Nutters want all newspapers covered up in British shops

[-:Undertaker:-]

My God, this country just gets more draconian and absurd by the day. Interestingly though, at the very same time that we're covering up cigarette packages and now newspapers, we teach primary school children how to have sex and how to take drugs 'safely'. Crazy.

I have heard too over the past few days that the Home Office is pushing for more internet regulation too to keep us safe from terrorism, which of course nobody on here who always argues with me over OTT airport security could possibly complain about without being a hypocrite.

I'm just waiting for sweets to be covered up now, it can't be far off. One thing I would be interested to know though, say if newspapers were covered up in the shops, would gay magazines be covered up too or would they be exempt as they fit in with the Equality & Diversity madness?

Thoughts?

[FlyingJesus]

Good plan too many IRL spoilers obv

[Kardan]

I would argue that there are some newspaper front pages that would be inappropriate for children, but I would say that's a minority - so I think the issue is being blown out of proportion.

And why would gay magazines need to be hidden? At most it's just a topless man on the cover, isn't it?

[-:Undertaker:-]

I would argue that there are some newspaper front pages that would be inappropriate for children, but I would say that's a minority - so I think the issue is being blown out of proportion.

Like what exactly?

And why would gay magazines need to be hidden? At most it's just a topless man on the cover, isn't it?

A guy hardly wearing anything. And then there's the issue of promoting it to children.

I'm not for censoring any of it by the way, i'm playing Devil's Advocate though by putting forward a Mary Whitehouse argument.

[lawrawrrr]

Should see some of the gory front pages we've had recently, noone wants to see that (I'm talking picture wise) - if you're interested I'll find pics tomorrow

In some cases, nationals put massive stories on the front with slightly misleading headlines - because it grabs the audience's attention.

I have to do it too sometimes, simply because you only have so much room to fit the story into, and it's tough to get all the angles. All (if not most) newspapers are part of the PCC/IPSO schemes and through that you have to print corrections/clarifications - it's surprising how many come under here.

For example, just the other day the Mail had to print a correction saying that the number of immigrants they'd printed wasn't "2.7 million" but "2.7 per cent".... a big difference. I don't know if the original story was on the front, but it's the sort of thing you see, "3 MILLION IMMIGRANTS NOT REGISTERED/PAYING TAXES".... which isn't true. But they don't usually get read much, ours is tucked away on our letters page halfway through and most people don't keep backdated papers for reference.

This doesn't mean I believe newspapers should be covered up though. Cover them up and people won't look at things, won't go and pick it up, flick through and maybe even buy it. It's a fantastic industry and such a legendary one, it's struggling as it is and it's things like this which is doing a lot more harm.

Also, the second supermarkets start willy-nilly covering newspapers up there's a massive question of freedom of speech - what if they didn't cover them all up? It's like when my Union stopped stocking the Sun over the No More Page 3 campaign - now no matter what I think about the Sun or that campaign, I don't think supermarkets, or any shop, or individual, has the right to stop stocking certain parts of the media that they personally don't agree with. I know that's not what's being called into question here, but still.

No to covering up papers.

[AgnesIO]

Shouldn't cover up gory newspaper covers - nudity yes, I guess. But NOT gory - why cover things in cotton wool?

[dbgtz]

I just have to think, what child actually looks at newspapers? And that campaigner woman wants to cover it up because of a few incidents from people from what I can only assume was Mumsnet (but could be anywhere)? Seeing the stuff on front of the newspaper isn't going to somehow corrupt a child. It is amusing people push for sex education but then say anything else sexual is corrupting. If parents don't want their children seeing it, then it's easy enough to control themselves.

[FlyingJesus]

Shouldn't cover up gory newspaper covers - nudity yes, I guess. But NOT gory - why cover things in cotton wool?

What how is nudity worse than gore and trauma

[AgnesIO]

What how is nudity worse than gore and trauma

Gore is 'negative', nudity is 'positive'. ie. gore shows reality in the world, and shows how serious something is. Nudity makes little boys and girls excited and sext each other.

Just my two cents on it.

[Chippiewill]

Wouldn't a more sensible option be to ban obscene stuff from the front pages of newspapers?