The Sun have for the past year or more been going through an extended period of nonsensical self-mockery on Page 3, having the topless ladies quote poets, philosophers and what have you as if the whole matter of Page 3 propaganda has been some harmless joke.
Sorry, but no. Here's what appeared on Monday.
If we take The Sun at their word when they say that Page 3 is about empowerment, then unless we are to accept that this tabloid's long-standing hostility against the Human Rights Act has been a harmless joke, we must conclude that this is the topless model's own opinion, and she has chosen to use her appearance on Page 3 to express it sincerely. So let's have her appear on Newsnight to defend it.
I bet she can't. I bet, at best, she'll walk in briefed by editors but unable to think on her feet, because these aren't her thoughts.
If the women on Page 3 are to appear beside an editorial that's written in their name, then it should be written by them and based on their own opinion. Anything less is crass exploitation, even if they don't show their tits in the process.
Very good point. Nice baps though.
Why doesn’t Hollie pack her stuff (she doesn’t have too many clothes anyway, apparently), move to a country without human rights protection and then try to publish her photos there: http://andreasmoser.wordpress.com/2011/02/09/human-rights-with-hollie/
andreasmoser Yes, she could move to one of those countries we've seen in the news lately such as Egypt, Bahrain, Yemen, Algeria, with scant regard to human rights. Or possibly (in case this appears to be an anti-Islam posting) North Korea, Burma, Papua New Guinea. Used to be lots of countries in South America too though they seem to be increasing their human rights. So are we in favour of these countries having human rights or does it not matter because they're forrin?
" Used to be lots of countries in South America too though they seem to be increasing their human rights"
You just can't get the CIA staff these days.
Post a Comment