Page 3, national institution or sexist relic?

Following the success of the Q&A debate on Abortion we have decided to pick another topic currently hot on the Twittersphere, page 3.

Like before the purpose of this is to allow people to express their opinions without the usual rubbish that often gets thrown around. With that in mind please do not abuse any of the participants, feel free to make a comment but any nasty ones will be removed.

So now may I hand you over to @LadyFeckless (answers in green) and @TurnerInk (answers in red)

1) First of all, tell us a bit about yourselves.

I'm a freelance writer living and working in London.

 

I am a 31 year old accountant from Manchester, with a 9 year old son. 

2) What daily paper do you read, if any and why?

I don't read a daily newspaper. But I read the Sunday Times. 

I read The Sun, The Daily Mail and The Financial Times. The latter is for work, obviously.  The tabloids provide some light relief and also have similar political views to mine.
  
4) Why do you support/oppose the ban? 

Page 3 needs to dropped. Today. By having women represented in this way sends a very dangerous message to young people. It says to girls 'this is all you're good for, this is what men want from you, this is what you need to look like.' At a time when the Police have released figures this week showing boys as young as 10 being arrested for rape and sexual assault, why fuel the perceptions of women/girls as being ready and available? 

This is very difficult to answer briefly, as there are several arguments as to why Page 3 should not be banned.  However, my main concern is the banning of things in general.  As a society, we are far too quick to ban something for fear of offending someone.  In a free society it is inevitable that some people will do things that we do not like. It’s the trade-off we make to lead lives that we choose for ourselves.  If we ban Page 3, I would question of where do we draw the line?  Do we ban everything that offends someone?  No, of course we don't.  If Page 3 is abolished, I feel it would be adding to the 'nanny state' that is already so prevalent. 

5) Would you want the Page 7 Fella banned if it was still around?

Yes, it's ridiculous. It was introduced to try and provide balance. 'Oooh look we're representing women in a demeaning and sexualised way; let's do the same with men.' Like that makes it ok. 

No, of course not.  They should bring it back.  There are similar items in women's magazines still, yet no one ever makes a complaint about these.  Topless man, or topless woman.  Makes no difference.  Feminists campaigned for years for equality, yet they are trying to take this equality away by banning Page 3. 

6) These women choose to do this, is this not feminism? Women who have been quoted as saying they enjoy what they do, earn well and feel empowered. 

Please, let's not go down the feminism route. It's not about the women. If they want to feel 'empowered' (yeah, right) stripping their clothes off, go and work in a strip club. Being anti page 3 is not being anti strippers or anti women's choice. It's about being anti strippers in a national newspaper. 

Exactly.  It is all about freedom of choice.  I have no desire to be, nor have I ever had any desire, to be a Page 3 girl. However, this is my choice, no one else's. By the same token, if a woman chooses to become a glamour model, that is also her choice and no one has the right to tell her otherwise.

7) Has the phone hacking scandal and the links to The Sun, with the most well known page 3 ladies, played a part in the recent surge in the no campaign?

 
No, I don't think so. I think intelligent, developed people are realising that images of half naked, sexualised and provocative women in a readily available national newspaper has no place in a modern progressive society; much like smoking in cinemas, the use of the N word on national TV and putting homosexuals in prison for being gay. I think in a few years time our children will look at us aghast and say "there were topless women? In a national newspaper?" And we'll have to explain why it took so long to get rid of it. It's something out of the Benny Hill/Carry On era. It's archaic. It needs to go. 

I can see people using this as an argument, however I can't see how it has any relevance at all. 
 
8) People have choice, what do you say to those who suggest that if you don't like it, don't buy it? 

People still see it whether they buy the paper or not. It's left on the train, on the kitchen table, in the school playground. It's all around us. What does it do to a young boy's sexual and emotional development do you think when the first time he sees boobs, other than his mother's, they're strapped to a 17 year old in a national newspaper, wedged between stories about the X Factor, dodgy MPs and cheating footballers? 

I agree with this completely.  There are very few things that offend me.  In fact, there is nothing that comes to mind that offends me.  However, to illustrate the point, I don't like One Direction, so I don't buy their albums.  By the same token, I can't stand TOWIE, so I don't watch it.  The same should apply to newspapers. 
   
9) What damage can Page 3 do? 

Remember when The Sun had a countdown to the day Samantha Fox was 16 so they could show pictures of her topless? I mean how disgusting is that? These Sun readers are the first to be outraged if a paedophile moves to their town. But think leering over a 16 year old's naked breasts is perfectly acceptable; harmless fun even. What's also particularly excruciating is the copy that now accompanies Chantelle, 17, from Birmingham where she gives her 'opinion' on a current event. "What's happening in Israel right now is awful" she opines. "There needs to be a ceasefire immediately". It's hard to take anyone seriously when they're  standing in a Primark thong, looking alluringly into the camera, layered in lipgloss with their nips standing to attention. It's all about context.  Pornography - and these images are pornographic which ever way you want to wrap it up - should be something that only adults should be able to get their hands on. Not children. 

I don't see that Page 3 can do any harm at all.  There have been arguments that Page 3 is linked to cases of rape and sexual assault. There is absolutely no evidence to support this claim and I just cannot believe there is any causal link between men viewing pictures of topless women, and specific acts of violence against women. It should also be pointed out that, to submit to the idea that Page 3 causes rape and sexual assault, is to remove some of the blame from the people who perpetrate these abhorrent crimes.   Completely wrong in my opinion. 
 
10) Please summarise your thoughts.

Get rid of Page 3 now.

If anything, Page 3 shows women that they can become independent women with fabulous careers, who have no need to be financially dependent on a man. I do not see how this can be a bad thing. 

My summary

I have to admit that I had a very one sided opinion coming in to this debate. Firmly in the yes to page three camp. I had the view that this was another case of banning something that offends someone and I am fed up with that. However @TurnerInk has made me think a little (wipe that smug look off your face please). Good news page three lovers, I still think banning it is the wrong thing to do. However, this is partial nudity distributed in the media.

My solution would be simple, allow them to run page three or as in other papers topless pictures wherever they want but have age restriction laws associated with the content. Have a think, would you want that level of nudity on a TV show at 8am? Not that there is because they aren't allowed to. With the guidelines in place they can be circulated to the print media to follow. This may have the added benefit of protecting famous people from being "exposed" for topless bathing on a private beach. 

So everyone could be happy, children protected from exposure to unsuitable images and the models can carry on with their career choice. What do you think?

Robert

For more from I Like Being Right follow us on twitter, @ilikebeingright or join our Facebook page

BAH, HUMBUG!

Don't be fooled, this man is the Grinch.

So Martin Lewis has come out with a blinder “ban Christmas presents” http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/consumertips/9689707/Martin-Lewis-Its-time-to-ban-Christmas-presents.html

Why can’t individuals make decisions for themselves? Surely this country and those who inhabit this island are in the predicament we are because of the "spend now pay later" epidemic.  Christmas isn't just about presents and those who say it is well you deserve to have none! Christmas is a spiritual time, even if you're not religious, it is an opportunity in the mad rush of the 21^st Century to spend quality time with the family;  I cherish the Christmas break to be able to wake up for a few days on the trot and sit down to breakfast with my children, go for walks, kick a ball around outside.  The simple things that don’t cost a fortune.

Yes, Christmas can be stressful, but its down to planning.  It’s not an event that you don’t know about.  It’s an annual event, therefore budget for it throughout the year!  Put money away each month or aim to buy something non perishable that can be used.  I can comprehend where Martin Lewis is coming from, however this is again the notion of the nanny state and removal of personal responsibility.

Careful planning for an event that comes up annually is not rocket science nor is it a burden, over spending on stupid items and food that will be thrown away is.  Therefore before going all out with the “lets ban presents” think, plan and prepare for a Christmas that is far less stressful and cheaper than rushing round on Christmas Eve.

Merry Christmas All
S

The Demise of Comet: who's to blame?

Another well known name has bitten the dust and it doesn't look like being saved. Most likely a few independents may spring up in the space vacated and take on any stock left at the stores, but many of the vast spaces will close down and any leftover stock will be gobbled up by someone like Dixons. Just to establish my credentials for this, I work for a company that sells IT solutions to retailers. Researching industry trends is a big part of my job, and this closure doesn't surprise me one bit.

One thing that must be established is that the internet is not to blame; it's not the internet's fault - the internet is blameless! Have I made myself clear? I hope so - anyone who fails to understand that the internet is blameless in this please stop reading and get back to your crayons.

Why, oh why do people always blame the rise of the evil e-Commerce site when a large retailer goes bust? Well, it's easy and most people won't understand why it's not true. Plus, senior management want another job, and saying, "we didn't adequately plan for the future," isn't going to attract future employers. The problem retailers are facing is an increasingly technology-savvy consumer who often want more options than their technology offers.

Have you ever looked for something online to make sure it is in stock before you leave the house? Or been to look round a store at some products then ordered online? A few of you may have used a smart phone app to check prices whilst you are in the store to see if it is cheaper somewhere else. These situations are just a drop in the ocean of the ways consumers now shop. If you fall behind, you fail. Look at John Lewis, they are the example of how to do it right and they are thriving.

Comet simply fell behind and slowly declined to this point thanks to a management who failed to see the way forward and were burdened with more sites than they needed. One of the developments in the changing face of retail is the need for fewer stores for national coverage. What worries me more is that plenty of people I speak to are dismissive of the need to invest in technology. Even independents now need good quality tech or they will be squeezed out by competitors who know how to use systems to give themselves the edge.

"Adapt or die" - in business this has always been the case. In retail, it would be great not to hear the usual whining about the "evil" internet next time something goes wrong.

Robert

For more from I Like Being Right follow us on twitter, @ilikebeingright or join our Facebook page  

My Beefy Bug Bear

One of my recent annoyances is the dumbing down of cuts of beef sold in supermarkets. What I mean by this exactly is the way “they” have decided that we are too stupid to know what the various lumps are called and therefore wouldn't have a clue as to what to do with them. 

How dare they? Oh but hang on, “they” may well have a small point here. 

I know there are many of you out there who actually don't know what to do with the different cuts of beef, and there are so many. Maybe like me you have sat down at somebody's dinner table and fought your way through a Brisket that they've cooked the same way you cook a Fore Rib, wishing you either had teeth like a Pit Bull or at the very least that there was a dog sitting under the table. 

But how has this come to be? Whose fault is it? As I write this there is a little voice inside me whispering that this could be a classic case of the “Chicken or Egg” situation. Many of you will be shouting “Blame the parents” and maybe many will be thinking wistfully back to Home Economics Classes and the sad fact that this lesson is woefully under taught in Secondary Schools; my two have recently done the 3 terms that I think is the minimum length stated on the curriculum. Please let me know in the comments section at the end of this post if this is wrong so I can amend it. 

When I was at school, a girls’ school, there were no Cooking Lessons, they told us, “If you want to learn to cook ask your mother” So I did and my father too. But what if I had no one to ask or they didn't know either? Then the obvious answer is to ask the Butcher, after all he is the main meat man. But people don't ask him, which is such a shame, he loves telling anyone and everyone about his meat, it's his passion and besides it pays his bills. Apart from the obvious reason of the convenience of mooching up and down the pre-packaged meat aisle at the local supermarket, mindlessly picking up something that looks good, a very expensive way to shop I might add, why have we abandoned our local butcher with all his knowledge and usually his witty banter and gay repartee? (you don't get much of that in Tescos et al)

Obviously time constraints and convenience play a huge part but I think mainly we are embarrassed by our lack of knowledge; who hasn't stood in a butchers and panicked, finally stammering out, “...oh a pound of sausages please” instead of that special joint for a special day, then charged back to the anonymity of a plastic boxed “Roasting Joint” in the nearest supermarket?

Which brings me nicely to my Beefy Bug Bear. How on earth are people supposed to learn how to recognise, understand and therefore cook beef successfully when all the beef sold in supermarkets, apart from the really well known pieces like Fillet, Rump, Topside etc. is labelled in such a loose terminology? Roasting Joint is one, oh and my favourite? Frying Steak! Have you any idea how many steaks there are you can fry? Loads, loads and loads; I don't know about you but I want to know which bit of the beast I'm cooking, is it Chuck, Skirt or maybe Flank? This is so important because it does make a difference both in texture and flavour.  Also “they” seem to think that all we want is bright red beef, what's that about?

A well hung piece of beef is not scarlet. In their wisdom the supermarkets inject it with nitrogen to make it look “pretty”.  Hanging beef is essential to mature it, ensuring that it is tender and flavourful; try poking it with your finger it should dent easily and not bounce back. A good indicator of the meat having gone through this process is the colour; as a guide if it is a similar colour to a British/European passport the chances are it has been hung for at least 14-21 days. Don’t be worried about the thought of it hanging around that long, this is done under strict conditions and is in no way harmful, quite the opposite.  

So do try your butcher next time, the best thing is just to tell him what your occasion is, a roast, a meal for two but quick to cook, a BBQ, a one pot mid-week meal for ravenous teens. Ask what the cheap cuts are, you'll be amazed how easy to cook and how far a pound of shin of beef can be stretched to feed a family of four. He'll love telling you, sharing his knowledge, as you will when one of yours asks you what to do with a bit of beef one day. Find a good butcher and not one with lots of pre-packed meat but one which also sells the local produce of other small enterprising food producers like eggs and cheese. My two local butchers even know where the cows come from…although one didn’t know which field.

 This piece will tell you all that you need to know about the joy that is Shin of Beef. http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/wordofmouth/2011/feb/03/how-cook-perfect-beef-stew

So use your butcher or lose him; ask him what's particularly nice that week, ask him how to cook it. Get on his good side and you may, just may, get offered that beautifully aged and hung piece of Hanger Steak he was keeping back for his dinner. It's not known as “Butcher's Steak” for nothing you know.

Follow this link to a good site for explaining different methods of cooking different meats, there is a lot out there to help you, it took me seconds to stumble over this one purely by typing in “How to cook British Beef” 

http://www.deliciousmagazine.co.uk/meat-guide

Clare

For more from I Like Being Right follow us on twitter, @ilikebeingright or join our Facebook page 

October Review

Well hello everyone. We have just completed our first full calender month and boy has it been a busy one with 9 blogs posted including two from guest writers.

This brings me to the biggest news of the month. @clareyh wrote this for us on the subject of nits. - http://ilikebeingrightfb.blogspot.co.uk/2012/10/guest-blog-clareyh-bring-back-nit-nurse.html - It was so popularand so good we asked to to join the team. Her next piece, on another homely subject, will be out soon.

My personal choice for the month would be Simons piece on Political apathy. - http://ilikebeingrightfb.blogspot.co.uk/2012/10/ive-contracted-political-apaty-and-its.html - This has so much feeling and is a warning to our ruling elite about what can happen to even the most enthuseiastic political watchers.

S did a piece on our old chum Red Ed and his sponsored walk with his Union comrades. - http://ilikebeingrightfb.blogspot.co.uk/2012/10/red-ed-rides-again.html - Nothing else I need to say on this one, we all know about the walk which, lets be honest, had a pathetic compared to marches past.

Me, well I did two very different blogs and took some abuse on twitter for one of them. However I am not mentioning that one again but my most recent piece on the big gamble the coalition made. - http://ilikebeingrightfb.blogspot.co.uk/2012/10/spin-wheel-boys.html - It was scary writing in this style but I enjoyed it.

I hope you are enjoying our work, November is going to be great!

Robert

For more from I Like Being Right follow us on twitter, @ilikebeingright or join our Facebook page

Spin the wheel boys

So, ladies and gentlemen, it's been a busy time politically, and I think it's because bets that were placed after the election results are starting to play out. Yes - I said bets.  Let me explain.

No one expected the Lib Dems and the Conservatives to form a coalition - they had way too many fundamental differences - but they did. Whatever you may feel about their leaders, members or policies, you have to have some respect for the fact that they decided to put the country's economic problems before party politics. But this was the key: the economy. The coalition will live or die based on economic success, and this is the gamble. Imagine you're in a casino and go to the roulette table. Standing there are David Cameron and Nick Clegg. They both reach into their pockets and pull out an envelope; inside are their parties' hopes at the next general election, and they put it all on black.

This seemed like a huge gamble - they could do anything and none of it would matter with the Euro zone economy also in the casino, throwing all the money in the slot machine with Van Rompey sitting there, crying into his massive coin cup, with only half a dozen coins in the bottom and his German loan shark ready to break his legs. But bet they did, and from the start things were not looking good. Opposite Nick and Dave on the table was Ed Miliband. He turned up late with a huge stack of chips from his comrades in the Unions. He was a ruthless gambler, leaving his brother in the gutter on his way to the high rollers' table. He placed everything on red, on the economic plans of the coalition failing miserably. During this early time the ball bounced around but never went near black. Ed got excited - he would taunt the hapless Nick and Dave opposite him. Inflation up, GDP down, the weight of the bet weighing upon them. But, things changed...

Ed had to change taunts, picking on one of Dave's minders for saying a naughty word (can you fu**ing believe it?), picking on Dave's accountant over a problem with a ticket (forgetting that he paid the fine) and inciting class warfare. Ed has fewer millions than Dave, and that practically means he was a chimney-sweep boy. Ed was scared. The ball had started to bounce around on black: GDP up, inflation down, unemployment down. Ed is now starting to sweat - he needs the economy to fail so he can win, and it's better to discredit the men placing the bets opposite him so that even if the ball lands on black, people will think they cheated or something.

So the table is starting to slow its spin, any jolt will change the result, and Ed looks ill. His taunts are landing but he knows none of it matters if black comes in. Dave and Nick are starting to relax and for the first time in two years are feeling lucky. Where is your money?

Robert

For more from I Like Being Right follow us on twitter, @ilikebeingright or join our Facebook page

Trouble in the valleys

It was announced yesterday that the Welsh Government would be given powers to borrow for infrastructure projects. My initial feeling was it would be similar to giving an unemployed shopaholic a black Amex card!

So, how will they develop extra income streams to pay for this? My thought is they will increase business rates (given the limited power they have to raise revenue). Yes, it will be a barrier to inward investment from business, thereby impacting on the growth of the principality, but that won't bother Labour as they'll have greater control of the masses through state dependency.

The Labour controlled Welsh Government would spend money with no regard on how to repay, very much like the previous Labour national government. Ed Balls has always said that the deficit was a direct result of the economic crisis, however it has now been confirmed what we have long suspected: Labour over-spent, with the structural deficit reaching 5.2% of GDP in 2007, before ANY bailout was made to a financial institution.

So why would anyone consider giving Labour the power to bankrupt the principality of Wales, drive business from the area, increase unemployment and create further deprivation? Wales is a stronghold for Labour! Through this action many, I hope, will see Labour for what they are - 'spend now, regardless of the consequences' - thereby destroying the stranglehold that Labour have on this beautiful principality that I call home. This would then allow for true economic recovery and worthwhile investment as a partner to the other nations of Great Britain, rather than a breeding ground for destructive socialist values which have held the country back!

S

For more from I Like Being Right follow us on twitter, @ilikebeingright or join our Facebook page