Political Correctness News

An ad for a competition on the Daily Star's website www.dailystar.co.uk and in the newspaper:

a. The website ad, headed Win a date with a Daily Star Page 3 babe! It's a cold miserable winter out there - but as ever your fun-loving Daily Star knows just how to brighten up your lives . The ad featured three photographs, including one photograph showing three women from the waist up, wearing bras and holding champagne flutes, and another photograph showing three women wearing burlesque-style knickers standing close together with their hands on each others' shoulders and waists, their breasts partially covered by their arms. The photographs were captioned WIN: Enter the competition to have a chance of spending a day with a page 3 babe! , DATE: The girls are desperate to meet you! and IRRESISTABLE: Who could turn down the chance to meet one of our babes?! .

b. The newspaper ad featured, on the front page, an image of two women in bikinis under the heading WIN a chance to meet our fab Page 3 girls . On page 3, underneath an image of three women wearing only bikini bottoms, the same text as in ad (a) was headed SPEND A DAY WITH A P3 BABE .

The ASA received 31 complaints, including one from the campaign group Object. Thirty complaints were from members of the public, many of whom had become aware of the promotion through social media.

The complainants, who believed that to offer a date with a page-3 girl as a prize was sexist and objectified women, challenged whether the ad was offensive and socially irresponsible.

ASA Assessment: Complaints upheld

The ASA noted the demographic information about the Daily Star's readership and website users, and that the image of three topless women in ad (b) appeared on page 3 of the paper, where similar images routinely appeared. We noted the Daily Star's view that the models were promoted as individuals and were seen as celebrities by some of their readers. We acknowledged that it was not unusual for competition prizes to involve meeting, or having a date , with a celebrity.

We noted the ads referred to the Star Babes as a sizzling prize , and suggested that their visit to the winner's workplace would bring the approval of their colleagues for bagging them this prize and would invoke jealousy in their friends. In the context of a competition in which the prize involved a visit from page 3 glamour models, a job which was based on a woman's attractiveness and in which women posed nude or semi-nude and which therefore inherently involved the objectification of their bodies, we considered the implication was that the prize would be enjoyed or envied on the basis of the women's attractiveness rather than because of their personality or other non-physical qualities. We also noted that the competition prize was described as involving a visit from one of our babes! and two of our top Page 3 girls rather than from specific individuals. We considered the implication was therefore that it did not matter which individual models would be visiting the winner and that the women were presented as interchangeable. In that context, whilst we noted the ads were targeted at Daily Star readers and website users, many of whom would likely have no objection to page 3 itself, we considered it likely that some would nonetheless find the notion of offering women as a prize to be sexist, offensive and socially irresponsible.

The ads must not appear again in their current form. We told the Daily Star to ensure that their future advertising contained nothing that was socially irresponsible or likely to cause serious or widespread offence.

Lib Dem minister Jo Swinson has accused the Tories of blocking an 'independent' review clearing aiming to reveal sexism in the media.

The junior equalities minister has claimed that editorial decisions by British newspapers belittle women on a daily basis. She has long wanted to use an inquiry to shine a light on the issue. She revealed in a speech that the idea was shot down. In the speech at her party conference she called for censorship

I have argued within Government for a review -- to be led by senior representatives of the media -- to look at the implications of media sexism. Guess what? The Tories blocked it.

They are either happy with how things are or too afraid of a backlash. As we might find out in tomorrow's papers, sometimes suggestions like this one can be taken out of context.

But make no mistake. This is not a call for censorship, this is not a call for editorial agendas to bow down to government diktat. This is a call for an independent review -- chaired by media representatives -- to work with government and other stakeholders to take this issue seriously.

Lib Dem sources told BuzzFeed News that culture secretary Sajid Javid was the Tory minister who put his foot down over the inquiry.

Apparently, Swinson had been fighting for a review into sexism within the media for a long time. She had been conspiring with Tory education secretary and equalities minister Nicky Morgan. The pair had even talked about who might chair such an inquiry, with Newsnight presenter Kirsty Wark's name among those mentioned.

BuzzFeed obtained the inquiry's suggested terms of reference which revealed that the inquiry was a thinly disguised call for more censorship:

The aim of the review would be to test the effects that everyday media sexism has on society and assess what can be done to reduce it. Everyday media sexism is defined as coverage that results in representations of women that are narrow, inappropriately sexualised, and demeaning .

The panel would undertake a rapid evidence review to demonstrate the prevalence of media sexism and women's feelings about it, and correlations between sexual violence, sexually demeaning attitudes and the consumption of pornography .

It would then consider whether there is scope to improve the regulatory framework and establish whether the public understands how to complain about media sexism, including reviewing the roles of/for Ofcom and the new press complaints body in setting content standards and assessing complaints .

According to an Advertising Standards Authority report released in February , two of the ten most complained about adverts in the UK last year featured charities. One of them was Sainsbury's Christmas advert, run in connection with the Royal British Legion , which retold the historical Christmas Truce on the Western Front in 1914 and received 823 complaints, coming fourth in the overall ranking.

Although that is quite a few outraged viewers, the more telling figure is online. At press time, the Sainbury's ad had been viewed 16,900,823 times on YouTube.

Although the ASA did not investigate the campaign further and it wasn't banned, the resultant web reaction raises a debate about whether the ASA as a governing body is truly representative of public opinion.

...Read the full article

Easily offended councillors have expressed their 'outrage' at an 'offensive and sexist ' T-shirt worn by a Green Party activist at a Wiltshire Council meeting. Gerard Byrne wore a T-shirt with a slogan about the Tory cuts as he read a public statement deriding the council's latest round of cuts.

As he began his speech, Cllr Bridget Wayman cut across him, saying: I find that garment he is wearing offensive.

The pictures showing Byrne's Tshirt have now been blacked out on the council's webcast, which can be viewed online. Newspaper articles don't describe the t-shirt but the most likely design is as shown right.

It didn't take a lot to offend Cllr Chris Devine, he said:

It wasn't very edifying to say the least. It degrades the proceedings down to the lowest level. I found it extremely offensive and I was in the army for 25 years so it takes a lot to offend me.

The green party confirmed that the matter had been looked into and they have severely reprimanded Byrne and he had been forced to apologise to those who were offended. They added that it was not an offence he would be thrown out of the party for .

The incident was reported to police, who have confirmed an investigation into a public order offence is ongoing.

Adverts for a Jewish play which received five-star reviews in one of the religion's newspapers have been banned from the London Underground because they could cause offence . Transport for London (TfL) decided that posters of Joshua Harmon's acclaimed production, Bad Jews , should be banned.

The poster for the comedy, which is about a family brought together after the death of their Holocaust-survivor grandfather, shows four characters in a quarrel on the floor.

One complaint was made to the the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) during the play's first campaign, but the advert censor concluded that the poster did not breach rules. However, TfL disagreed with the ASA's ruling and told the Evening Standard it would not clarify the precise reason for the rejection. A TfL spokesperson said:

The advert, Bad Jews, was previously displayed on our network as our advertising contractor approved it without consulting us. It was subsequently submitted for display again and has been rejected as it contravened our advertising policy, which states that adverts will not be approved if they may cause widespread or serious offence.

Producer Danny Moar has blasted TfL's decision, saying it seemed like censorship , despite the play winning a five-star review for the Jewish Chronicle.  He told the paper:

Half the cast are Jewish, I'm Jewish, the writer is Jewish and the word 'bad' in the title, in so far as it matters, doesn't mean 'evil' -- it means 'non-observant'.  This is a form of censorship which is so weird and ironic when, in the wake of the Charlie Hebdo events, everyone marched against censorship. 

The advert censiors at ASA have published waffle responses to a consultation on introducing new prioritisation principles. The ASA explains:

The principles were developed in line with our five-year strategy 2014 -- 2018, which is our public commitment to Having more Impact and Being more Proactive in how we regulate. It expresses our ambition to make every UK ad a responsible ad. [this would more snappily read: our ambition to make every UK ad a PC ad].

Under these prioritisation principles we will:

• - consider what harm or detriment has occurred or might occur;
• - balance the risk of taking action versus inaction;
• - consider the likely impact of our intervention; and
• - consider what resource would be proportionate to the problem to be tackled.

They will help us decide what resource we commit, or activity we undertake, in response to issues identified either through complaints or other forms of information, e.g. research or intelligence from another regulator.

This more proactive and targeted approach will allow us to have the biggest impact on the issues that matter most, benefitting consumers, society and responsible advertisers alike. [The ASA bizarrely thinks that its PC pedantry is somehow beneficial to society!]

We launched the consultation in November 2014, following pre-consultation with other regulatory bodies, consumer groups and business groups. We're grateful to those who responded and are satisfied, based on the feedback we've received, that we'd identified the appropriate prioritisation principles to help guide the allocation of our regulatory resources.

Starbucks has withdrawn a poster showing Armenian women in traditional clothing drinking coffee under the crescent and star of the Turkish flag and apologised to customers for causing offence.

The posters, displayed at at least one coffee shop in Los Angeles , angered easily offended Armenian Americans because of supposed sensitivities around the deaths of more than a million Armenians at the hands of Turkish Ottoman forces in the early 20th century.

The Armenian National Committee Of America (ANCA) whinged on Facebook:

Why is Starbucks selling coffee using an image of women, dressed in traditional Armenian costumes, celebrating a Turkish state that systematically victimized Armenian women during the Armenian genocide, and that still denies this crime against all humanity?

As 'outrage' grew this week, the company posted an apology on the ANCA's Facebook page and promised to remove the offending images.

Major League Baseball
ESPN, 3 October 2014, 20:00

ESPN is a sports television channel broadcasting a combination of live sports events and sports related programming.

During live coverage of a baseball match in America, the commentators talked very briefly about the pitcher who kept looking at a batter at first base because the batter was attempting to steal base'. This involved the batter moving back-and-forth on first base in an ungainly manner to distract the pitcher. These movements prompted one of the commentators to say:

"He [the pitcher] might be just looking at him because he looks like such a spaz".

A viewer alerted Ofcom to the reference to "spaz" in the commentary, saying that it was an offensive term to describe someone with physical disabilities.

Ofcom considered Rule 2.3:

"In applying generally accepted standards broadcasters must ensure that material which may cause offence is justified by the context, Such material may include, but is not limited to, discriminatory treatment or language (for example on the grounds of...disability...)".

ESPN apologised for any offence caused. The Licensee however said that:

the use of this word in America is not seen as offensive as it is here. As a consequence, this presents UK broadcasters, especially in relation to the coverage of live sport, difficult challenges.

ESPN explained its live coverage of Major League Baseball is via an international feed from the US host broadcaster. The Licensee said that during a live programme, if offensive language is broadcast, the US commentator would immediately apologise . However, in this case, ESPN Limited said the:

US commentator didn't (and wouldn't) apologise because the word spaz in America is largely seen as inoffensive. The Licensee said this word is used [in the USA] to describe someone who is clumsy or un-coordinated and is generally linked with that person being excessively excited or hyperactive.

Ofcom Decision: Breach of rule 2.3

Ofcom acknowledged that ESPN is an established channel broadcasting American sporting events live. Ofcom understands that, in American slang, the term spaz is largely inoffensive. We noted the Licensee's argument that the US commentator was referring solely to the player's physical awkwardness rather than making a derogatory comment about disability. However, in our view, a UK audience, even one familiar with ESPN content, would not automatically have understood the different meaning of the word in the USA and it would therefore have been capable of causing considerable offence. Further, we considered that the fact that the word had been intended to refer to physical awkwardness increased the likelihood that viewers would have assumed that the reference was linked to disability.

ESPN operates under an Ofcom UK broadcasting licence. It must therefore adhere to generally accepted standards. The Licensee must take UK audience expectations into account when transmitting material broadcast live from America. As pointed out above, the word spaz can cause considerable offence to UK viewers and listeners, and we noted that no apology to viewers was broadcast in this case.

On balance, Ofcom's view was that the use of spaz in these particular circumstances was not justified by the context and Rule 2.3 was breached.

PC extremmists have had a whinge at the name of the action movie channel Movies4Men, which is owned by Sony, as offensive and demographic box-ticking gone mad .

The channel, which is available on Freeview, Freesat and Sky, claims that it is dedicated to supplying non-stop entertainment for men and specialises in action, war, westerns and classic films. It also proudly declares on its website that it is one of the last places to find quality drama .

Jamie Graham, editor-at-large of Total Film magazine, claimed the name of the channel was outmoded and offensive :

I think it's wrong for everyone involved. It perpetuates this myth that men like one thing and women like another.

Graham added without a trace of irony at the hypocrisy, that there was still room for Hollywood to produce more films aimed at women.

Marie Berry, founding editor of feminist magazine KnockBack, equally unaware of hypocrisy at her magazine's genderist basis spouted:

Gender as a descriptor gets more and more embarrassing as we try to move towards an equal, balanced society. I hope that, by the time the next generation are in charge of such things, they will cringe at names like this.

American Apparel is  changing tack on its politically incorrect advertising campaigns according to new CEO Paula Schneider. Talking to Business of Fashion, Paola Schneider said:

It doesn't have to be overtly sexual... There's a way to tell our story where it's not offensive. It is an edgy brand. And it will continue to be an edgy brand.

Instead she and her team are going PC and turning to societal issues like LGBTQ rights, anti-bullying, and focus more on ethical production of clothing.

A first step came in the form of using openly gay vogueing teen Brendan Jordan in one of their more recent, and tame, campaigns.

But we won't necessarily be seeing sexless ads from AA, Schneider commented:

It has to be a little sexy. We sell lingerie. We sell hosiery. You just make sure we aren't crossing the line. It should be about empowering women, empowering people.

The fate of Kate Smurthwaite's comedy show, cancelled by Goldsmith's College in London last month is part of a worrying pattern of intimidation and silencing of individuals whose views are deemed "transphobic" or "whorephobic". Most of the people so labelled are feminists or pro-feminist men, some have experience in the sex industry, some are transgender.

Last month, there were calls for the Cambridge Union to withdraw a speaking invitation to Germaine Greer; then the Green party came under pressure to repudiate the philosophy lecturer Rupert Read after he questioned the arguments put forward by some trans-activists. The feminist activist and writer Julie Bindel has been "no-platformed" by the National Union of Students for several years.

"No platforming" used to be a tactic used against self-proclaimed fascists and Holocaust-deniers. But today it is being used to prevent the expression of feminist arguments critical of the sex industry and of some demands made by trans activists. The feminists who hold these views have never advocated or engaged in violence against any group of people. Yet it is argued that the mere presence of anyone said to hold those views is a threat to a protected minority group's safety.

You do not have to agree with the views that are being silenced to find these tactics illiberal and undemocratic. Universities have a particular responsibility to resist this kind of bullying. We call on universities and other organisations to stand up to attempts at intimidation and affirm their support for the basic principles of democratic political exchange.

Beatrix Campbell, Lynne Alderson, Ruth Ahnert, Dr Lucy Allen, Nimko Ali, Dr Kerri Andrews, Lisa Appignanesi, Prof. John Barrell, Prof Mary Beard, Melissa Benn, Rosa Bennathan, Katie Beswick, Dr Sue Black, Prof Jenny Bourne Taylor, Alison Boydell, Fiona Broadfoot, Paul Burston, Dianne Butterworth, Prof Deborah Cameron, Ivy Cameron, Dr Rosie Campbell, Cynthia Cockburn, Anna Coote, Caroline Criado-Perez, Hannah Curtis, Dr Liz Davies, Kim Darwood, Dr Sukhwant Dhaliwal, Jane Diblin, Sarah Ditum, Stella Duffy, Dr Victoria Dutchman-Smith, Louise Evan-Wong, Dr Katharine Edgar, Jayne Egerton, Carol Fox, Kim Graham, Rahila Gupta, Prof Catherine Hall, Prof Jalna Hanmer, Jeremy Hardy, Dr James Harrison, Heather Harvey, Lorrie Hearts, Prof Nicholas Hewitt, Dr Rachel Hewitt, Deborah Hyde, Bridget Irving, Susan Jack, Darren Johnson MLA, Claire Jones, Jane Clare Jones, Judith Jones, Prof Liz Kelly, Karen Hanna Kruzycka, Jenny Landreth, Claire Lazarus, Kate Leigh, Prof Alison Light, Prof Ruth Lister, Dr Julia Long, Sonia Long, Prof Joni Lovenduski, David Lusted, Dr Samantha Lyle, Shakila Maan, Dr Finn Mackay, Nancy Mackeith, Rosina Mcrae, Sarah Maguire, Dr Sarah Mansfield, Elizabeth Mansfield, Heather McRobie, Gia Milinovich, Lucinda Montefiore, Dr Helen Mott, Hannah Mudge, Sonali Naik, Dr Peter Newbon, Jill Nicholls, Sian Norris, Juliet Oosthuysen, Sue O'Sullivan, Femi Otitoju, Ursula Owen, Sue Parrish, Pragna Patel, Louise Pennington, Cat Peters, Prof Jill Radford, Dale Rapley, Dr Rebecca Reilly-Cooper, Dr Victoria Rimell, Roweena Russell, Dr Adam Rutherford, Gita Sahgal, Dr Joan Scanlon, Sandhya Sharma, Vanessa Shaw, Dr Ben Schiller, Prof Sophie Scott, Shelley Silas, Karen Ingala Smith, Prof Francesca Stavrakopoulou, Sian Steans, Mary-Ann Stephenson, Prof Ann Stewart, Marina Strinkovsky, Southall Black Sisters, Julka Szymanska, Felicity Tarnell, Peter Tatchell, Steve Trafford, Dr Sue Tate, Dr Matthew Taunton, Lisa-Marie Taylor, Helen Thompson, Dr Megan Todd, Janet Veitch, Judith Vidal-Hall, Nicky Wallace, Dr Jim Walsh, Liz Waterhouse, Prof Nicole Westmarland, Lisa Whelan, Dr Michael Whitworth, Jim Wild, Dr Heather Williams, Clair Wills, Prof Alan Winfield, Harriet Wistrich, Miranda Yardley

People convicted of Islamophobia and homophobia would be put on a blacklist to warn future employers of past misdemeanours under scary new proposals by Labour.

The shadow home secretary, Yvette Cooper, will on Monday reveal a strategy against  antisemitism, Islamophobia, homophobia and insult of people with disabilities. The package includes making homophobic and disability hate crimes an aggravated criminal offence, ensuring that police treat such offences in the same way as racist hate crimes.

Cooper will outline changes to the criminal records framework whereby such offences will be clearly marked on the criminal records. Currently, records checks do not highlight homophobia, disability or transgender identity as a motivating factor in a conviction, and do not automatically appear in police data used for vetting applicants in sensitive vocations, such as those working with vulnerable people, including the disabled.

Measures to combat the role of social media in disseminating insults will also be unveiled. These include a review of police and guidance from the Crown Prosecution Service to ensure that crimes such as antisemitism on social networks such as Twitter are covered.

Labour would also introduce programmes in schools to tackle antisemitism, Islamophobia, homophobic bullying and targeting of disabled children. We need to look at what more we can do to prevent discrimination, bigotry and hate taking hold in the first place, said Cooper.

 Indonesia has formally complained to Malaysia over an advert for a robot vacuum cleaner which told consumers to Fire your Indonesian maid now .

Indonesia said the advert was very disturbing to the feeling of the people and nation .

The treatment of hundreds of thousands of Indonesian domestic workers in Malaysia has been a repeated source of tension between the two countries.

The original advert for RoboVac, showing a white man relaxing in a chair with the vacuum cleaner nearby, has been taken down online, but had been widely shared on social media, generating complaints from Indonesians.

Indonesian Ambassador Herman Prayitno called on Malaysia to ban the advert altogether, and said Indonesia was considering legal action against the company.

The BBC have responded to complaints about Phil Neville FA Cup punditry during the Arsenal vs brighton Tie.

As usual the BBC responds to complaints without actually detailing what was being complained about.

For the record, Neville said he would smash team-mates in training if he saw them perform a no look pass like Tomas Rosicky's during Arsenal's 3-2 FA Cup win over Brighton and Hove Albion:

If that was a training session and somebody did that, I'd be first over there and I'd probably look to two-foot him or take him out of the game. If somebody did that in training to me, winding me up, I would be straight in there. I'd smash them.'

The BBC responded on their website:

FA Cup Match of the Day, BBC One, 25 January 2015

Complaint

We received complaints from some viewers unhappy with the comments made by Phil Neville during the programme.

BBC Response

When analysing the playing style of Tomas Rosicky, Phil attempted a tongue-in-cheek comment. This comment was not meant to offend in any way, but on reflection, Phil acknowledges that the language he used was unfortunate.

That said, Mark Chapman did immediately challenge him and the tone of the discussion was light-hearted enough to suggest that the panel were not condoning any kind of violence or setting an example to a younger audience.

BBC Sport will, however, remind the team to take extra care during discussions during our live programmes.

Website hosting company GoDaddy has upset puppy lovers. It said that it would pull its latest Super Bowl ad over complaints that it somehow promotes inhumane breeding practices.

In the ad, an adorable golden retriever puppy falls off the back of the truck, then travels day and night to return home to his owners.

I'm so glad you made it home, the puppy's owner says when she greets him. Because I just sold you on this website I built with GoDaddy.com.

The Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals whinged:

If you can buy a puppy online and have it shipped to you the next day, it's likely you're supporting inhumane breeding.

The PC lynch mob bayed for blood on Change.org in petition that raised about 40,000 signatures:

Essentially, Go Daddy is encouraging private breeding/puppy mills while shelter animals wait patiently for their forever homes or worse -- to be euthanized. Animal rights are no laughing matter and to portray them as such is cruel and irresponsible.

GoDaddy CEO Blake Irving responded.

What should have been a fun and funny ad clearly missed the mark and we will not air it.

The Islamists who committed the Charlie Hebdo massacre in Paris should be not be described as terrorists by the BBC, a senior executive at the corporation has said.

Tarik Kafala, the head of BBC Arabic, said the term terrorist was too loaded to describe the actions of the men who killed 12 people in the attack on the French satirical magazine. Kafala told The Independent :

We try to avoid describing anyone as a terrorist or an act as being terrorist. What we try to do is to say that 'two men killed 12 people in an attack on the office of a satirical magazine'. That's enough, we know what that means and what it is.

Terrorism is such a loaded word. The UN has been struggling for more than a decade to define the word and they can't. It is very difficult to. We know what political violence is, we know what murder, bombings and shootings are and we describe them. That's much more revealing, we believe, than using a word like terrorist which people will see as value-laden.

Kafala's are in line with the BBC's editorial guidelines on reporting terrorism. The guidelines state:

[The BBC] does not ban the use of the word. However, we do ask that careful thought is given to its use by a BBC voice. There are ways of conveying the full horror and human consequences of acts of terror without using the word 'terrorist' to describe the perpetrators.

The value judgements frequently implicit in the use of the words 'terrorist' or 'terrorist group' can create inconsistency in their use or, to audiences, raise doubts about our impartiality. It may be better to talk about an apparent act of terror or terrorism than label individuals or a group.

When reporting an attack, the BBC guidelines say it should use words which specifically describe the perpetrator such as bomber , attacker , gunman , kidnapper or militant .

[But such obvious avoidance of attributing terrorists to causes does little except emphasise that the BBC is providing a propaganda slant on the news. It just comes across as politically correct double speak].

We must have the freedom to offend anyone...

Aussie cartoonist Bill Leak on satire, censorship and mocking Muhammad.

24th January 2015. See  article from  spiked-online.com by Brendan O'Neill
 

Enough of the moderate Muslim ...

18th January 2015. See  article from  indexoncensorship.org By Padraig Reidy

It is now eight days since a murderous gang set about killing cartoonists because they had blasphemed and Jews because they were Jews.

Since then, we have gone from revulsion at the acts of the killers to an obsessive focus on the actions of their victims (or at least their victims at Charlie Hebdo: there is relatively little discussion of the slain shoppers in the kosher supermarket).
 

As a Muslim, I know there is no God-given right not to be offended...

18th January 2015. See  article from  indexoncensorship.org by Rashid Razaq

Satire is scary for people who can't live with doubt. Because satire is all about creating doubt

From Je suis Charlie to Nous Sommes Voltaire ...

Despite the outburst of solidarity, free speech is still in the firing line.

16th January 2015. See article from spiked-online.com by Mick Hume
 

Add faithophobia to my crimes

I have no respect for religions that have little respect for me Now is a time to remember that tolerance has to be reciprocal or it is not tolerance at all

15th January 2015. A surprisingly critical  article from  theguardian.com by Suzanne Moore
 

Religion of peace is not a harmless platitude

To face Islamist terror, we must face the facts about Islam's history

15th January 2015. See  article from  spectator.co.uk by Douglas Murray
 

The BBC, Charlie Hebdo and Jesus & Mo

14th January 2015. See  article from  ministryoftruth.me.uk

If, like me, you were watching BBC Question Time on Thursday evening then you will have undoubtedly noticed that the venerable Dimbers dropped something of a bombshell during the opening debate on the Charlie Hebdo murders by referring to BBC editorial guidance which explicitly prohibited the use of images depicting Mohammed in very clear and unequivocal terms:

The Ministry of Truth seeks investigates the BBC's censorship rules about images of Mohammed
 

What if Charlie Hebdo had been published in Britain...

It would have been crushed. Here's how.

14th January 2015. See  article from  spiked-online.com
 

Restore the right to offend...

We must defend the right to be scurrilous. And shocking. And blasphemous. Freedom of speech doesn't mean a thing if we only defend it

14th January 2015. See  article from  brendanoneill.co.uk

Topless women have been a fixture on Page 3 of the Sun for more than four decades, but the popular feature has now been killed off.

Executives at the Sun have decided to quietly shelve the tradition after a baying lynch mob of critics branded it sexist.

Instead of bare breasts, the pictures will now show scantily-clad women wearing bras and pants.

The move was confirmed by The Times, a fellow News UK paper. It is understood that the parent company's chairman Rupert Murdoch signed off on the decision.

Topless models were first introduced by the Sun in 1970, less than a year after Rupert Murdoch bought the title. In recent years, the paper has faced growing criticism from miserable campaigners who claimed the feature was out of date.

According to the Guardian , executives had planned to drop Page 3 quietly, without fanfare. It is understood the change may be reversed if it causes a dramatic drop in sales.

The Sun newspaper's decision has inevitably been welcomed by miserable MPs particularly from the Labour Party.

Education secretary Nicky Morgan, who also holds the women and equalities brief, said the move was long overdue . The Conservative cabinet minister crowed:

This is a long overdue decision and marks a small but significant step towards improving media portrayal of women and girls. I very much hope it remains permanent.

Downing Street refused to be drawn on the issue. A spokesman said it was a matter for the Sun .

The move also received the backing of Liberal Democrat women's and equalities minister Jo Swinson - although she criticised the alternative content in Tuesday's edition.

I am delighted that the old fashioned sexism of Page 3 could soon be a thing of the past. I welcome this apparent step forward from the Sun, but I would encourage its editors to consider whether parading women in bikinis is really a modern reflection of the contribution women make to society.

Labour frontbenchers including the shadow justice secretary Sadiq Khan, the shadow home secretary Yvette Cooper and the former culture secretary Dame Tessa Jowell all tweeted support for the No More Page 3 campaign.

Harriet Harman, the deputy leader of the Labour party, who has long spoken out against the Page 3, said she would ensure that the Sun would not be able to make the announcement quietly. Speaking on her LBC phone-in on Monday evening, Harman bayed:

It will be the Sun moving into the 21st century, if that is the case. Because actually we do think in a newspaper, which is about news, the idea of girls standing there in their knickers with some sort of pseudo-political quote, I mean it really is not the representation of women's role in this country that I want to see.

I've always been against Page 3. But bearing in mind that we've had a lot of discussion about freedom of speech and what people can report, it's my right to say I don't think it's right, I think they should get rid of it. But it is absolutely not the role of any government to ban it. But if they've seen sense, so much the better.

Update: Next!

21st January 2015. See  article from  twitter.com

Well it didn't take long. The man hate group Object seem raring to go against the Daily Star for its topless Star Birds.

Update: Clarifications and Corrections

22nd January 2015. See article from theguardian.com

The Sun has been having fun with the campaigners who seized upon 3rd party reports of the demise of Page 3.

The paper ahas again featured a photograph of a topless model, which appears under a Clarifications and Corrections header and comes after a front-page panel announces: We've had a mammary lapse.

PC campaigners were a bit taken aback with the most notable comment being from Julia Churchill, a No More Page 3 supporter who tweeted:

After #NoMorePage3 it felt like we were taking a good deep breath after being held under water, and now, a punch in the face.

Nevertheless, commentators were confident that the days of Page 3 are ultimately numbered. Sources told the Guardian that the Sun had planned for the demise of Page 3 to pass under the radar. When the Guardian revealed plans to scrap it on Monday, a senior editor quipped privately: If I were the boss, I'd put in a topless pic just to spite everybody.

Jane Harley is primary publishing director at Oxford University Press. She has responded to press reports that the publisher has banned pigs and porn from children's education books on grounds of muslim sensitivities. She wrote:

In order to make an impact around the world, there are other sensitivities that, although not necessarily obvious to some of us, are nonetheless extremely important to others.

While we should be mindful of these cultural sensitivities, a healthy dose of common sense is also required. Cultural taboos must never get in the way of learning needs, which will always be our primary focus. So, for example, a definition of a pig would not be excluded from a dictionary, and we wouldn't dream of editing out a pig character from an historical work of fiction. We also maintain entirely separate guidelines for our academic titles which are relevant to scholarly rather than educational discourse.

...[BUT]...

What we do, however, is consider avoiding references to a range of topics that could be considered sensitive in a way that does not compromise quality, or negatively impact learning. So, for example, if animals are depicted shown in a background illustration, we would think carefully about which animals to choose. In doing so we are able to ensure children remain focused purely on their learning, rather than cultural characteristics.

So Oxford University Press does indeed censor pigs from most contemporary children's books.

From Je suis Charlie to Nous Sommes Voltaire ...

Despite the outburst of solidarity, free speech is still in the firing line.

16th January 2015. See article from spiked-online.com by Mick Hume
 

Add faithophobia to my crimes

I have no respect for religions that have little respect for me Now is a time to remember that tolerance has to be reciprocal or it is not tolerance at all

15th January 2015. A surprisingly critical  article from  theguardian.com by Suzanne Moore
 

Religion of peace is not a harmless platitude

To face Islamist terror, we must face the facts about Islam's history

15th January 2015. See  article from  spectator.co.uk by Douglas Murray
 

The BBC, Charlie Hebdo and Jesus & Mo

14th January 2015. See  article from  ministryoftruth.me.uk

If, like me, you were watching BBC Question Time on Thursday evening then you will have undoubtedly noticed that the venerable Dimbers dropped something of a bombshell during the opening debate on the Charlie Hebdo murders by referring to BBC editorial guidance which explicitly prohibited the use of images depicting Mohammed in very clear and unequivocal terms:

The Ministry of Truth seeks investigates the BBC's censorship rules about images of Mohammed
 

What if Charlie Hebdo had been published in Britain...

It would have been crushed. Here's how.

14th January 2015. See  article from  spiked-online.com
 

Restore the right to offend...

We must defend the right to be scurrilous. And shocking. And blasphemous. Freedom of speech doesn't mean a thing if we only defend it

14th January 2015. See  article from  brendanoneill.co.uk

The PC lynch mob has turned its attention to amusing adverts encouraging drivers to call a cab if they have had enough to drink.

The adverts for Southampton-based West Quay Cars have male and female variants with the latter featuring a 'larger', middle-aged woman with the caption: If I Start To Look Sexy - Book A Taxi.

Miserable members of Southampton University's Feminist Society criticised the advert and called for students to boycott the firm. One campaigner wrote:

It's disgusting that in 2015 sexism is alive and well in Southampton, enough for it to be an acceptable ad campaign, especially in the New Year when companies too often try to make a profit over negative self body image.

The taxi firm denied the poster is sexist, adding it was disappointed with the negative feedback, but apologised to the bullies anyway. Manager Lee Haynes told The Tab:

We apologise for any offence that may have been caused by either of the posters. We refute the claim that either our advertising or West Quay cars as a company is sexist or discriminatory in anyway.

A few Irish people are getting wound up over Channel 4 commissioning a comedy series on the Irish potato famine, a tragedy thought to have cost a million lives.

The sitcom, called Hungry , has been revealed by Dublin-based writer Hugh Travers, who told the Irish Times that we're kind of thinking of it as Shameless in famine Ireland.

Easily offended Dublin councillor David McGuinness claimed the show was intended to embarrass and denigrate one of the most painful periods in Irish history. He whinged:

Jewish people would never endorse making a comedy of the mass extermination of their ancestors at the hands of the Nazis, Cambodians would never support people laughing at what happened to their people at the hands of the Khmer Rouge and the people of Somalia, Ethiopia or Sudan would never accept the plight of their people, through generational famine, being the source of humour in Britain. I am not surprised that it is a British television outlet funding this venture.

Diall O'Dowd, of the Irish-American site Irish Central blog, ludicrously asked: How about a comedy about Ebola with black kids dying on screen and doctors telling funny jokes about them?

Channel 4 said:

We have commissioned a script set in 19th century Ireland by Dublin-based writer Hugh Travers and Irish-based production company Grand Pictures - however this is in the development process and is not currently planned to air.