Personally I don't think any freedoms will be threatened by not having breasts on display in supermarkets. Seems to me Co-op are asking for a compromise.

Someone's got their work cut out dishing out black plastic bags to women on Bournemouth beach I would imagine.

If the council decided that toplessness isn't what they want on their beaches, someone could well have that job.

Co-op have decided they don't want tits on display - that's their choice.

much like not wanting to pay £4.50 for a hot dog.

What about the freedom for publishers to promote their magazine? While I am not an advocate of those magazines, the censorship being pursued and the potential for further restrictions of freedom is obvious. Who gets to decided what is or is not decent?

'Lads mags' do-not show explicit pictures of women (as determined by UK standars) on their front covers; no magazine on sale in a newsagent in this country does for that matter.

The issue isn't what is & isn't decent.

It is a retailer deciding how they'd like an item packaged for sale in their stores.

true.

btw - there is no legal definition of 'obscence' or 'explicit'. what is tollerable in one town may be cosidered filth in another.

It is about a retailer deciding what is and isn't decent.

which is their choice.

that is part of what they do - deciding what they'd like to sell & what they don't. for what ever reason.

This isn't about them selling it or not; they are selling it.

Again, it is about a retailer deciding what is and isn't decent. And before you say it, I and we know it is their choice, but it is that choice which is questionable. You see nothing on the cover of those magazines that you wouldn't see in any public lido or beach (save for a bit of airbrushing).

So after all these years, what has happened for this retailer to take such measures?

and they'd like it repackaged.

IPC will either tell them to sod off, or capitulate. I guess it depends what the number of copies of such titles sold via Co-op arctually are.

Peronally I think the Co-op are just getting a bit of free advertising on the back of the internet porn & filter story which is a 'hot' topic at the moment. I don't think they actually give a toss about selling lads mags, tits in, or out.

Totally agree, but I also think Cameron and his lot are taking 'advantage' of recent events to pursue their agenda too.

There is a sublte difference between a woman on a beach getting an even tan & a woman provocatively draped over a snooker table. ( or whatever wheeze the 'editor' of any particular las mag has decided needs to be covered this month ).

The agenda?

diverting attention from far more serious & important issues which said crowd have ****** up.

There is, but your scenario is simply that, one scenario. At the end of the day, are women, and men for that matter, designed to be sexually attractive? And do people try to present themselves in a manner that they feel might be attractive?

Where is this enthusiasm for censorship coming from? I'm am concerned for the exploitation of the vulnerable, but these measures seem incoherent. My feeling is there will be an unintended consequence to this.

I think so too.

I don't see it as censorship ( the 'porn filter' ) - if you want to see images of naked people you still can - you'll just have to say that you wish to do so first. Most search engines have a 'safe filter' already which by default is turned on.

No-one is saying you can't see what you want, just that it won't be as ridiculously easy to view as it is now.

It is a form of censorship, it is just the first step. It isn't this measure I am concerned about, it is the next steps. It is also what happens when someone disables their filter because it blocks access to something benign. What happens to the data regards people disabling, etc. Like you said, filters are already on by default, so what's the problem.

Nope, comes from an Ian Dury and The Blockheads song.

I remember... B side to the Sex & Drugs & Rock n Roll single... 'Razzle in my pocket'... Kids today don't have to go through that trauma of pinching 'one-handed training manuals' from newsagents these day thanks to the internet. They must have different Rites of Passage to prove themselves as 'grown up' I suppose.......


I also remember to my horror being too slow to skip a track on the New Boots & Panties LP (EDIT for the uninformed: an Ian Dury LP released in '77 - I still have the original crackly vinyl which I dig out every now and then) I'd just bought it way back then and was playing it in my room a little too loudly.. and on came track 4 side 2... Plaistow Patricia My mum was not impressed! I was in my 20's and no longer properly living at home, but I still got a clip round the ear!! If you weren't expecting the first line lyrics (I wasn't!!) it was one that would get you sprinting to the volume control pdq unless mum n dad were out!! Good times!!