UK Nutter News

The MTV reality show Geordie Shore returns on Tuesday. Its first series caused a nutter outcry for having fun with flesh-baring, booze-fuelled debauchery

Newcastle Central MP Chi Onwurah has resumed her long running whinge against the programme for portraying Newcastle as the binge drinking capital of Britain. She spouted:

Geordie Shore is not representative of Newcastle or Geordies.

If people feel that the show does not represent Newcastle they should complain to Ofcom.

However it does seem that drinking is in fact going on in Newcastle and that the city has more female drinkers than most. The local paper, the Chronicle, reported a few days ago that more people in the North East are dying from drink-related illnesses than ever before. Figures from the Office of National Statistics showed a drinker dies every 18 hours, and the number of women dying from alcohol is the second highest in the country.

Colin Shevills, director of Balance, the North East Alcohol Office, said:

Geordie Shore is a perfect example of how drinking at dangerous levels is portrayed as normal. If last year's series is anything to go by, we will see a hand-picked cast of easily influenced young North Easterners who have been sold the lie that it is perfectly normal and acceptable to drink too much, too often.

Whether it is aware of what it is doing or not, the production and broadcast companies responsible for Geordie Shore are saying to our young people, you can't have fun, be successful or be popular with the opposite sex unless you drink to excess.

The Very Reverend Chris Dalliston, Dean of Newcastle, also branded the show a backward step for the city:

Going out and getting drunk is now the least attractive aspect of where we live and TV programmes like this do us a huge disservice.

A coalition of women's groups have argued that such highly sexualised images presented as part of their submission to the Leveson Inquiry were ubiquitous in the UK media, and called for press censorship to tackle relentless sexism in some areas of the press.

Four nutter groups, Eaves, End Violence Against Women, Object and Equality Now called on Leveson to back a ban on sexualised images in newspapers, arguing they would not be broadcast on television before the 9pm watershed.

The groups also accused some media outlets of perpetuating myths about rape, which they argued could prevent victims reporting the crime, and called for a tougher regulatory body.

Papers including the Sun, Daily Star and Sunday Sport persistently objectified women, portraying them as a sum of sexualised body parts, claimed Anna van Heeswijk, from Object, a lobby group against the objectification of women. We have to ask ourselves what kind of story does it tell young people when men in newspapers wear suits, or sports gear, are shown as active participants, and women are sexualised objects who are essentially naked or nearly naked, she said.

The groups are want legislation banning pictures of naked or semi-naked women in newspapers, arguing the images would not be allowed in the workplace because of equality legislation, and should not be sold in an unrestrained manner at children's eye-level. Leveson said his powers were limited and such a change would require rock-solid legislation.

The groups also called on Leveson to recommend the replacement of the Press Complaints Commission with an independent body with teeth that women and women's groups could complain to directly. The reporting of violence against women and girls needs to be more balanced and more context needs to be provided about its frequency, they added. Journalists should also receive training on the myths and realities about violence against women and girls, and there should be a code of practice for the way case studies are dealt with, the groups said.

Jacqui Hunt, of Equality Now, said the groups did not want to curtail press freedom...BUT...wanted the media to behave more responsibly.

The ever censorial Harriet Hatemen claims to be a champion of press freedom

See article from guardian.co.uk

Newspaper proprietors need urgently to agree a common new system of redress and regulation to put to the Leveson inquiry, according to Harriet Harman, the shadow culture and media secretary.

She said the new system should be independent, apply to all newspapers and be citizen-centric. [Maybe just a slip of the tongue, she probably meant women-centric]. Harman said:

I balk at the notion of press regulation. There should be redress for complaints. I don't think there should be prior restraint, or general ruling on ethics. I also certainly don't think we need a register of approved journalists. Doctors and journalists are not analogous.

Despite the personal battering she has taken from the rightwing media over pursuit of women's equality, she said she was not interested in settling old scores:

My discussions and arguments have been with the public as much as newspapers.

I am going to be a champion of press freedom.

Offsite: Killjoy Clare Short revives anti-page 3 rant

26th January 2012. See article from independent.co.uk by Clare Short

Lord Justice Leveson's inquiry into the ethics of the press heard some impressive, if depressing, evidence this week from women's groups about the continued use of sexualised imagery in some newspapers and about a culture of relentless sexism in some sections of the press.

In response, he said that his terms of reference did not stretch to such issues. But surely the depiction of half the population in a way that is now illegal on workplace walls and before the watershed in broadcasting, is an issue of media ethics? Interestingly, the evidence put to the inquiry was censored before circulation to remove the images that are perfectly legal in millions of newspapers that spread across society.

The Leveson Inquiry should also take note of my experience to learn how the media can censor public debate. The deliberate bullying I endured was designed to stop me discussing an issue of public concern and to frighten other women off. This is not a question of phone hacking or intrusion of privacy, but in some ways it is worse.

Tabloid vilification helped kill off a debate that would have forced Page 3 images out of British newspapers and perhaps obliged the media to behave and report in a less sexist way. Twenty-six years on, Lord Leveson should seriously consider the case that has been made.

...Read the full article

Update: The misogyny of the anti-Page 3 brigade

31st January 2012.See article from spiked-online.com by Gabrielle Shiner

The prudes trying to strip the tabloids of topless pics belittle women far more than any male reader could.

With the Leveson Inquiry currently insisting that the press bares all, campaign groups such as Turn Your Back on Page 3 have spotted an opportunity to force the tabloid's topless ladies to cover themselves up. And all in the name of protecting girls like me from being terrorised by tits.

...Read the full article

Milli Hill of Somerset is a parenting columnist for Somerset Life Magazine and blogger for The Mule.

She has created on online petition entitled Jeff Bezos, Amazon CEO: Refuse to carry books which advocate the physical abuse of children. The petition urges Amazon (both .com and .co.uk) to stop allowing books that purportedly advocate, endorse, and advise parenting techniques that involve the physical abuse of children as a disciplinary technique. Examples of some titles targeted by the petition include To Train Up A Child by Michael and Debi Pearl, Shepherding a Child's Heart by Tedd Tripp, and Don't Make Me Count to Three by Ginger Plowman. The petition continues:

Such books, and others like them, promote behaviour which is abusive of children. All of the above books advocate the use of a rod and other implements on children under one.

Such behaviour is abusive to children, and it is also 'offensive', which is contrary to Amazon's Content Guidelines.

It may well also be illegal, as it seems to go far beyond the 'reasonable chastisement' currently sanctioned by law in the UK, (where this petition originated) and in many US States. Not only is beating on a regular basis with a rod likely to leave a mark, which is illegal in the UK, it is also likely to amount to inhuman or degrading treatment, which is a breach of human rights.

We wish Amazon to urgently review their decision to stock any book or other product which advises the physical abuse of children.

The petition currently stands at 10,425. Apparently this includes many notable names in the field of children's rights, psychology, child development, and religious child maltreatment.

Perhaps a little strange that the group does not petition against the religions that prove such a fertile breeding ground for bad attitudes to children.

A poster promoting an album by a rock band, seen in October 2011, showed an image of a woman leaning back with her eyes closed. She was shown wearing a skimpy halter-neck outfit which covered her nipples but left her stomach and the bottom of her breasts uncovered. Her right hand was placed by her crotch and she was holding a string with two silver balls attached, which dangled between her legs. The band's name appeared in the middle of the image and beneath it, large text stated BALLS OUT.

Underneath, the ad showed an image of the four members of the band and text which stated THE NEW ALBUM UNLEASHED FOR HALLOWEEN... Issue

Imkaan, a charity devoted to raising awareness and offering support to women from ethnic backgrounds who were victims of abuse and violence, and four members of the public challenged whether the ad was:

1. offensive, because they considered the image of the woman was demeaning and overtly sexual in its nature.

2. Imkaan and three of the members of the public also challenged whether the ad was unsuitable for public display where it might be seen by children.

Universal Island Records, a division of Universal Music Operations Ltd said that the poster depicted the album cover for the rock band, Steel Panther who were a pastiche of an 80s heavy metal band who took their inspiration from bands such as Whitesnake and Bon Jovi. The band's stage performance and persona were very tongue in cheek, nothing about them was serious and their concept was a send-up of the typical 80s band, although their music was new and original. They said the poster was designed to have a retro 80s look which was not done seriously and poked fun at the ridiculousness of the attitude to women, outfits and music in that era. The poster was meant to be ludicrously over the top and not meant to undermine women.

ASA Assessment: Complaints Upheld

The ASA noted Universal Island Records' argument that the poster was not meant to cause offence or be seen as demeaning to women. However, we considered that the main image on the poster was overtly sexual. We noted that the pose of the woman showed her with her legs apart, her hand between her legs and her breasts partially exposed and considered that her facial expression was suggestive of an orgasm and sexual activity. In addition to this, we considered that the album title Balls Out was sexually suggestive particularly when viewed in the context of the poster, where the woman was seen dangling two silver balls between her legs in a way that we considered was suggestive of male genitalia.

We noted Universal Island Records' argument that the poster was meant to be viewed humorously and not to be taken seriously as it was meant to represent the over-the-top image of the band featured in the poster. However, we considered that most people would not view the poster in this way and even if they had viewed it in that context, the poster was overtly sexual when taken as a whole. Given its placement in a range of public locations, we concluded that it was likely to cause serious and widespread offence, was unsuitable to be seen by children and therefore was not appropriate for outdoor advertising.

The poster breached CAP Code rules 1.3 (Social responsibility) and 4.1 (Harm and offence).

A film trailer by the makers of Wallace and Gromit has been criticised for poking fun at people with leprosy.

The scene shows the arrival of the Pirate Captain on board a captive ship, demanding gold.  Afraid we don't have any gold old man, this is a leper-boat, explains a crew member. See, he adds as his arm falls off.

Essex-based Lepra Health in Action has expressed disbelief at the scene in Aardman Animation's The Pirates! Adventures with Scientists.

Lepra's president Sir Christian Bonington said:

It might make you laugh but leprosy stigma not only hurts, it is still forcing people to live a life on the fringes of society.

Not only is the dropping off of body parts a total misnomer we have to ask ourselves, as we watch it uncomfortably, is it acceptable for us to be laughing at the millions of people who are disabled by leprosy? '

A spokesman for Bristol-based Aardman said it took criticism like this seriously and was reviewing the matter.

Update: Potential for offence disarmed

25th January 2012. See article from independent.co.uk
See trailer from youtube.com

The creator of Wallace & Gromit, Aardman Animations, has bowed to international pressure after being accused of poking fun at leprosy sufferers in its latest blockbuster film.

Aardman have announced that the offending leper scene in The Pirates! In an Adventure with Scientists, set for release in March, will be changed out of respect and sensitivity after being convinced that the scene could increase stigma and discrimination for millions of leprosy sufferers.

The scene showed the main pirate character landing on a so called leper ship looking for gold, but is then clearly aghast when the leper's arm falls off. It has already been seen on the film's trailer by hundreds of thousands of people on You Tube and in cinemas worldwide, but Aardman will now remove all offensive references to leprosy.

Chief executive of LEPRA, Sarah Nancollas, said:

We are genuinely delighted that Aardman and Sony Pictures have made this decision, though obviously we will have to wait to see the final film to see it was dealt with.

Hopefully this publicity will help to reduce the damage that has already been done with the use of this trailer across the world.

A poster advertising lingerie, seen on the side of buses in early November 2011, stated Introducing Naked Glamour Calvin Klein Underwear and featured five images of a model wearing a bra and briefs.

The complainant, an Orthodox Cherdi Jew, objected that:

1. the ad was offensive to the large Orthodox Jewish population of Stamford Hill, whose religious beliefs required them not to see images of women wearing only underwear;

2. it was irresponsible to display the ad in untargeted media in public as it would be seen by children.

Calvin Klein said they did not believe that the ad was offensive or socially irresponsible. They said the ad merely featured the product, their underwear range, being worn by a model. They believed it was reasonable to feature models wearing underwear when advertising these products, and that the ad was neither sexually suggestive nor overtly sexual. They also said their media vendor had not believed that the ad fell into the risky category, and had been happy for the ad campaign to proceed.

ASA Decision: Complaints not upheld

1. Not upheld

The ASA noted that there was no explicit nudity in the images, and that the ad was for an underwear range. We considered that the nature of the product meant that viewers of the ad were less likely to regard the ad as gratuitous or offensive, and noted that the poses of the model were natural. We considered that the ad might be viewed by some as mildly sexual in nature, as the underwear featured in the largest image appeared sheer in nature, and the product name Naked Glamour was featured. However, although we recognised that some people with strongly held religious views may find the ad distasteful, we did not consider that the ad was likely to cause widespread offence or serious offence to those with religious views.

On this point we investigated the ad under CAP Code rule 4.1 (Harm and offence) but did not find it in breach.

2. Not upheld

We noted the complainant's concerns that this ad, displayed on buses, was likely to be seen by children. We considered that the ad may be viewed by some as mildly sexual in nature, as the underwear featured in the largest image appeared sheer in nature, and the product name Naked Glamour was featured. However, we did not consider that the images were overtly sexual, and considered that the ad was acceptable for use in outdoor media likely to be seen by children. We therefore concluded that the ad was not socially irresponsible.

On this point we investigated the ad under CAP Code  rule 1.3 (Social responsibility) but did not find it in breach.

Cherry Healey: Like A Virgin will air on BBC 3 on Thursday 12th January at 9pm.

The BBC publicity material reads:

Losing one's virginity is one of those life-defining moments that can be intimate, exciting and nerve-wracking all rolled into one. But good or bad, Cherry Healey wants to find out if that one simple little act really does have a lasting impact. From a girl's first time in the back of a Fiat Panda to a guy who has popped his cherry three...

The Daily Express claims that the BBC is under 'pressure' to axe the documentary about teenage sex that the corporation accepts is not educational. The programme includes the word 'fuck' and discussions about oral sex & sex aids.

Vivienne Pattison, of the nutter campaign group Mediawatch-UK, said:

The show is terrible, almost a freak show. It's also irresponsible, inappropriate, disturbing and even exploitative towards some of those featured in it.

For a programme clearly aimed at a teenage audience it is extremely irresponsible not to include any discussion of safe sex.

Pattison plans to lodge an official complaint with the BBC and Ofcom. She is scathing about the lack of sex education in the show:

If this programme is designed to be educational it clearly fails. If however it is designed as entertainment then it is prurient and exploitative.

It is extraordinary that in following a teenager getting ready to lose her virginity, a bikini wax is filmed as an essential part of her preparation but condoms are not even mentioned.

The programme promises 'essential truths amongst the tales of sex and debauchery, to see if losing your virginity is about more than just 'having sex for the first time'.

However, it delivers an inconclusive mix of titillating detail and voyeuristic confessional. This represents a real missed opportunity for discussion on an important subject and information to help viewers make informed choices.

Ex government minister Ann Widdecombe chipped in:

The BBC should not screen this programme. It seems to me that they are just trying to set new boundaries and to do this at 9pm when a lot of young people will still be up is horrendous.

It is difficult to see how parents and teachers have any chance at all of getting young people to behave responsibly if this is the sort of stuff the BBC is promoting.

It will not help with efforts to reduce teenage pregnancy rates in Britain, which are the highest in Europe.

However, Philip Davies, Tory MP for Shipley and a member of the Commons Culture Select Committee, said:

If people have a problem with it they can switch their TV off.

The Daily Mail has rounded up a handful of people willing to have a knock at Boots for selling sex toys within view of children.

The sex toys are a change of policy for Boots. Seven years ago, the company scrapped plans to sell sex aids alongside toiletries over fears that stocking them could damage its brand. 

A Boots spokeswoman said:

We believe a healthy love life can improve overall health and wellbeing and our customers have told us that they would like to buy these products from us.

Approximately 1,200 stores stock these products and we have worked hard to ensure they are discreetly packaged and merchandised.

There are no laws restricting the sale of these products. However, if someone who looks under 16 tries to buy such a product, Boots staff would use their discretion to decide whether it is suitable for them.'

The toys are sold under the banner Sexual Wellbeing and strapline Help you and your partner have a more positive sexual relationship. Example products are the massage devices Durex Play Dream, Play Discover and Play Delight.

The Daily Mail has rounded up a few inconsequential sound bites and presented this as a customer backlash.

Grandmother Julie Burgess said:

I am appalled. It's completely inappropriate. I'm shocked that a store like Boots is selling sex toys, let alone displaying them so openly.

And Scott Millins:

It's quite disgusting. I've got a nine-month-old baby boy and a three-year-old son and it wouldn't be a problem now, but when my young boys are older, that's definitely not the sort of thing I would want them to see. Children shouldn't know about that sort of thing until they're grown up and in a relationship with someone. It's really not very good at all.

Former Conservative MP Ann Widdecombe said:

Boots, which is a family store -- and a very popular one at that -- should adopt standards that Ann Summers have been happy to adopt. That says it all.

Boots said it had received four complaints.

Sex makes one generation fearful for the next. It has always been so. And in each generation, there are always those who consider the more risque edges of the entertainment industry to be going too far. In 1890s Paris, onlookers took against the frills and suspenders of can-can dancers. By the 1950s, its Crazy Horse cabaret was making witty mockery of such shows, while itself leaving little to the audience's imagination. At the same time in Britain, nudes posing in tableaux at the Windmill Theatre were still not permitted to move.

Now I find myself caught up in concerns about the sexualisation of children today. This week, I was quoted as condemning outright Lady Gaga and other performers for seeming obsessed with appearing at their raunchiest in their pop videos and on prime-time television shows. So have I changed sides? Or has the world changed?

...Read the full article

An anti-smoking group staged a protest against characters in soaps lighting up.

Youth group D-MYST donned cardboard TVs to parade through Liverpool in their new Smoke Off campaign.

Members want to get smoking out of pre-watershed television programmes, to prevent under-18s seeing unnecessary smoking images.

They are aiming to get 100,000 online signatures so that Parliament considers debating the issue, and will be asking people to sign postcards which will be sent to the TV censor Ofcom.

Dr Paula Grey, joint director of public health for Liverpool said: Smoking among young people in this city is already at a high level, and anything that can be done to stop young people taking up the habit is to be encouraged.