Dorset MP sparks debate over views on Page 3 girls

Bournemouth Echo: Dorset MP sparks debate over views on Page 3 girls Dorset MP sparks debate over views on Page 3 girls

SOUTH Dorset MP Richard Drax has sparked a heated debate over his views on Page 3 girls.

A letter allegedly written in response to a South Dorset constituent by Mr Drax sparked the issue to be raised in Prime Minister's Question Time this week.

The constituent had written to Mr Drax asking him to add his name to the list of those supporting the 'No More Page 3 Campaign', which is calling on The Sun to remove the page.

The letter of response said: “Thank you for your email of today regarding Page 3 girls in the Sun.

“While I understand that some people are offended at seeing naked breasts, this particular page is something of a national institution, providing the girls with a job and Sun readers with some light and harmless entertainment.

“It certainly pales into insignificance compared to what you can see with ease on the internet and in the more graphic pornographic publications.

“And, in most parts of the UK on a summer's day, finding ladies with their tops off is not a difficult task.

“I certainly do not mean to underestimate you concern, but I think on balance Page 3 girls do no harm and the practice will no doubt die out on its own anyway.”

Speaking to the Dorset Echo Mr Drax said he did not wish to comment on correspondence with constituents as he felt it would be a breach of confidentiality.

He said: “I'm not prepared to comment on private correspondence of any sort because it would be a breach of confidence.”

He added: “I don't comment at all on any correspondence with constituents, because it's confidential.”

The subject was raised in Prime Minister's Question Time by Labour MP Stella Creasy.

She asked: “I am sure that the Prime Minister is as concerned as Labour members are about the 42 per cent increase in long-term unemployment among young women that has taken place on his watch.

“Will he confirm that the reason he does not support the No More Page 3 campaign is that, like his Honourable Friend the member for South Dorset (Richard Drax), he believes that at least Page 3 provides jobs for the girls?”

Mr Cameron did not mention the Page 3 issue in his response but said that there had been a rapid reduction in unemployment in recent months with a million more people back in work.

What do you think? Do you agree with Mr Drax? Or think Page 3 should be abolished? Leave your comments below.

Comments (22)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

1:21pm Thu 12 Dec 13

retry69 says...

Good grief I thought we had outgrown the page 3 syndrome,do people still give that page a second look, is The Sun still in production ? Whats going on outside of these locked doors ?
Good grief I thought we had outgrown the page 3 syndrome,do people still give that page a second look, is The Sun still in production ? Whats going on outside of these locked doors ? retry69

1:21pm Thu 12 Dec 13

crispy_pants says...

There is a freedom in what people want to do and want to buy. At least it's inside the rag. Personally I wouldn't touch the rag if it was the last ever thing to look at.
There is a freedom in what people want to do and want to buy. At least it's inside the rag. Personally I wouldn't touch the rag if it was the last ever thing to look at. crispy_pants

1:39pm Thu 12 Dec 13

Adrian XX says...

Just about every article in The Sun is more offensive than page 3.

They're just breasts. 50% of the world's population have them.
Just about every article in The Sun is more offensive than page 3. They're just breasts. 50% of the world's population have them. Adrian XX

1:52pm Thu 12 Dec 13

retry69 says...

Adrian XX wrote:
Just about every article in The Sun is more offensive than page 3.

They're just breasts. 50% of the world's population have them.
And what have the other 50% got ???????????
[quote][p][bold]Adrian XX[/bold] wrote: Just about every article in The Sun is more offensive than page 3. They're just breasts. 50% of the world's population have them.[/p][/quote]And what have the other 50% got ??????????? retry69

2:00pm Thu 12 Dec 13

High Treason says...

retry69 wrote:
Adrian XX wrote:
Just about every article in The Sun is more offensive than page 3.

They're just breasts. 50% of the world's population have them.
And what have the other 50% got ???????????
Breasts but usually smaller in men except for the overweight.
[quote][p][bold]retry69[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Adrian XX[/bold] wrote: Just about every article in The Sun is more offensive than page 3. They're just breasts. 50% of the world's population have them.[/p][/quote]And what have the other 50% got ???????????[/p][/quote]Breasts but usually smaller in men except for the overweight. High Treason

2:03pm Thu 12 Dec 13

retry69 says...

So 50% have breasts and the other 50% have................
...................b
reasts, it so confusing in the real world that's why I am happy here with my section 17 :)
So 50% have breasts and the other 50% have................ ...................b reasts, it so confusing in the real world that's why I am happy here with my section 17 :) retry69

2:10pm Thu 12 Dec 13

skydriver says...

What drivel.is this news, who cares what Drax thinks!
What drivel.is this news, who cares what Drax thinks! skydriver

2:13pm Thu 12 Dec 13

retry69 says...

skydriver wrote:
What drivel.is this news, who cares what Drax thinks!
Yeah it really is nonsense that's why its treated for what it is.nobody really cares,do they?
[quote][p][bold]skydriver[/bold] wrote: What drivel.is this news, who cares what Drax thinks![/p][/quote]Yeah it really is nonsense that's why its treated for what it is.nobody really cares,do they? retry69

2:44pm Thu 12 Dec 13

Wish_I_was_at_the_beach says...

The easily accessible, violent and graphic nature of internet **** is an issue society should be concerned about, but by saying that Page 3 pales into insignificance in comparison to it Drax totally misses the point about the problem of Page 3.

There should not be a page in a national newspaper regarded, in his words, as a 'national institution' which dehumanises women by sexualising their bodies. It is nothing to do with being offended by naked breasts it is about the underlying message that says women in British society are here to be exploited for your viewing pleasure and are only valued on their appearance.

Has he walked into a newsagent recently and seen the sexually explicit nature of magazine and newspaper displays that children are exposed to? It is not acceptable to allow this inequality in the treatment of women to continue and the existence of Page 3 tells children, our future generations, that this is normal.
The easily accessible, violent and graphic nature of internet **** is an issue society should be concerned about, but by saying that Page 3 pales into insignificance in comparison to it Drax totally misses the point about the problem of Page 3. There should not be a page in a national newspaper regarded, in his words, as a 'national institution' which dehumanises women by sexualising their bodies. It is nothing to do with being offended by naked breasts it is about the underlying message that says women in British society are here to be exploited for your viewing pleasure and are only valued on their appearance. Has he walked into a newsagent recently and seen the sexually explicit nature of magazine and newspaper displays that children are exposed to? It is not acceptable to allow this inequality in the treatment of women to continue and the existence of Page 3 tells children, our future generations, that this is normal. Wish_I_was_at_the_beach

2:49pm Thu 12 Dec 13

retry69 says...

Wish_I_was_at_the_be
ach
wrote:
The easily accessible, violent and graphic nature of internet **** is an issue society should be concerned about, but by saying that Page 3 pales into insignificance in comparison to it Drax totally misses the point about the problem of Page 3.

There should not be a page in a national newspaper regarded, in his words, as a 'national institution' which dehumanises women by sexualising their bodies. It is nothing to do with being offended by naked breasts it is about the underlying message that says women in British society are here to be exploited for your viewing pleasure and are only valued on their appearance.

Has he walked into a newsagent recently and seen the sexually explicit nature of magazine and newspaper displays that children are exposed to? It is not acceptable to allow this inequality in the treatment of women to continue and the existence of Page 3 tells children, our future generations, that this is normal.
Good grief I am safer in here "dehumanising women by sexualising their bodies?" what year is it out there anyway ?
[quote][p][bold]Wish_I_was_at_the_be ach[/bold] wrote: The easily accessible, violent and graphic nature of internet **** is an issue society should be concerned about, but by saying that Page 3 pales into insignificance in comparison to it Drax totally misses the point about the problem of Page 3. There should not be a page in a national newspaper regarded, in his words, as a 'national institution' which dehumanises women by sexualising their bodies. It is nothing to do with being offended by naked breasts it is about the underlying message that says women in British society are here to be exploited for your viewing pleasure and are only valued on their appearance. Has he walked into a newsagent recently and seen the sexually explicit nature of magazine and newspaper displays that children are exposed to? It is not acceptable to allow this inequality in the treatment of women to continue and the existence of Page 3 tells children, our future generations, that this is normal.[/p][/quote]Good grief I am safer in here "dehumanising women by sexualising their bodies?" what year is it out there anyway ? retry69

4:14pm Thu 12 Dec 13

anigel says...

If you are the type of person offended by the Sun's page 3 then there is a very simple answer. Don't buy it.
If you are the type of person offended by the Sun's page 3 then there is a very simple answer. Don't buy it. anigel

4:17pm Thu 12 Dec 13

BoscVegas says...

Wish_I_was_at_the_be
ach
wrote:
The easily accessible, violent and graphic nature of internet **** is an issue society should be concerned about, but by saying that Page 3 pales into insignificance in comparison to it Drax totally misses the point about the problem of Page 3.

There should not be a page in a national newspaper regarded, in his words, as a 'national institution' which dehumanises women by sexualising their bodies. It is nothing to do with being offended by naked breasts it is about the underlying message that says women in British society are here to be exploited for your viewing pleasure and are only valued on their appearance.

Has he walked into a newsagent recently and seen the sexually explicit nature of magazine and newspaper displays that children are exposed to? It is not acceptable to allow this inequality in the treatment of women to continue and the existence of Page 3 tells children, our future generations, that this is normal.
Is your opinion the same on sexualised imagery of men? eg: David Beckham CK adverts.
[quote][p][bold]Wish_I_was_at_the_be ach[/bold] wrote: The easily accessible, violent and graphic nature of internet **** is an issue society should be concerned about, but by saying that Page 3 pales into insignificance in comparison to it Drax totally misses the point about the problem of Page 3. There should not be a page in a national newspaper regarded, in his words, as a 'national institution' which dehumanises women by sexualising their bodies. It is nothing to do with being offended by naked breasts it is about the underlying message that says women in British society are here to be exploited for your viewing pleasure and are only valued on their appearance. Has he walked into a newsagent recently and seen the sexually explicit nature of magazine and newspaper displays that children are exposed to? It is not acceptable to allow this inequality in the treatment of women to continue and the existence of Page 3 tells children, our future generations, that this is normal.[/p][/quote]Is your opinion the same on sexualised imagery of men? eg: David Beckham CK adverts. BoscVegas

4:18pm Thu 12 Dec 13

anigel says...

Wish_I_was_at_the_be
ach
wrote:
The easily accessible, violent and graphic nature of internet **** is an issue society should be concerned about, but by saying that Page 3 pales into insignificance in comparison to it Drax totally misses the point about the problem of Page 3.

There should not be a page in a national newspaper regarded, in his words, as a 'national institution' which dehumanises women by sexualising their bodies. It is nothing to do with being offended by naked breasts it is about the underlying message that says women in British society are here to be exploited for your viewing pleasure and are only valued on their appearance.

Has he walked into a newsagent recently and seen the sexually explicit nature of magazine and newspaper displays that children are exposed to? It is not acceptable to allow this inequality in the treatment of women to continue and the existence of Page 3 tells children, our future generations, that this is normal.
And how many of the women who have appeared on page 3 have you interviewed and had them claim that it dehumanised them and that ever since appearing they are no longer human?
[quote][p][bold]Wish_I_was_at_the_be ach[/bold] wrote: The easily accessible, violent and graphic nature of internet **** is an issue society should be concerned about, but by saying that Page 3 pales into insignificance in comparison to it Drax totally misses the point about the problem of Page 3. There should not be a page in a national newspaper regarded, in his words, as a 'national institution' which dehumanises women by sexualising their bodies. It is nothing to do with being offended by naked breasts it is about the underlying message that says women in British society are here to be exploited for your viewing pleasure and are only valued on their appearance. Has he walked into a newsagent recently and seen the sexually explicit nature of magazine and newspaper displays that children are exposed to? It is not acceptable to allow this inequality in the treatment of women to continue and the existence of Page 3 tells children, our future generations, that this is normal.[/p][/quote]And how many of the women who have appeared on page 3 have you interviewed and had them claim that it dehumanised them and that ever since appearing they are no longer human? anigel

4:23pm Thu 12 Dec 13

ShuttleX says...

Wish_I_was_at_the_be
ach
wrote:
The easily accessible, violent and graphic nature of internet **** is an issue society should be concerned about, but by saying that Page 3 pales into insignificance in comparison to it Drax totally misses the point about the problem of Page 3.

There should not be a page in a national newspaper regarded, in his words, as a 'national institution' which dehumanises women by sexualising their bodies. It is nothing to do with being offended by naked breasts it is about the underlying message that says women in British society are here to be exploited for your viewing pleasure and are only valued on their appearance.

Has he walked into a newsagent recently and seen the sexually explicit nature of magazine and newspaper displays that children are exposed to? It is not acceptable to allow this inequality in the treatment of women to continue and the existence of Page 3 tells children, our future generations, that this is normal.
Whilst you are certainly entitled to your opinion, I definitely don't agree with it. Nobody is forcing these ladies to put their assets on display, and nobody is forcing you to buy the paper. It's not very often I agree with any politician, but I think Drax has it spot on. I am sure in your world, all women would be wearing burkas so as not to flaunt what nature gave them. You better stay away from the beaches in summer too, and keep your kids inside just in case they happen to spot a pair of boobs and become traumatised for life. Thinking about it, you better stay in at night time as well. If you go down any town in the Country, you will be seeing a lot more than a pair of boobs on display.
[quote][p][bold]Wish_I_was_at_the_be ach[/bold] wrote: The easily accessible, violent and graphic nature of internet **** is an issue society should be concerned about, but by saying that Page 3 pales into insignificance in comparison to it Drax totally misses the point about the problem of Page 3. There should not be a page in a national newspaper regarded, in his words, as a 'national institution' which dehumanises women by sexualising their bodies. It is nothing to do with being offended by naked breasts it is about the underlying message that says women in British society are here to be exploited for your viewing pleasure and are only valued on their appearance. Has he walked into a newsagent recently and seen the sexually explicit nature of magazine and newspaper displays that children are exposed to? It is not acceptable to allow this inequality in the treatment of women to continue and the existence of Page 3 tells children, our future generations, that this is normal.[/p][/quote]Whilst you are certainly entitled to your opinion, I definitely don't agree with it. Nobody is forcing these ladies to put their assets on display, and nobody is forcing you to buy the paper. It's not very often I agree with any politician, but I think Drax has it spot on. I am sure in your world, all women would be wearing burkas so as not to flaunt what nature gave them. You better stay away from the beaches in summer too, and keep your kids inside just in case they happen to spot a pair of boobs and become traumatised for life. Thinking about it, you better stay in at night time as well. If you go down any town in the Country, you will be seeing a lot more than a pair of boobs on display. ShuttleX

4:41pm Thu 12 Dec 13

PokesdownMark says...

Whilst there should be no issue at all from plain old nudity and I am generally concerned at the apparent increase in puritanical thinking these days, I have to say I'd prefer page 3 didn't exist. It does objectify women.

But, as someone has said, it is far less of a problem than the content of newspapers themselves. Which are largely based on groundless survey results created by vested interests which feed opinions to the masses which have no truth in reality. The continual promotion of totally false medical and health claims alone should be of significant concern and do measurable actual real damage to people. Also seen is the recent total rubbish about poisonous spiders. Not one story about this supposed new phenomena was true at all. Instead you have reporting about how people have responded to reporting. And so it goes around and around in a self perpetuating race to the bottom. People... just don't buy the rags. Even if they do have a reasonable crossword!
Whilst there should be no issue at all from plain old nudity and I am generally concerned at the apparent increase in puritanical thinking these days, I have to say I'd prefer page 3 didn't exist. It does objectify women. But, as someone has said, it is far less of a problem than the content of newspapers themselves. Which are largely based on groundless survey results created by vested interests which feed opinions to the masses which have no truth in reality. The continual promotion of totally false medical and health claims alone should be of significant concern and do measurable actual real damage to people. Also seen is the recent total rubbish about poisonous spiders. Not one story about this supposed new phenomena was true at all. Instead you have reporting about how people have responded to reporting. And so it goes around and around in a self perpetuating race to the bottom. People... just don't buy the rags. Even if they do have a reasonable crossword! PokesdownMark

5:10pm Thu 12 Dec 13

Peroni says...

Who cares , if you don't like it ...don't buy it.
Like people who moan about TV programes ......use the OFF button !
See more breasts on the beach .....but not as nice !
As for the Sun ......this is just a rag that likes to build people up then destroy them ...... Quite sad realy
Who cares , if you don't like it ...don't buy it. Like people who moan about TV programes ......use the OFF button ! See more breasts on the beach .....but not as nice ! As for the Sun ......this is just a rag that likes to build people up then destroy them ...... Quite sad realy Peroni

8:16pm Thu 12 Dec 13

Derf says...

Wish_I_was_at_the_be
ach
wrote:
The easily accessible, violent and graphic nature of internet **** is an issue society should be concerned about, but by saying that Page 3 pales into insignificance in comparison to it Drax totally misses the point about the problem of Page 3.

There should not be a page in a national newspaper regarded, in his words, as a 'national institution' which dehumanises women by sexualising their bodies. It is nothing to do with being offended by naked breasts it is about the underlying message that says women in British society are here to be exploited for your viewing pleasure and are only valued on their appearance.

Has he walked into a newsagent recently and seen the sexually explicit nature of magazine and newspaper displays that children are exposed to? It is not acceptable to allow this inequality in the treatment of women to continue and the existence of Page 3 tells children, our future generations, that this is normal.
be a poppet and put the kettle on...
[quote][p][bold]Wish_I_was_at_the_be ach[/bold] wrote: The easily accessible, violent and graphic nature of internet **** is an issue society should be concerned about, but by saying that Page 3 pales into insignificance in comparison to it Drax totally misses the point about the problem of Page 3. There should not be a page in a national newspaper regarded, in his words, as a 'national institution' which dehumanises women by sexualising their bodies. It is nothing to do with being offended by naked breasts it is about the underlying message that says women in British society are here to be exploited for your viewing pleasure and are only valued on their appearance. Has he walked into a newsagent recently and seen the sexually explicit nature of magazine and newspaper displays that children are exposed to? It is not acceptable to allow this inequality in the treatment of women to continue and the existence of Page 3 tells children, our future generations, that this is normal.[/p][/quote]be a poppet and put the kettle on... Derf

8:19pm Thu 12 Dec 13

retry69 says...

Two sugars please :)
Two sugars please :) retry69

8:36pm Thu 12 Dec 13

ashleycross says...

Page three pushes babies into having to be bottle fed because they make women too ashamed of their breasts to be able to feed their babies properly.
It isn't harmless, it can cause mental health problems for the girls modelling.
Page three pushes babies into having to be bottle fed because they make women too ashamed of their breasts to be able to feed their babies properly. It isn't harmless, it can cause mental health problems for the girls modelling. ashleycross

8:46pm Thu 12 Dec 13

retry69 says...

O.M.G
O.M.G retry69

9:49pm Thu 12 Dec 13

Adrian XX says...

Wish_I_was_at_the_be
ach
wrote:
The easily accessible, violent and graphic nature of internet **** is an issue society should be concerned about, but by saying that Page 3 pales into insignificance in comparison to it Drax totally misses the point about the problem of Page 3.

There should not be a page in a national newspaper regarded, in his words, as a 'national institution' which dehumanises women by sexualising their bodies. It is nothing to do with being offended by naked breasts it is about the underlying message that says women in British society are here to be exploited for your viewing pleasure and are only valued on their appearance.

Has he walked into a newsagent recently and seen the sexually explicit nature of magazine and newspaper displays that children are exposed to? It is not acceptable to allow this inequality in the treatment of women to continue and the existence of Page 3 tells children, our future generations, that this is normal.
Women's bodies ARE sexual as are men's. That's nature. Sexualising is something you can do to a robot, but not to a human who is already a sexual being. Sexuality is the means by which we stay alive - you cannot deny it. It should be celebrated.

And I think it is everything to do with being offended by naked breasts. You would not use the "exploitation argument" if (clothed) women were used in great works of art. Those works of art hang in a gallery for everyone's viewing pleasure and there is nothing wrong with it.
[quote][p][bold]Wish_I_was_at_the_be ach[/bold] wrote: The easily accessible, violent and graphic nature of internet **** is an issue society should be concerned about, but by saying that Page 3 pales into insignificance in comparison to it Drax totally misses the point about the problem of Page 3. There should not be a page in a national newspaper regarded, in his words, as a 'national institution' which dehumanises women by sexualising their bodies. It is nothing to do with being offended by naked breasts it is about the underlying message that says women in British society are here to be exploited for your viewing pleasure and are only valued on their appearance. Has he walked into a newsagent recently and seen the sexually explicit nature of magazine and newspaper displays that children are exposed to? It is not acceptable to allow this inequality in the treatment of women to continue and the existence of Page 3 tells children, our future generations, that this is normal.[/p][/quote]Women's bodies ARE sexual as are men's. That's nature. Sexualising is something you can do to a robot, but not to a human who is already a sexual being. Sexuality is the means by which we stay alive - you cannot deny it. It should be celebrated. And I think it is everything to do with being offended by naked breasts. You would not use the "exploitation argument" if (clothed) women were used in great works of art. Those works of art hang in a gallery for everyone's viewing pleasure and there is nothing wrong with it. Adrian XX

11:12am Fri 13 Dec 13

Spidermonkey1970 says...

You don't have to buy the Sun to be affected by Page 3.

People buy it, read it next to you on a bus or train, discard it - open on page 3 - maybe by accident, maybe to intimidate. It's there.

It's meant to be a family newspaper and for the children in families where the Sun is the daily newspaper, they are getting the message from an early age that women are there for sexual gratification. It's soft ****, for which there is no place in a family newspaper.

A beautiful pair of breasts is indeed a sight to behold, not offensive at all, not to me anyway, but pointing at me out of page 3 of a newspaper under heading "Saucy Sam" or whatever fantastic bit of alliteration that day's editorial team have taken ages to come up with? Nope, it's just plain wrong! Future generations will look back at Page 3 in the way that we now do about Jimmy Saville.

Since the age of 11 - yes 11 - I remember it well, I was terrified and will never forget it. (Sorry guys - I'm sure you didn't realise I was 11 and what that makes you). I have had obscenities screamed at me by men from cars, been scared witless by unpleasant leery men on public transport, in offices, building sites - you name it. "Show us your tits" - nice. I was about 14 when that started. As I get older, it gets less frequent - "I should count myself lucky" I hear you cry. "Yeah, you're too old and ugly to wolf whistle at now"

I am the same age as Page 3 and I have only ever known a world where women are objectified and misogyny is rife (see previous hilarious comments). I never went out wearing short skirts (after all that's much easier than asking some men not rape or sexually assault or harass us). I am not a lesbian, or frigid, I choose to have long hair and I sometimes wear bright red lipstick.

Yet, as a woman who has the audacity to question whether in 2013 Page 3 ought to quietly disappear - none of the Page 3 campaigns is asking for it to be banned - I know that I will be vilified and accused of being some kind of Birkenstock-wearing feminist extremist prude who hates men.

I love men!

But you cannot get away from the fact that women have been putting up with this continuous low level everyday sexism from men for years and I am just so BORED with it. Richard Drax may choose not to sign the letter to David Dinsmore of course. He could have made any argument about the free press, but he didn't. He chose not to do so because it is a "National Institution" and because it provides "jobs for the girls" which shows him for what he is, an out of date dinosaur.

Tyrannosaurus Drax.
You don't have to buy the Sun to be affected by Page 3. People buy it, read it next to you on a bus or train, discard it - open on page 3 - maybe by accident, maybe to intimidate. It's there. It's meant to be a family newspaper and for the children in families where the Sun is the daily newspaper, they are getting the message from an early age that women are there for sexual gratification. It's soft ****, for which there is no place in a family newspaper. A beautiful pair of breasts is indeed a sight to behold, not offensive at all, not to me anyway, but pointing at me out of page 3 of a newspaper under heading "Saucy Sam" or whatever fantastic bit of alliteration that day's editorial team have taken ages to come up with? Nope, it's just plain wrong! Future generations will look back at Page 3 in the way that we now do about Jimmy Saville. Since the age of 11 - yes 11 - I remember it well, I was terrified and will never forget it. (Sorry guys - I'm sure you didn't realise I was 11 and what that makes you). I have had obscenities screamed at me by men from cars, been scared witless by unpleasant leery men on public transport, in offices, building sites - you name it. "Show us your tits" - nice. I was about 14 when that started. As I get older, it gets less frequent - "I should count myself lucky" I hear you cry. "Yeah, you're too old and ugly to wolf whistle at now" I am the same age as Page 3 and I have only ever known a world where women are objectified and misogyny is rife (see previous hilarious comments). I never went out wearing short skirts (after all that's much easier than asking some men not rape or sexually assault or harass us). I am not a lesbian, or frigid, I choose to have long hair and I sometimes wear bright red lipstick. Yet, as a woman who has the audacity to question whether in 2013 Page 3 ought to quietly disappear - none of the Page 3 campaigns is asking for it to be banned - I know that I will be vilified and accused of being some kind of Birkenstock-wearing feminist extremist prude who hates men. I love men! But you cannot get away from the fact that women have been putting up with this continuous low level everyday sexism from men for years and I am just so BORED with it. Richard Drax may choose not to sign the letter to David Dinsmore of course. He could have made any argument about the free press, but he didn't. He chose not to do so because it is a "National Institution" and because it provides "jobs for the girls" which shows him for what he is, an out of date dinosaur. Tyrannosaurus Drax. Spidermonkey1970

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree