• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

A Political Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
People who aren't committed to their religion won't use the "God's will" theory. They would rather say that there was a mistake.



It is sexist, because it's mostly guys commenting on the subject. I would appreciate it a lot if the women on the forum would chip in on this topic. With that said, I don't think the comments made are outdated. Actually I think it's gone rather well so far with regards to keeping it civil with many different angles and viewpoints. The topic of abortion raises a lot of debate, and usually there is an outcry when there are a difference of opinion on this subject.

I don't think it's gone because the editors of The Sun all of a sudden think it's too sexist for the modern world. It's gone because with the ease of access to *ahem* free materials that do the job better page 3 no longer serves any purpose and doesn't bring the paper any business they wouldn't get without it. Might as well cut it and try to get some good press by saying they're moving into the modern world, which of course is a huge untruth.

Personally I don't see anything particularly wrong with page 3 as a basic idea. The way society treats the girls outside of magazine can be pretty shameful however, for example all the **** Claire Tully got.

The debate is a classic exam of the lack of common vision in modern feminism. For every woman saying that page 3 is demeaning to women there's another supporting the "free the nipple" (yes, this is an actual thing) campaign.
 
I don't think it's gone because the editors of The Sun all of a sudden think it's too sexist for the modern world. It's gone because with the ease of access to *ahem* free materials that do the job better page 3 no longer serves any purpose and doesn't bring the paper any business they wouldn't get without it. Might as well cut it and try to get some good press by saying they're moving into the modern world, which of course is a huge untruth.

Personally I don't see anything particularly wrong with page 3 as a basic idea. The way society treats the girls outside of magazine can be pretty shameful however, for example all the **** Claire Tully got.

The debate is a classic exam of the lack of common vision in modern feminism. For every woman saying that page 3 is demeaning to women there's another supporting the "free the nipple" (yes, this is an actual thing) campaign.

That is correct. But the lack of feminism in this thread's debate is because there are zero comments made from females. Males predominantly won't go the feminist approach, especially when they have raging hormones and aren't homosexual. I am one of them, I love me some boobies. And while the Sun's page 3 has been at an all time low, it's certainly not the case in South Africa where our own version, which is the Afrikaans translation for the sun = Die Son, is selling like hotcakes. The main reason being that internet is not as freely accessable in SA, and the Newspaper is very cheap.
 
That is correct. But the lack of feminism in this thread's debate is because there are zero comments made from females. Males predominantly won't go the feminist approach, especially when they have raging hormones and aren't homosexual. I am one of them, I love me some boobies. And while the Sun's page 3 has been at an all time low, it's certainly not the case in South Africa where our own version, which is the Afrikaans translation for the sun = Die Son, is selling like hotcakes. The main reason being that internet is not as freely accessable in SA, and the Newspaper is very cheap.


I wouldn't say this is the main reason. I've always put it down to the fact that it's hard to get seriously behind a cause that doesn't really affect you. Hence celebrities taking up causes like cancer research, etc. when they or a loved one gets affected.
 
I don't think it's gone because the editors of The Sun all of a sudden think it's too sexist for the modern world. It's gone because with the ease of access to *ahem* free materials that do the job better page 3 no longer serves any purpose and doesn't bring the paper any business they wouldn't get without it. Might as well cut it and try to get some good press by saying they're moving into the modern world, which of course is a huge untruth.

Personally I don't see anything particularly wrong with page 3 as a basic idea. The way society treats the girls outside of magazine can be pretty shameful however, for example all the **** Claire Tully got.

The debate is a classic exam of the lack of common vision in modern feminism. For every woman saying that page 3 is demeaning to women there's another supporting the "free the nipple" (yes, this is an actual thing) campaign.
Those are two completely different situations. Page 3 is inherently sexual, intended for male consumption. It picks the most attractive women to set the bar for female sexuality. "Free the nipple" is not sexual in any way and is done to take the sexuality out of breasts.

Page 3 is just part of the wider problem where the sexual liberation of women (a good thing) has made way to women being commodities (a bad thing). (There are at least two double standards I can think of in relation to this: the first is the "stud-whore" double standard, the two different ways that men and women are described for being sexually liberal; but also that women are caught in a double standard where they are simultaneously expected to be chaste and sexually liberal.) Page 3 is softcore porn; it should be treated similarly to the way in which all other porn is - to be seen in private, perhaps discussed between hormonal teenagers - not as a cultural institution. I think it feeds into the issue that female sexuality is outwardly judged, where women are judged on their appearance far more often than men. (Couple of examples: (1) how women are judged (and often blamed) on how much/how little clothing that they wear, and (2) how women are judged on their appearance in the media much more often, with more references to what they are wearing.)

Of course, the more tangible issue is how page 3 relates to body image.

That is correct. But the lack of feminism in this thread's debate is because there are zero comments made from females. Males predominantly won't go the feminist approach, especially when they have raging hormones and aren't homosexual. I am one of them, I love me some boobies. And while the Sun's page 3 has been at an all time low, it's certainly not the case in South Africa where our own version, which is the Afrikaans translation for the sun = Die Son, is selling like hotcakes. The main reason being that internet is not as freely accessable in SA, and the Newspaper is very cheap.
Whether or not men can identify as feminists is a fairly complicated and somewhat unrelated matter. (There are compelling arguments for both sides of this.)

But I do think that it's important for men to engage with feminist issues, even if they don't identify as a feminist. Men are wrapped up in the issues that face women, often as perpetrators. If you're into egalitarianism, then that alone should be good enough a reason to engage with feminist politics. There's another angle though: I think that men are often failed by the patriarchal political narrative. How often do you hear of men complaining about their parental rights, especially in divorces? All of this is wrapped up in the expectation of women to be the primary caregiver in the family unit. I think that these kind of issues can be addressed by feminism, for the mutual benefit of men and women.
 
Those are two completely different situations. Page 3 is inherently sexual, intended for male consumption. It picks the most attractive women to set the bar for female sexuality. "Free the nipple" is not sexual in any way and is done to take the sexuality out of breasts.

Nope, 'free the nipple' isn't there to take the sexuality out of breasts in any way. It's there to make their appearance normal in daily life. Put it this way: Every male fashion magazine will have some topless lad in it marketing a cologne or something similar. Is he a sex symbol? Absolutely. Is this also socially acceptable? 100% The aim of the free the nipple campaign isn't to desexualize breasts, but rather to remove the prudishness surrounding the sexuality associated with them.

Page 3 is just part of the wider problem where the sexual liberation of women (a good thing) has made way to women being commodities (a bad thing). (There are at least two double standards I can think of in relation to this: the first is the "stud-whore" double standard, the two different ways that men and women are described for being sexually liberal; but also that women are caught in a double standard where they are simultaneously expected to be chaste and sexually liberal.) Page 3 is softcore porn; it should be treated similarly to the way in which all other porn is - to be seen in private, perhaps discussed between hormonal teenagers - not as a cultural institution.

This is a relatively new cultural outlook, only really dating back to the Victorian age. And in my mind it's an unhealthy one. This 'behind closed doors' mentality leads to half of the problem. Sexuality becomes something out of the ordinary and, and therefore women who want to go round sleeping with a load of guys are doing something mildly perverse, something that society isn't happy with being in the open.

I think it feeds into the issue that female sexuality is outwardly judged, where women are judged on their appearance far more often than men. (Couple of examples: (1) how women are judged (and often blamed) on how much/how little clothing that they wear, and (2) how women are judged on their appearance in the media much more often, with more references to what they are wearing.)

I'm not sure if this is true. Lots of the rags have articles about male celebrities being in or out of shape, balding, greying, generally looking like ****, and so on. The vast majority of the readership of those publications (and the websites that serve the same function) are female though, so they focus on women.
 
Cameron and May now have the ear of the European Union on their quest to limit privacy. Link

Things never change...

The House engaged on a difficult operation, that is, legislating in haste and under the immediate pressure of indignation on matters which touch the fundamental liberties of the subject; for both haste and anger are ill counsellors, especially when one is legislating for the rights of the subject

November 1974
 
A great way to make savings in the UK economy would be to slash legal aid as all it does is make ambulance chasers rich representing career criminals. This would save millions a year and would mean we would not have to make cuts elsewhere such as the NHS but it will never happen as most MPs trained and practised law before becoming MPs so there is no way they would upset the old boys network.
 
A great way to make savings in the UK economy would be to slash legal aid as all it does is make ambulance chasers rich representing career criminals. This would save millions a year and would mean we would not have to make cuts elsewhere such as the NHS but it will never happen as most MPs trained and practised law before becoming MPs so there is no way they would upset the old boys network.

People are innocent until proven guilty so why should they not have legal aid?

As someone who works in the court system I see a lot of people who have come from poor backgrounds were they have nothing - that is nothing to do with them, or there families, it is due to the sheer difference in the rich and the poor of the UK.

The UK is one of the most unequal societies in the world.
 
People are innocent until proven guilty so why should they not have legal aid?

As someone who works in the court system I see a lot of people who have come from poor backgrounds were they have nothing - that is nothing to do with them, or there families, it is due to the sheer difference in the rich and the poor of the UK.

The UK is one of the most unequal societies in the world.

Yeah ok so the poor need legal aid yes? As someone who works in the courts you will know the extorant prices ambulance chasers charge for their services, hundreds of pounds just to write a letter, thousands for a day in court its a gravy train and barristers know it. The human rights act added another wonderful chance of 2nd home ownership among members of the legal profession and then we have the compo culture. Oh thick muppet that tripped over a kerb, your not a thick muppet your actually a victim! Let us represent you for a massive commission and you can have a few grand to blow on a holiday to Tenefife and the rest of the population has to suffer the threat of being sued for not sweeping leaves up at the front of the house and health and safety melt down.

Its a bloated, over priced profession that needs tackling as its costing the tax payer far too much when you see the wages nurses struggle on.
 
Yeah ok so the poor need legal aid yes? As someone who works in the courts you will know the extorant prices ambulance chasers charge for their services, hundreds of pounds just to write a letter, thousands for a day in court its a gravy train and barristers know it. The human rights act added another wonderful chance of 2nd home ownership among members of the legal profession and then we have the compo culture. Oh thick muppet that tripped over a kerb, your not a thick muppet your actually a victim! Let us represent you for a massive commission and you can have a few grand to blow on a holiday to Tenefife and the rest of the population has to suffer the threat of being sued for not sweeping leaves up at the front of the house and health and safety melt down.

Its a bloated, over priced profession that needs tackling as its costing the tax payer far too much when you see the wages nurses struggle on.

What do you mean ambulance chasers? Talking about accidents etc?

The majority of legal aid doesn't go to that cause.

Companies who deal with people who have accidents is a problem but legal aid isn't a big factor in that.

Legal aid is given if you have suffered domestic violence, if there is a possibility of jail and some other reasons.

The main issue is the tax avoiding rich people and the lies about the distribution of money.

For example I am always unsure about the benefit of having a state pension
 
Last edited:
What do you mean ambulance chasers? Talking about accidents etc?

The majority of legal aid doesn't go to that cause

No that goes on career criminals appeals and on hearing to deport hate preachers who claim legal aid and get protection from MI5 because we need to protect their human rights.

To be fair I added the accident bit as a general rant against the legal profession but the legal aid bill is far to high as the people being paid by it are charging too much.
 
No that goes on career criminals appeals and on hearing to deport hate preachers who claim legal aid and get protection from MI5 because we need to protect their human rights.

To be fair I added the accident bit as a general rant against the legal profession but the legal aid bill is far to high as the people being paid by it are charging too much.

I agree that funding the bill for people to be deported is not good. But the only reason people realistically go into crime is because of their upbringing and lack of prospects.

I work in Kent and the majority of people who come through my doors are from east and south east Kent which are the most rundown places in the region - that can't be a coincidence.

In addition the whole law situation is stupid. The government has handbooks regarding sentences. For example anyone who is caught importing drugs will get at least 5 years in custody, though a sex offender or someone who assaults others may get a community order or a shorter sentence.
 
I agree that funding the bill for people to be deported is not good. But the only reason people realistically go into crime is because of their upbringing and lack of prospects.

I work in Kent and the majority of people who come through my doors are from east and south east Kent which are the most rundown places in the region - that can't be a coincidence.

In addition the whole law situation is stupid. The government has handbooks regarding sentences. For example anyone who is caught importing drugs will get at least 5 years in custody, though a sex offender or someone who assaults others may get a community order or a shorter sentence.

That is an excuse for the most part but it does make a difference I agree, it doesnt excuse the price barristers charge for their services, its shocking, I could rant on about the prices they charge you for moving house etc but this is about legal aid and I will keep it at that.
 
In addition the whole law situation is stupid. The government has handbooks regarding sentences. For example anyone who is caught importing drugs will get at least 5 years in custody, though a sex offender or someone who assaults others may get a community order or a shorter sentence.
I agree with this but, in Ireland anyway, the court of Criminal Appeal were attempting to rectify this by giving guidelines to sentencing in their judgements. Whether or not the Court of Appeal, who have replaced the Court of Criminal Appeal, will continue to do this will be very interesting as it seems to be a very obvious thing to do. As for the slamming of the legal profession, I am honestly of the opinion that they do more good than bad, especially this side of the Atlantic. I agree with Tallshort that compensation culture should be stopped but it would be incredibly difficult and possibly illegal to do so considering the amount of precedent Tort law is protected by, I don't really understand what you mean about legal aid though.
 
I agree with this but, in Ireland anyway, the court of Criminal Appeal were attempting to rectify this by giving guidelines to sentencing in their judgements. Whether or not the Court of Appeal, who have replaced the Court of Criminal Appeal, will continue to do this will be very interesting as it seems to be a very obvious thing to do. As for the slamming of the legal profession, I am honestly of the opinion that they do more good than bad, especially this side of the Atlantic. I agree with Tallshort that compensation culture should be stopped but it would be incredibly difficult and possibly illegal to do so considering the amount of precedent Tort law is protected by, I don't really understand what you mean about legal aid though.

Tort is very much necessary.
 
Last edited:
I agree with this but, in Ireland anyway, the court of Criminal Appeal were attempting to rectify this by giving guidelines to sentencing in their judgements. Whether or not the Court of Appeal, who have replaced the Court of Criminal Appeal, will continue to do this will be very interesting as it seems to be a very obvious thing to do. As for the slamming of the legal profession, I am honestly of the opinion that they do more good than bad, especially this side of the Atlantic. I agree with Tallshort that compensation culture should be stopped but it would be incredibly difficult and possibly illegal to do so considering the amount of precedent Tort law is protected by, I don't really understand what you mean about legal aid though.

Legal aid is being exploited by:

1. Career criminals
2.Criminals/orrible people that need deporting
3. and most of all the people charging the government so much for representing this lot.

All areas of public service be it the NHS, local sevices, the military, inner city projects etc have all faced cuts since 2008 but no one has touched legal aid as making sure drug dealers get representation for thier 10th appeal hearing is far more important than paying someone to visit the elderly in the local community.
 
Legal aid is being exploited by:

1. Career criminals
2.Criminals/orrible people that need deporting
3. and most of all the people charging the government so much for representing this lot.

All areas of public service be it the NHS, local sevices, the military, inner city projects etc have all faced cuts since 2008 but no one has touched legal aid as making sure drug dealers get representation for thier 10th appeal hearing is far more important than paying someone to visit the elderly in the local community.

Alright, that's a very fair point but, from a strictly legal point of view, it is the fairest way to have legal aid. As stated by Gavin we're innocent until proven guilty, if you restrict the scope and efficiency in which these people work we would witness more and more innocent people doing time which is what the law really attempts to avoid. The cost of bringing cuts to this area would also be very significant due to the time it would take up in Parliament and the legislation that would be required*. Law is the most important aspect of Western society and it's authenticity shouldn't be risked for relatively small gains.

*certainly in Ireland anyway, who's legal system is greatly influenced by your own.

BG8, I agree completely but the courts constantly waste time and money on bogus claims because of compensation culture, it's almost impossible to fix in common law jurisdictions though. The French have a better, more efficient and harsher, system in comparison.
 
Alright, that's a very fair point but, from a strictly legal point of view, it is the fairest way to have legal aid. As stated by Gavin we're innocent until proven guilty, if you restrict the scope and efficiency in which these people work we would witness more and more innocent people doing time which is what the law really attempts to avoid. The cost of bringing cuts to this area would also be very significant due to the time it would take up in Parliament and the legislation that would be required*. Law is the most important aspect of Western society and it's authenticity shouldn't be risked for relatively small gains.

*certainly in Ireland anyway, who's legal system is greatly influenced by your own.

BG8, I agree completely but the courts constantly waste time and money on bogus claims because of compensation culture, it's almost impossible to fix in common law jurisdictions though. The French have a better, more efficient and harsher, system in comparison.

Sorry at some point common sense must be used and I dont have an issue with someone getting legal aid what I object to is the amount of money paid to people in the legal profession who are more than happy to let things drag out in lengthy court cases at the cost of the tax payer.

Everyone is facing cuts from the public purse apart from these people who make the system work for themselves, making a ton of tax payers money all the time claiming they are doing whats right and proper. Its a bloody con and the sooner they are brought to task the better.
 
To quote Sir Menzies Campbell: Welcome to test match cricket

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Top