38 2 mins 9 yrs

I see that the Nanny State strikes again. A few days ago, David Cameron was seeking to create restrict pornography AND now this…

Publishers of magazines like Front, Loaded, Nuts and Zoo have been given until September 9 to deliver them in packaging designed to obscure the front cover or they will not be sold in 4,000 Co-operative stores.

The decision was hailed as ‘the beginning of a pushback against the increasing sexualisation of society’ and a ‘move in the right direction’ to protect young children from the sexual imagery. Reg Bailey, the chief executive of the Mothers’ Union, who wrote a high-profile report on the sexualisation of children for the Prime Minister in 2011, said: “This is absolutely the right thing to do. I welcome the Co-op’s decision and applaud the company for doing it.

I disagree and NO, I don’t buy ANY such rubbish magazines. I object to the neo-Prudity that lies at the heart of this. Let people make their own minds up! If images of women are deemed SO demeaning, shall we ban women? Shall we ban any of the “red tops” (daily press) that show pictures of women in bikinis and the like?

Click to rate this post!
[Total: 0 Average: 0]

38 thoughts on “COVER UP OR CO-OP?

  1. raise your family properly and this is a non issue.

    do they really think putting them in a plain brown wrapper will deter anyone that wants these things from getting them, or those that would expose the underage to them from doing it?

  2. Neo-prudity?

    Anyway, it is like looking at pictures of food when you are hungry.

  3. I don’t think I agree with you on this one Mr Vance.
    Think back to the days when to get a copy of Lady Chatterley’s Lover you had to jump through all kinds of hoops, and you never saw a nudey magazine except in second hand bookstores.. 😉

    Just the same as with homosexuality.
    We knew it existed, but it wasn’t talked about in polite circles. I didn’t even know what it was until I joined the Merchant Navy at 18 years of age. In our younger years in the fifties our father never ever mentioned anything like that, and he had 20 years in the Royal Navy.
    So whilst I don’t think this stuff should be banned I do think more discretionary selling is a good thing.
    Suppose for example your daughter decided she wanted to show off her “bristols” for Nuts or whoever.

    Would you be happy seeing her on a front cover every time you went into Tescos?

  4. The Co-op? It’s communists like these who were responsible for for the sexualisation of children in the first place.

  5. “It’s communists like these who were responsible for the sexualisation of children in the first place.”
    ?
    Explanation please.

  6. Good, easy to see David vance doesn’t go shopping with inquisitive children…

    This isn’t about banning images of women, it’s the sexual exploitation of women that is at the heart of this.

  7. Agit8ed –

    A bunch of pinkos.

    Alot of Labour Party candidates in elections stand for “The Labour and Co-operative Party”.

    The Co-operative Party is propped up the Co-operative Group, which owns the Co-op.

  8. The origins of the Cooperative Movement..

    ” Owen had originally been a follower of the classical liberal and utilitarian Jeremy Bentham. However, as time passed Owen became more and more socialist, whereas Bentham thought that free markets (in particular, the rights for workers to move and choose their employers) would free the workers from the excess power of the capitalists.”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Owen

    He was a good man who did some good things for people. Nothing pinko about that.

  9. Wasn’t it Leo Abse, the infamous Welsh Labour MP who campaigned to overturn the sale of girlie mags in newsagents back in the sixties?

    They used to always be on the top shelf, and they were the mildest of the mild when compared to those on general display today.

    Peter, – why would you expect a mutual outfit such as the Co-op to be anything but socialist in outlook and ethic? The over-riding principle of ‘mutualisation’ is ‘all for one, and one for all!’ Admittedly a long dead idea as fas the Labour Party is concerned, but an idea that had a place and a very worthwhile purpose when it was first formed.

    Everything has is time and place in history, only bigots would think that because ‘it worked once’, it will work again and forever more.

  10. “campaigned to overturn the ban on the sale of girlie mags in newsagents back in the sixties?”

  11. Eh?

    Agited – Your own link says that Owen became more socialist over time.

    Ernest Young – Yes, Leo Abse was a radical Leftist. I’m the one pointing out the socialist nature of the Co-op. I don’t have any problem with that, so long as it doesn’t try to impose its nature on others, say by the political movement it funds.

    The irony I’m pointing out is that the co-operative movement once funded the kind of radicals who fought against the morals which prevented children from being sexualised. They have the society they wanted, and now they’ve seen it they want mags shoved into bland covers.

    I’d have more respect for them if they were honest and admitted they were catastrophically wrong.

  12. Pete,

    Yes – both of our political parties are parties of contradiction, – add a large dollop of hypocrisy, and it is small wonder that there are always so many unintended consequences.

    They just have no idea whether they are ‘coming or going!’.

  13. ” Agited – Your own link says that Owen became more socialist over time. ”

    Yes, but I have never said that there is anything intrinsically wrong with Socialism as a philosophy, nor Communism. That’s what they did on kibbutz in Israel, and it worked because most of the kibbutzniks believed in the philosophy. In fact the idea of having a car pool instead of everyone having their own vehicle makes eminent sense. Same with agricultural equipment, healthcare etc etc.

    But they CAN’T work as a POLITICAL system as tried in Europe, because they are inevitably FORCED on people.

  14. Will the co-op stop selling cigarettes now that they will not be in plain packages after Cameron’s cave-in to big tobacco? No, thought not.

  15. I think what you’re pointing out is that ideas and philosophies become parodies of themselves in a capitalist free market system.
    The integrity of the philosophy is corrupted from being an ideal to being one of a number of competitors for survival in a free market economy.
    I don’t say that this means that freemarket/capitalist economics are wrong, but they are built on a false premise.
    That is that an ever increasing degree of prosperity and material comfort, delivered to an increasing number of people, is both desirable and sustainable.

  16. Agit8ed –

    That’s not the premise of free markets and capitalism at all. They are by-products of freedom, which is the end point in itself. You can do with it as you wish, free to live your life to your satisfaction as long as do no harm to to others.

  17. I disagree.
    Any successful system must include a sustainable future. Thee has to be limits to freedom because as we all know unlimited freedom leads eventually to chaos. Freedom without sensible and sustainable boundaries must harm future generations by using up resources without considering the consequences.

  18. Co op is a chain of stores?

    Why is this an issue?

    Many stores / chains in the US have had this policy for decades, esp in the South.. It makes complete sense.

  19. I agree with you Phantom. This is a decision made by a commercial supermarket company to which they are perfectly entitled to do. They are not banning the magazines so this isn’t affecting people’s free choices to purchase these items. It is also a policy in effect by other chain stores here in the UK.

  20. Holy cow you must have run out of real problems if this is an issue now.

    I have truly seen it all.

  21. Agit8ed –

    “Freedom without sensible and sustainable boundaries must harm future generations by using up resources without considering the consequences.”

    Who told you that? Explain with reference to the price mechanism and the profit motive vs the tragedy of the commons, please.

    And who are these all-wise angels who can place limits on your freedom? Can I do so? Am I so wise and familiar with your life that I can place those limits? No?

    Then what makes me qualified to do so simply because some voting fodder elect me?

    Come on, I’m fed up with the low-grade waffle we get on here. Let’s have a proper debate for once. Let’s have some intellectual meat on the scrawny bones we usually get here.

  22. Peter,
    Youse going to have to wait ’til tomorrow. I’m off to bed!
    But I do agree with you that the way we validate our views is to have a proper discussion. It’s so easy to move from news item to news item strewing comments like petals as we go, is ultimately unsatisfying.
    As long as we leave the events of ww2 out of it…
    😉
    Goodnight.

  23. Pete

    Why should individuals not be free to travel and live and work anywhere they want on earth ?

  24. Pete

    You’ve been doing the Economic Moondance for years here and are no one to be playing high dudgeon.

    For starters, please retract the false history you’ve been spinning since Day One. ( ” The UK was a once a libertarian nation. ” , ” There were societies once that didn’t have tax “.

    Then we can go to the endless sophomoric false nostrums and bromides( ” All tax is theft, looted at gunpoint ” ) , washed out bilge from US websites.

    There is a huge case to be made for lower tax and smaller government but this Big. Lie Machine ruins it, on this website anyway.

  25. Pete

    What a ridiculous answer, and an admission that you can’t actually answer the question without admitting your own hypocrisy.

  26. Come on, I’m fed up with the low-grade waffle we get on here. Let’s have a proper debate for once. Let’s have some intellectual meat on the scrawny bones we usually get here.

    Ok Pete. What about the pros and cons of plain packages for cigarettes? As one who supports the nanny-state prohibition of cannabis, I’m sure your mental contortions views will be of great interest to the true libertarians of this parish.

  27. But I do agree with you that the way we validate our views is to have a proper discussion.

    Agit – that’s good. Why not make a start tomorrow and leave out your playground insults?

  28. I’ve never once entered a non-porn store where porn magazines are on full display. They’ve always been behind a counter with the naughty bits tightly wrapped in a screen of brown paper.

    Children shouldn’t be subjected to displays of pornographic sexuality and neither should I when out shopping for groceries or picking up an iced bottle of diet coke from the corner store. And I’d rather not have to explain jack-off material to my sons while shopping for vegetables.

    If this private business, socialist commie coop or not, made a decision to keep porn mags out of general eyesight, why the fuss from so many social conservatives? The business world could stand to cultivate more of a social conscience.

    Am I allowed to applaud this type of neo-prudery even though I think it’s a lost cause considering the sexual debauchery any ten year old can access on the internet?

    I think yes.

  29. Ive yet to see any article that has put the subject of porn filters within the context of recent events regarding mass traffic surveillance of the internet (eg PRISM).

    It seems rather obvious to me that this should at least be considered. Even the guardian at the weekend mentioned that the talk-talk filter (in operation) uses a system that analyses all traffic from all users and didnt even mention PRISM in passing.

  30. The covers on these magazines aren’t even that bad. Our society never ceases to amaze me, we’re happy to turn a blind eye to the extreme suffering and injustice in other parts of the world, but heaven forbid we should expose our kids to a little bit of the naked human body. FFS.

  31. This isn’t ” a little bit of the naked human body ”

    These magazines are often images of degradation, and exploitation.

    There’s no need for that in the food store.

  32. It is the exploitation of women, pure and simple. My wife is against it and she says I am against it too…

  33. Normal person..I don’t want to see naked women in shops so I just won’t look at them.
    Fabians….I don’t want to see Naked women in shops..so I’ll get them banned for everyone else whilst I’m at it.

    How the Fabian ice holes would throw a wobbly at the Clacton Naked Bike Ride the other weekend. I’d like to see it stopped on the grounds of rank ugliness of the participants. Not a looker amongst them. Now if Angelina Jolie or Kristen Scott Thomas were to participate thats quite a different matter…;)

  34. Phantom

    This isn’t ” a little bit of the naked human body ”

    These magazines are often images of degradation, and exploitation.

    There’s no need for that in the food store.

    I, (and this post) are talking about the covers of these magazines and yes, this IS a little bit of naked human body. I’ve seen more flesh on display at the beach in the UK and that’s saying something. What’s actually inside the magazines has nothing to do with obscuring the covers, or even the fact that the shop is a food store.

  35. ” Now if Angelina Jolie..”

    Angelina Jolie???
    You think she’s a looker?!
    The only modern film star I rate is Emily Blunt. Sophia Loren, Marylin Monroe, Gina Lollobrigida had real sex appeal..

Comments are closed.