Guest pelmetman Posted May 27, 2013 Share Posted May 27, 2013 Campaigners are warning high street retailers to remove magazines that display naked and near-naked images on their covers or face the risk of legal action. The Lose the Lads' Mags campaign, by pressure groups UK Feminista and Object, says displaying publications in stores or requiring staff to handle such magazines could amount to sex discrimination or sexual harassment. In a letter in the Guardian, 11 equal rights lawyers say there have been previous cases of staff suing employers in respect to exposure to pornographic material at work, and called on retailers to stop selling "lads' mag" publications. "High-street retailers are exposing staff and, in some cases, customers to publications whose handling and display may breach equality legislation," the letter said. "Displaying lads' mags and pornographic papers in 'mainstream' shops results in the involuntary exposure of staff and, in some cases, customers to pornographic images. "Every mainstream retailer which stocks lads' mags is vulnerable to legal action by staff and, where those publications are visibly on display, by customers." The group says it has been contacted by employees who dislike handling such magazines but who feel they have no power to take the issue up with their employers. UK Feminista and Object are discussing with lawyers about bringing a test case and will support employees who are uncomfortable with images of naked or near-naked women on magazines, the Guardian said. Kat Banyard, founder of UK Feminista, told the newspaper: "For too long supermarkets have got off the hook, stocking lad's mags in the face of widespread opposition, but this time we have the law on our side. Every shop that sells lads' mags - publications which are deeply harmful to women - are opening themselves up to legal action." *-)..................How very Guardianista (lol) (lol) (lol) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest peter Posted May 27, 2013 Share Posted May 27, 2013 I also vehemently object to seeing pictures of naked or near naked females on the pages of publications. I much prefer to see them in my bed, where I can at least feel all that loverly naked flesh for real. Ahh that's better. :$ (lol) (lol) (lol) (lol) (lol) As a side note if they did ban them, what's Tracker going to do for his little bit of sexual release? Reading MMM just doesn't quite cut the mustard. But.............you never know........whatever turns you on. :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antony1969 Posted May 27, 2013 Share Posted May 27, 2013 Bet I know one person on here who will agree . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest peter Posted May 27, 2013 Share Posted May 27, 2013 Have you noticed that many of these so called feminists are far from feminine, as they are so ugly and mishsapen that they wouldn't even make it onto the pages of a crufts catalogue. It's mostly because they are so damn jealous that the pretty ones can make a few bob from just posing for a mag' rather than doing some boring old job. (lol) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest 1footinthegrave Posted May 27, 2013 Share Posted May 27, 2013 I think one of them just heard you.................................. :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest peter Posted May 27, 2013 Share Posted May 27, 2013 Blimey Onefoot, if I had a daughter that looked like that I wouldn't show her to the world. I hope her mum's better looking. (lol) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tracker Posted May 28, 2013 Share Posted May 28, 2013 peter - 2013-05-27 9:21 PM I also vehemently object to seeing pictures of naked or near naked females on the pages of publications. I much prefer to see them in my bed, where I can at least feel all that loverly naked flesh for real. Ahh that's better. :$ (lol) (lol) (lol) (lol) (lol) As a side note if they did ban them, what's Tracker going to do for his little bit of sexual release? Reading MMM just doesn't quite cut the mustard. But.............you never know........whatever turns you on. :D If you really must open up your foul mouth with yet more nastiness in the mistaken guise of humour, would you please stop making snide comments aimed at me and trying to provoke a spat. Your ongoing offensive postings must be getting pretty monotonous and predictable for everyone else too, so please give it a rest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted May 28, 2013 Share Posted May 28, 2013 antony1969 - 2013-05-27 9:28 PM Bet I know one person on here who will agree . What puzzles me is why a minority should dictate how the majority should live *-)............... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John 47 Posted May 28, 2013 Share Posted May 28, 2013 This is the kind of story that usual surfaces in the so-called silly season when not much else is going on. Odd that it should appear now when there is so much else to talk about. Perhaps the Guardian is trying to lighten the mood (although if so it seems to have backfired with one or two people on here who seem to be taking it far too seriously!). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted May 28, 2013 Share Posted May 28, 2013 John 47 - 2013-05-28 9:03 AM This is the kind of story that usual surfaces in the so-called silly season when not much else is going on. Odd that it should appear now when there is so much else to talk about. Perhaps the Guardian is trying to lighten the mood (although if so it seems to have backfired with one or two people on here who seem to be taking it far too seriously!). Well its not the first of April :-S.................Plus is this bit untrue? "In a letter in the Guardian, 11 equal rights lawyers say there have been previous cases of staff suing employers in respect to exposure to pornographic material at work, and called on retailers to stop selling "lads' mag" publications. " I call being sued pretty serious................unless the Guardian made it all up? ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John 47 Posted May 28, 2013 Share Posted May 28, 2013 pelmetman - 2013-05-28 10:35 AM John 47 - 2013-05-28 9:03 AM This is the kind of story that usual surfaces in the so-called silly season when not much else is going on. Odd that it should appear now when there is so much else to talk about. Perhaps the Guardian is trying to lighten the mood (although if so it seems to have backfired with one or two people on here who seem to be taking it far too seriously!). Well its not the first of April :-S.................Plus is this bit untrue? "In a letter in the Guardian, 11 equal rights lawyers say there have been previous cases of staff suing employers in respect to exposure to pornographic material at work, and called on retailers to stop selling "lads' mag" publications. " I call being sued pretty serious................unless the Guardian made it all up? ;-) I didn't say it was untrue; simply that it is a non-story (of the man-bites-dog type) Fringe organisations have always had a go at things like this and it is interesting to note that the letter you quote talks about cases being brought (they are brought all the time) but does not refer to cases being won. Clearly there is nothing new in this story - it is just filling newspaper space. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barryd999 Posted May 28, 2013 Share Posted May 28, 2013 I can’t believe these shops are still selling top shelf porn. I mean who’s buying it? Haven’t they got the internet? :-D It’s the kids I feel sorry for. When we were 14 if someone found a porn mag in the bushes on the way to school it was considered a great prize and groups of us would gather down the playing fields out of site of the teachers at break to pore over this thing of beauty. Now they all have access to a zillion images and videos (apparently) and all innocence and excitement is lost! Happy days! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest 1footinthegrave Posted May 28, 2013 Share Posted May 28, 2013 Barryd999 - 2013-05-28 10:54 AM I can’t believe these shops are still selling top shelf porn. I mean who’s buying it? Haven’t they got the internet? :-D It’s the kids I feel sorry for. When we were 14 if someone found a porn mag in the bushes on the way to school it was considered a great prize and groups of us would gather down the playing fields out of site of the teachers at break to pore over this thing of beauty. Now they all have access to a zillion images and videos (apparently) and all innocence and excitement is lost! Happy days! I remember finding magazines I think from memory called " Health and Efficiency" I grew up wondering why it was that females lower regions were non existent, I got quite a shock when I saw a real one for the first time. :D Anyway nothing surprises me today,I'm just wondering who will be the first shop assistant to make a claim for repetitive strain injury for sliding the tobacco doors backwards and forwards every few seconds., and when all the booze will be behind shutters as well. ;-) But I must confess I don't like seeing those mags...................reminds me too much of pleasant times gone by ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted May 28, 2013 Share Posted May 28, 2013 John 47 - 2013-05-28 10:42 AM pelmetman - 2013-05-28 10:35 AM John 47 - 2013-05-28 9:03 AM This is the kind of story that usual surfaces in the so-called silly season when not much else is going on. Odd that it should appear now when there is so much else to talk about. Perhaps the Guardian is trying to lighten the mood (although if so it seems to have backfired with one or two people on here who seem to be taking it far too seriously!). Well its not the first of April :-S.................Plus is this bit untrue? "In a letter in the Guardian, 11 equal rights lawyers say there have been previous cases of staff suing employers in respect to exposure to pornographic material at work, and called on retailers to stop selling "lads' mag" publications. " I call being sued pretty serious................unless the Guardian made it all up? ;-) I didn't say it was untrue; simply that it is a non-story (of the man-bites-dog type) Fringe organisations have always had a go at things like this and it is interesting to note that the letter you quote talks about cases being brought (they are brought all the time) but does not refer to cases being won. Clearly there is nothing new in this story - it is just filling newspaper space. I cant imagine a member of the lawyering trade taking on a case unless they thought they'd make money 8-)............ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John 47 Posted May 28, 2013 Share Posted May 28, 2013 pelmetman - 2013-05-28 12:54 PM John 47 - 2013-05-28 10:42 AM pelmetman - 2013-05-28 10:35 AM John 47 - 2013-05-28 9:03 AM This is the kind of story that usual surfaces in the so-called silly season when not much else is going on. Odd that it should appear now when there is so much else to talk about. Perhaps the Guardian is trying to lighten the mood (although if so it seems to have backfired with one or two people on here who seem to be taking it far too seriously!). Well its not the first of April :-S.................Plus is this bit untrue? "In a letter in the Guardian, 11 equal rights lawyers say there have been previous cases of staff suing employers in respect to exposure to pornographic material at work, and called on retailers to stop selling "lads' mag" publications. " I call being sued pretty serious................unless the Guardian made it all up? ;-) I didn't say it was untrue; simply that it is a non-story (of the man-bites-dog type) Fringe organisations have always had a go at things like this and it is interesting to note that the letter you quote talks about cases being brought (they are brought all the time) but does not refer to cases being won. Clearly there is nothing new in this story - it is just filling newspaper space. I cant imagine a member of the lawyering trade taking on a case unless they thought they'd make money 8-)............ If they only made money out of cases they won then there would be a lot of poor lawyers out there! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted May 28, 2013 Share Posted May 28, 2013 John 47 - 2013-05-28 1:13 PM If they only made money out of cases they won then there would be a lot of poor lawyers out there! Well that explains a lot *-).....................no wonder there are so many claims 4 U lawyers...........all financed by the taxpayer no doubt :-S.......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John 47 Posted May 28, 2013 Share Posted May 28, 2013 pelmetman - 2013-05-28 3:13 PM John 47 - 2013-05-28 1:13 PM If they only made money out of cases they won then there would be a lot of poor lawyers out there! Well that explains a lot *-).....................no wonder there are so many claims 4 U lawyers...........all financed by the taxpayer no doubt :-S.......... Not these days - legal aid is virtually dead! ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest 1footinthegrave Posted May 28, 2013 Share Posted May 28, 2013 pelmetman - 2013-05-28 3:13 PM John 47 - 2013-05-28 1:13 PM If they only made money out of cases they won then there would be a lot of poor lawyers out there! Well that explains a lot *-).....................no wonder there are so many claims 4 U lawyers...........all financed by the taxpayer no doubt :-S.......... Trivial pursuit question Dave, who are they talking about here............. :D "It means the total legal bill for taxpayers was £909,423.70" to get him out >:-) Now that really is nuts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted May 28, 2013 Share Posted May 28, 2013 1footinthegrave - 2013-05-28 4:19 PM pelmetman - 2013-05-28 3:13 PM John 47 - 2013-05-28 1:13 PM If they only made money out of cases they won then there would be a lot of poor lawyers out there! Well that explains a lot *-).....................no wonder there are so many claims 4 U lawyers...........all financed by the taxpayer no doubt :-S.......... Trivial pursuit question Dave, who are they talking about here............. :D "It means the total legal bill for taxpayers was £909,423.70" to get him out >:-) Now that really is nuts. First name Abu? :-S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
teflon2 Posted May 28, 2013 Share Posted May 28, 2013 Strange my wife takes O.K. and Now magazines and both show semi nude females why are they only picking on male mags. can us blokes sue them for sex discrimination? John (lol) *-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest peter Posted May 28, 2013 Share Posted May 28, 2013 Tracker - 2013-05-28 7:17 AM peter - 2013-05-27 9:21 PM I also vehemently object to seeing pictures of naked or near naked females on the pages of publications. I much prefer to see them in my bed, where I can at least feel all that loverly naked flesh for real. Ahh that's better. :$ (lol) (lol) (lol) (lol) (lol) As a side note if they did ban them, what's Tracker going to do for his little bit of sexual release? Reading MMM just doesn't quite cut the mustard. But.............you never know........whatever turns you on. :D If you really must open up your foul mouth with yet more nastiness in the mistaken guise of humour, would you please stop making snide comments aimed at me and trying to provoke a spat. Your ongoing offensive postings must be getting pretty monotonous and predictable for everyone else too, so please give it a rest.Ooooh getting a bit tetchy Ritchie. Your post looks like it was written by Mary Whitehouse rather than a self proclaimed man of the world. You must have spent too long in the backwoods of wales. Never mind, you will soon get the hang of it now you're back in england, the home of real men. (lol) (lol) (lol) (lol) (lol) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John 47 Posted May 29, 2013 Share Posted May 29, 2013 1footinthegrave - 2013-05-28 4:19 PM "It means the total legal bill for taxpayers was £909,423.70" to get him out >:-) Now that really is nuts. I agree - nuts. Perhaps the politicians who granted him asylum in the first place (and thus set up the problem) should be told to pay it themselves, instead of putting it on the ever-decreasing legal aid fund. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.