Thursday, 29 April 2010

You gotta fight.... for your right... for booooobies. Allegedly.



Today's Page 3 is quite something (and we can probably expect further examples to rival this and Monday's absurdity as we get closer to election day)

This is such a startling array of shameless deception and doublethink it's hard to know where to begin, but let's start with what should be obvious to anyone reading this with both hands:

- These two MPs would not need to call for a coalition against Page 3 if one already existed, and the Sun clearly implies that it does on Page 3.

- Even if we're to accept the fallacy that the opinions of these two MPs are now the policy of their respective parties, the Sun is turning a blind eye to Tory MP Nadine Dorries, for example, and her recent calls for a more modesty in print. (For the record: Nadine's abortion nonsense has formal backing that goes right to the top; her typically shouty outburst about women's bits does not.)

- Of course, the Sun have confirmed that the Tories won't be backing this policy that doesn't really exist, but you'll note there's no response from the other parties... it's almost as if the Sun didn't bother to ask (or didn't bother to report the answer). Let me guess; they called Cameron's head of communications, Andy Coulson, former editor Sun Sunday sister title News of the World, who shockingly confirmed to the paper blatantly siding with his party that they with would not be backing a ban on the jiggling jewel in their crown. (This assumes, of course, that Coulson didn't engineer this little masterpiece in the first place.)

- Human Rights Act? Would this be the same Human Rights Act that the Sun has vowed to scrap? [1, 2]

- If these models want to guarantee that they are free to speak their mind without hindrance on Page 3, they will probably want to start with their editor. Assuming, of course, that this is their opinion and not another example of young women being exploited as mouthpieces for Rupert Murdoch. They may not have these concerns at all, though they'd be right to.

- As for this 'plan' being "barely credible", well, I have to agree with them there. It's barely even a plan.

This tabloid is plumbing the depths in their panic. It will be worth seeing how much they're willing to bank on Page 3 in coming days (while simultaneously maintaining that it's a 'harmless little joke').

Page 3 :: Girls + Words from Tim Ireland on Vimeo.




PS - Dick Mandrake rocks. That is all.

4 comments:

Sim-O said...

I'm just guessing but I'm sure the right to express yourself without hindrance from government doesn't include doing it naked (or semi-naked) in public as is basically happening on page 3... Presuming the girls are expressing themselves...

jamesmcanespy said...

It would be Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. She might be referring to one of the SECTIONs of the Human Rights Act. I mean come on, credit where credit's due.

James said...

I wish the Sun would make their minds up about the Lib Dems. Are they evil perv scum who want to let 16 year-olds see and star in porn, or are they stuffy lefty fuddy-duddies who want to ban everyone from looking at porn?

Daniel Hoffmann-Gill said...

Where do I sign?