Ladies or Phwoaaaarrr Magazine. Don't see the harm in having a blander image on the front, so that those people who don't want to see Jenny 19 from Southend in a napkin - or who shouldn't have to - are protected, while those who do are still buying them and getting their thrills.

GQ are just as bad. Half of their front covers feature a naughty-looking lady. (The other half feature a sportsman, celeb or politician in a suit). Attitude and GT are no different.

Sex sells, as we all know. I don't think these magazines need to be demonised and the suggestion they are "dangerous" is utter poppycock. They are no more dangerous than alcohol, 1970s comedy or the internet for creating misogynistic stereotypes.

I also think having the magazines in folders is excessive. Arguably, forcing people who want to get their rocks off on Zoo to become part of the 'brown paper bag, full length overcoat and dark glasses group' is much more dangerous in that it both stigmatises the act of buying the magazine and forces some of the buyers to seek their thrills elsewhere.

I'd like to see a solution where front covers spelled out what a reader could expect inside but without it being graphically explicit or without it being so in your face. I can buy a Dairy Milk without needing to be told what the chocolate looks like inside.

[RED-DOG]

At the risk of appearing sycophantic, I have to say, that's another great post.

Remind me to insult you again soon, for balance like.

[Tal]

At the risk of appearing sycophantic, I have to say, that's another great post.

Remind me to insult you again soon, for balance like.

Booked.

[Woodsey]

I don't care too much about this individual issue, for me it's the broader issue of others trying to control what people can and can't do, and there is a gradual creep of this sort of stuff which really gets on my tits.

On here in particular we should care too as gambling is on the radar of those that seek to control what others do, maybe not any time soon but the creep will get there eventually unless we stand up to this sort of stuff.

[DungBeetle]

I agree.  The nanny state seeks to increase it's control by stealth. 

[The Camel]

I agree.  The nanny state seeks to increase it's control by stealth. 

It's not Nanny State though.

It's the Co-op.

[Tal]

Stewart Lee is likely left of most people's tastes, but his satirising of the PC Gone Mad expression is first class.

(Please be aware that the first clip particularly features some expressions that might offend)





I do understand where you're coming from, as much as this seems like I'm not taking you seriously. There's a much bigger debate than over magazine covers but that's for another day.

[DungBeetle]

I agree.  The nanny state seeks to increase it's control by stealth. 

It's not Nanny State though.

It's the Co-op.

But aren't they getting pressure from government to do it?  Haven't read the article so might be completely wrong, but thought it would be them same as the hiding of cigarettes behind the counter by Tesco.

[Woodsey]

I agree.  The nanny state seeks to increase it's control by stealth.  

It's not Nanny State though.

It's the Co-op.

But aren't they getting pressure from government to do it?  Haven't read the article so might be completely wrong, but thought it would be them same as the hiding of cigarettes behind the counter by Tesco.

It matters not where it's coming from, it's all the same PC bullshit irrespective of who is pushing it. Nailed on its some opinionated individual high up in the co-op who has pushed for this and his/her colleagues are too weak to say GTFO and concentrate on more important stuff.

[kinboshi]

I agree.  The nanny state seeks to increase it's control by stealth. 

It's not Nanny State though.

It's the Co-op.

But aren't they getting pressure from government to do it?  Haven't read the article so might be completely wrong, but thought it would be them same as the hiding of cigarettes behind the counter by Tesco.

It matters not where it's coming from, it's all the same PC bullshit irrespective of who is pushing it. Nailed on its some opinionated individual high up in the co-op who has pushed for this and his/her colleagues are too weak to say GTFO and concentrate on more important stuff.

Think it's important stuff for the anti-PC brigade to get really upset about.

[SuuPRlim]

when did tit's become offensive?

it's about 50x easier to find porn online now than when I was at school and it doesn't seem like its having much of a negative impact on the nation, so why DAVID CAMERON WANNA TAKE TIT'S AWAY FROM US?

People like tits.

[Woodsey]

I agree.  The nanny state seeks to increase it's control by stealth. 

It's not Nanny State though.

It's the Co-op.

But aren't they getting pressure from government to do it?  Haven't read the article so might be completely wrong, but thought it would be them same as the hiding of cigarettes behind the counter by Tesco.

It matters not where it's coming from, it's all the same PC bullshit irrespective of who is pushing it. Nailed on its some opinionated individual high up in the co-op who has pushed for this and his/her colleagues are too weak to say GTFO and concentrate on more important stuff.

Think it's important stuff for the anti-PC brigade to get really upset about.

Actually I think it's important for us to point out all the small stuff also, as that in particular is the BS that might go unnoticed and so the creep towards PC'ness continues....

[kinboshi]

I agree.  The nanny state seeks to increase it's control by stealth. 

It's not Nanny State though.

It's the Co-op.

But aren't they getting pressure from government to do it?  Haven't read the article so might be completely wrong, but thought it would be them same as the hiding of cigarettes behind the counter by Tesco.

It matters not where it's coming from, it's all the same PC bullshit irrespective of who is pushing it. Nailed on its some opinionated individual high up in the co-op who has pushed for this and his/her colleagues are too weak to say GTFO and concentrate on more important stuff.

Think it's important stuff for the anti-PC brigade to get really upset about.

Actually I think it's important for us to point out all the small stuff also, as that in particular is the BS that might go unnoticed and so the creep towards PC'ness continues....

Indignation about the changes to the covers of lad's mags will definitely halt this oppressive and taliban-like censorship we're experiencing in this country. 

[Woodsey]

I agree.  The nanny state seeks to increase it's control by stealth. 

It's not Nanny State though.

It's the Co-op.

But aren't they getting pressure from government to do it?  Haven't read the article so might be completely wrong, but thought it would be them same as the hiding of cigarettes behind the counter by Tesco.

It matters not where it's coming from, it's all the same PC bullshit irrespective of who is pushing it. Nailed on its some opinionated individual high up in the co-op who has pushed for this and his/her colleagues are too weak to say GTFO and concentrate on more important stuff.

Think it's important stuff for the anti-PC brigade to get really upset about.

Actually I think it's important for us to point out all the small stuff also, as that in particular is the BS that might go unnoticed and so the creep towards PC'ness continues....

Indignation about the changes to the covers of lad's mags will definitely halt this oppressive and taliban-like censorship we're experiencing in this country. 

It's the principle, many small steps over a period of time = one large step.