Mark Pack

Real Women policy paper debate: live blog #ldconf

By | Sat 19th September 2009 - 2:51 pm

With my technological fingers crossed, here we go…

[Several people in the hall are also tweeting through the debate. You can keep up with their and other conference tweets through this search link. The policy paper and motion are available to read here. And yes, it is International Talk Like A Pirate Day, hence this.]

The votes:

  1. Amendment 1 (female representation): passed overwhelmingly
  2. Amendment 2 (air-brushing): overwhelmingly defeated
  3. Amendment 3 (sport): passed overwhelmingly
  4. Separate vote (on name blank employment): lines overwhelmingly retained
  5. Motion as a whole: passed overwhelmingly

Lynne Featherstone (summating on the motion): concentrates on name-blank employment and on air-brushing. Draws parallel with exam marking where names are removed in order to stop some forms of bias and highlights evidence from Department of Work and Pensions of the impact that name-blanking can have. On air-brushing – it’s about tackling conformity and not accepting the values of global industries. It’s about making the operation of those industries open and honest. UPDATE: You can watch her speech on YouTube here.

Laura Willoughby (summating on amendment over sports coverage): “I had to give up rugby when I was eleven – I think that was to protect the young men actually”. “Association Football is the top female sport in the UK” – but women’s football matches get very little coverage and very little interest from sports journalists. “We do just as much sport – and we’d like to see just as much of it.”

Bernard Salmon (summating on the amendment over air-brushing): compares proposals to Tory attempts to ban rave music in the 1990s. Doesn’t think the proposals will work as there are many way to alter people’s appearance without altering photos, e.g. plastic surgery. Also opposes name blanking proposals. He doesn’t believe they will work, as discrimination takes place all the way through the employment process and other information in a CV can give away someone’s gender etc.

Neil Fawcett: “I’m afraid I’m not the other Fawcett. She wasn’t available.” Talks about his experience as a father: “The one thing I really didn’t expect was just how much peer pressure my daughters would face.” Defends air-brushing proposal as being specific measure to tackle dishonesty in advertising.

Elaine Bagshaw: media promotes an image of how women should appear that is “unrealistic and unattainable”, which produces great pressures on young women growing up. Moves on to talk about the urgency of tackling the gender pay gap.

Katy Gordon: “Even Marilyn Monroe would be considered fat by today’s standards”. Took the policy paper to a women’s group in Glasgow and asked them what they thought of media images of women. All of them backed the idea of warning in some way of photos that had been airbrushed. “However good a parent you are, you are up against the might of the beauty industry and the media.”

Ettie Spencer: talks of her personal experiences of women who struggle with weight issues, including a sister with anorexia. “I’ve been shocked by the effects of the peer pressures I observe.” Protecting the health and well-being of children is more important than protecting the advertising industry.

Henry Vann: Less than 10% of FTSE350 directors are female. Praises the paper’s approach on equal pay and talks of the importance of the issue. “Labour have failed on gender equality”.

Erin Harvey: talks about human trafficking. Regrets that the policy paper says little about the issue other than a freephone line. “I hope that this paper will not be a missed opportunity.”

Elizabeth Jewkes: every week in Britain, two women are killed by their partners or ex-partners. Talks about stark choices many women face, driving ten a week to suicide. Half of all female murder victims are killed by their partner or ex-partner. For men the figure is less than one in twenty.

Jacquie Bell: talks about people who have to care for adults. Childcare arrangements are very important – but don’t forget the burdens of caring for adults.

Now for a series of one minute ‘interventions’ from microphones on the floor of the hall: Anna Arrowsmith – in favour of proposals on air-brushing of photos. Martha Vickers – motion makes no mention of domestic violence, though it is covered in the policy paper. Kevin O’Connor – talks about work/life balance issue for families bringing up children. Welcomes proposals in the paper for more flexible work arrangements, including for men. Andrew Hudson – regrets that international issues don’t get a mention, nor do honour killings and forced marriages in this country. Susan Gaszczak – talks in favour of air-brushing proposals. Expresses concerns over what her children see on TV. Belinda Brookes-Gordon – also in favour of proposals about digital retouching. Justine McGuiness – speaks against name blanking employment proposals, saying they are overly prescriptive. Susan Knight – equal rights in law haven’t turned in to equal rights in real life – there is still much to do. Robert Adamson – supports the motion. Eleanor Bell – also supports the motion, particularly the provisions on retouching of photos.

Jeremy Hargreaves: also speaks in defence of the “name blanking” job application proposals, highlighting the risk of subconscious discrimination especially when people are applying for their first job and so have relatively limited other information on their CV.

Anna Pascoe: supports the “name blanking” job application proposals.

Keith Angus: gives unequivocal support for the motion. “Parts of it make me feel a little uncomfortable”, but “it’s the very parts that make me feel uncomfortable that will make the biggest difference”. Some friendly heckling when he says he works at a bank in the City. The proposals “underline that we are a party about freedom”.

Jill Hope: expresses doubts about how wide-ranging the motion is and bemoans timing of debate so early in conference. Also talks about provision of midwives and the tragedies which flow from shortages. It’s a critical issue which should be given more than just one line in the motion.

Claire Jackson: moves Amendment 3, which is about the lack of attention given to women’s sports compared to men’s sports. Criticises government for failing to ensure free to air coverage of major female sporting events.

Bernard Salmon: moves Amendment 2, which would remove proposals to tackle air-brushing in adverts. It recognises the problem but says it can best be tackled, “through a process of cultural change rather than by regulation by the state.” His speech focuses on whether the proposals are workable and whether the answer to the problem is regulation.

Dinti Batstone: moves Amendment 1, which adds reference to empowering women to play a full part in politics. “Not a single female Liberal Democrat MP was first elected while bringing up young children.”

Motion introduced by Jo Swinson MP. Referring to the paper’s magazine-like layout, she says the policy paper “is a wee bit different … some people have even read it … Women want to feel happy, healthy and confident.” Gives heavy emphasis to the way the policy paper will give people and businesses flexibility to suit personal circumstances, such as sharing parental leave and part-time working. Criticises the 27% gender pay gap at the Treasury. “Women need to know when they are being paid less for the same job” – a reference to the paper’s support for pay audits.

“Challenging the commercial driven conformity of the perfect woman’s body has certainly ruffled a few feathers. Those feathers should be ruffled … The image is false … It’s dishonest, it’s harmful and it’s got to change.” A large chunk of her speech is about the air-brushing proposals in the paper – which an amendment proposes removing.

“When you leave conference, don’t recycle this policy paper along with the rest. Reuse it … tell every woman you know.”

Read more by or more about , or .
This entry was posted in Conference.
Advert

36 Comments

  • Hywel 19th Sep '09 - 3:58pm

    “When you leave conference, don’t recycle this policy paper along with the rest.”

    Unless it’s passed in amended form I suppose 🙂

  • Millian 19th Sep '09 - 6:49pm

    Given that the party has now passed a motion banning a form of free speech, calling for media time to be allocated by gender rather than by popularity, and calling for every employer in the country to address job applications in a certain way, is the first word in the name of the party really apt?

  • James Robertson 19th Sep '09 - 7:10pm

    I’m with Millian I’m afraid. This really is a very wrong way to try to make women “feel happy, healthy and confident”. It’s not the kind of “Liberal” stance I’d expect from our party.

  • Alix Mortimer 19th Sep '09 - 7:52pm

    Sad but unsurprised.

    Rantersparadise, I’m struck in your comments by the same thing I was struck by in yesterday’s comments on this subject from people in yesterday’s thread: you all spend a lot of time explaining why photoshopping etc is awful, how it affects you, how it affects young girls, in very impassioned terms. As if you think we don’t already understand why it’s awful, as if by explaining the adverse effects again you might get us to suddenly clutch our foreheads and say, “Oh my god! You’re right that’s terrible! Let’s do exactly as you suggest immediately!”

    I do understand why it’s awful. I agree with you it’s awful. I detest what effects the magazine culture has on people who maybe don’t have the self-esteem or education to defend themselves (and it’s hardly their fault that they don’t). I just don’t agree for one second that this is the right, or the liberal, answer to that problem.

  • James Robertson 19th Sep '09 - 7:53pm

    Hi, rantersparadise. I’m a former anorexic who now works in a private hospital treating people who suffer from, amongst other things, eating disorders. So I have a small idea of the problem, the scale of the problem and the kind of ideas that might make a difference.

    Is an airburshing ban realistically going to make a difference to the pressure on young people to conform. Will the ban actually help build-up insecure people’s self-worth and self-esteem? Will it enable people with eating disorders to set themselves free from negative feelings about themselves? Will it actually help combat the myth that conformity is paramount? Will a ban actively help people to see themselves as valuable human beings? No.

    What it would do is set dangerous legal precedents. For example, who decides what can and what can’t be airbrushed? If you draw that line at magazines aimed at females under 18, it could be argued that the law is both sexist and patronising. Do teens need “protecting” or “empowering”? Surely any Liberal Democrat can see the solution is in education rather than legislation.

    Airbrushing has been an artistic technique for decades, the famous Oliver Cromwell being arguably the first political figure to refuse to use it when he asked to be painted “warts and all”. The problem isn’t with airbrushing in teen magazines, it’s with the philosophy and power of these magazines. That’s what needs challenging, not artistic presentation.

  • Alix Mortimer 19th Sep '09 - 8:48pm

    And look at the front page of the Guardian: “Lib Dems calls for a ban on airbrushed photos.” That’s just brilliant, that is. Really reinforcing our core brand, there.

  • James S 19th Sep '09 - 9:53pm

    Well done conference!

    Alix, some further refutation of your “Real women adverts are economically superior and if only they tried it they’d all do it”.

    Unilever, Doves parent company who no doubt have more data than you can shake a pointy stick at on the relative success of the campaign, are running this ad: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IzVVN5wbjdg&feature=related

    I really don’t understand why you guys are coming down so much in favor on the rights and freedoms of business to mislead and manipulate.

  • Millian 19th Sep '09 - 10:35pm

    Who is being misled by an airbrushed photo?

    This is a lovely left-wing motion and I’m sure the left-wing grassroots are delighted, but please don’t have the gall to run that Lib Dems against the Nanny State fringe event when you pass censorship laws like this.

  • Alix Mortimer 19th Sep '09 - 10:48pm

    @jamess

    “I really don’t understand why you guys are coming down so much in favor on the rights and freedoms of business to mislead and manipulate.”

    Loving that straw man there. “You’re against us so you must be in favour of the nasty big businesses.”

    Your lack of understanding is due to the fact that you keep insistently not listening to what I’m saying.

    (A) I don’t think any of you know what you actually want to achieve here, and my opinion has only been reinforced by reading comments in favour of the policy. I’ve read everything from a comparatively restrained “want to stop children accessing unrealistic aspirations before they’re ready” to “want to redress balance of power between men and women and free women from shackles of evil corporations”. That’s a pretty hefty spread of aims for what I keep being assured is a tiny piece of power-extension for the ASA.

    You’re also deeply confused about the meaning of “unrealistic aspiration”. It’s clearly unrealistic for women (or anyone) to aspire to look like someone in a photoshopped image. But it’s also unrealistic for women (or anyone) to aspire to look like a beautiful model professionally posed in a non-photoshopped image. In the case of many of the big design house advertisements, it’s unrealistic for the vast majority of women to even afford the clothes and make-up they’re wearing. The whole fucking thing is bonkersly unrealistic. And you think getting excited about a small percentage of the whole process comes anywhere near addressing that?

    In sum, you can’t agree on what problem it is you’re trying to solve, but you’re all pretty damn sure that you’re very upset about whatever your own version of the problem is, and therefore you want to do something, and this is something, therefore you must do it. And if we really haven’t figured out on the basis of 12 years’ New Labour government that this is a lousy way to make decisions about regulation, then I despair of our collective stupidity.

    (B) If businesses – or government, or anyone – misleads and manipulates people, the best remedy is education and effective self-esteem building. Not legislation, or regulation. Because – and I say this as a former tax adviser – people will always, always find a way round legislation or regulation. And then you’ll have to make more. And then you’ll do it again. Businesses are agile and will adapt. Government is clunky, and cannot win. It’s the old “teach a man to fish” proverb. If you regulate a single manipulative practice, you’ve saved some people from that manipulative practice. Teach people to resist and analyse manipulate practices effectively, and they’ll never need you to regulate for them again. This is simple empowering liberalism, for god’s sake.

    (C) Moreover, part of the reason government cannot win actually has nothing to do with businesses. It’s the internet itself. Lots of people have already justifiably wondered how you’re going to stop under-18s looking at adult women’s mags. Well, that goes a thousandfold for the internet. Are you going to regulate all of it? Are you going to create one piece of regulation that stops any teenage girl ever seeing a photoshopped image on the internet? Just one piece, is that all it takes? No slippery slope at all? If you think the answer to this is yes, you’re being incredibly stupid (or you are Lord Mandelson and I claim my £5). If the answer is “No, but it’s a start, and maybe then we could regulate…” then you’re not a liberal.

    And finally, mindful of tonight’s press coverage:

    (D) If a liberal party is going to adopt a policy that is going to result in “Liberal Democrats ban such-and-such” headlines then there had better be a watertight reason why. And (see A-C) there ain’t.

    And why on earth does the existence of an Asian advert playing on the Asian obsession with white skin mean you couldn’t effectively lobby a British company about photoshopped images in British advertising? Really, do just explain the logic behind that one. And, as regards your mention of Dove from yesterday, hey, maybe you could think about using whatever data they’re basing their Real Women campaign on to take to another company in a lobbying proposal? That would be an idea, wouldn’t it? But then, none of you actually seem remotely interested in learning about or seeking pointers on how to influence an industry whose activities you claim to feel so strongly about.

  • Alix Mortimer 19th Sep '09 - 11:08pm

    @Ollie Cromwell.

    From your post: “They know the difference between reality and Barbie even if some Liberal Democrat’s have lost their grip on it”

    *Frown* How many Liberal Democrats is that?

    I think you’re wrong here in any case. Actually, there is a blurred line between reality and Barbie for some girls. The point is that the right answer is to teach them about that line rather than banning Barbie.

  • Harry 19th Sep '09 - 11:34pm

    Oh dear! Since when is the liberal response to a problem to ban it? I can’t imagine that this motion will make any more than a handful of people vote for the Lib Dems but I can imagine lots of people who might be having second thoughts because of it. Not because of the issue itself exactly (who is actually in favour of airbrushed images?) but because it suggests that the party is both illiberal & inept. How is this ban going to work? I mean, what will it actually achieve? Will it mean that children no longer have issues with body image? Not at all. In fact I can’t see it achieving anything at all except giving ammunition to other parties. Erick Pickles will be dining out on this all week – and that’s saying something!*

    *Am I allowed to make a joke about that?

  • Rob 20th Sep '09 - 9:31am

    Measures to encourage equality are a good thing. Forcing yourself to believe otherwise because you want to make sure you’re ticking the box marked “Liberal” is not.

    Leaving aside the assumption that the policy might actually work (which isn’t 100% certain anyway), since when did we ignore whether something is “liberal” or not? Isn’t it, y’know, in the name and all that? Nobody ever said being liberal had to be easy. In fact, doing things in a way that preserves maximum liberty is often very hard. But it’s worth doing it that way because, in the long run, it’s the right way of doing things. A ban on a certain kind of advertising is just “message” politics, to show that we “care” about an issue (and we certainly do care!), but it won’t achieve anything to solve the underlying problem.

    Liberalism is all about creating a society where people are free to read and view and absorb whatever media they like (free speech) and are also secure and confident enough in their own individual identity to be unaffected by negative things that they might read or hear. This proposal basically assumes that we will never get to that situation and that we will always need to protect women from pictures of other women who look, in some sense, more attractive than they are. Is that really what we want? Instead of confronting the underlying problem, we just ban a few symptoms and hope everyone applauds us for doing it. Meanwhile, the justification for censorship that someone might be upset by reading or seeing something in print has now been given further credence by a party that is supposed to be, broadly, against that kind of thing. Maybe you think that the benefits of this policy outweigh the costs, but I simply don’t.

  • James Robertson 20th Sep '09 - 12:07pm

    Rantersparadise says: “I’d LOVE to hear your opionions on mental health”. Yes, we’re now getting close to the heart of the matter. This is ALL about mental health. I’m not going to respond to rantersparadise’s suggestions about the differences between male and female sufferers of anorexia, but I will say that as someone who works in the mental health arena it is about time we recognised this is a public health issue. The question, of course, is how best to move forward.

    Ollie Cromwell says: “Equipping people with the skills to exist in the real word does, but protecting them from it does not.” This is precisely the correct attitude to take. I have no truck with the exploitative attitudes of the industries with vested interests in objectifying women. But I don’t think censorship is the most productive way to go about it. I don’t doubt that our party is genuine in wanting to do something positive on this issue, but what we’ve opted for would be hopelessly ineffective. I can’t see that banning a bit of airbrushing would make much difference to the kind of work that I do.

    On the other hand, if conference had discussed how to find solutions to some of the complex mental health and social problems facing our young people, we might have come up with something more responsible, and almost certainly more relevant. Viewing the enormous complexities of adolescent psychiatric health through the narrow prism of “Real Women” was never likely to produce any genuinely productive actions.

  • Alix Mortimer 20th Sep '09 - 1:05pm

    “I can’t recall anyone talking about it being just a symbolic act / sending of a message. ”

    Mark, by your account, those who spoke in the debate seem to have spent a lot of time emotionally exploring their version of the problem and no time at all defending this particular measure as an actual solution. If they can’t tell me (a) exactly what the problem is they want to solve and (b) why this particular measure will solve it then we’re in sending-message territory, whether you like it or not. Joe Otten’s blog post reinforces you – he says that one speaker after another got up and talked about how terrible body fascism was, as if there was a risk people might not realise that, if that was the point at issue rather than whether this was the right thing to do about it. However, the only first hand experience of opinions I have on this are in the comments on this article and on Bernard’s piece yesterday – where what I say still stands. Many of those who defended it did so because of “women power corporations anorexia horrible equality pressure media” [rearrange words and insert verbs as you wish].

    What I want is “this problem exists in the media, we have figures that show it results in X number of eating disorder cases and mental health problems which would not otherwise have arisen, the problem can be ring-fenced and eliminated by means of this measure.” Otherwise it’s just what I said – message-sending. And of course, no-one could come up with the chain of causality I’ve just suggest, because the problem is just so much more complicated than that (and I do hope someone responds to the only person on this thread with actual first-hand experience of mental health work).

  • Iainm 20th Sep '09 - 3:56pm

    I thought the idea was to convince everyone that the Lib Dems aren’t an unelectable laughing stock.

    Guess I must have missed a press release.

  • Alix Mortimer 20th Sep '09 - 4:53pm

    Mark, this just gets worse!

    “it may well be in part (given I know several of the speakers are regular blog readers) a reflection of how frequently when such issues come up on blogs they are followed by a series of comments, almost always from men, along the lines of “don’t be silly, pull yourself together, there’s no problem here”.”

    If it is as you suspect, maybe the speakers in question should try to tell the difference in future between a legislative forum and having a rant in the pub, because this is something I tend to require of legislators. This is why we think Dan Hannan is basically an idiot, remember?

    “but the general tone was one of “this isn’t going to solve the problem on its own, but it will help”.”

    So we ARE getting shitty headlines for very little reason then!

  • James S 20th Sep '09 - 11:17pm

    Well I see going to a family gathering for the day has left me somewhat behind the times. ‘fraid I’m replying to that rant though, it was aimed at me and covers most of the bases other people are covering. Well James R has a lovely ‘appeal to authority’ but hell, if you’re going to ignore an actual argument by labeling it strawman you can’t expect me to respond to logical fallacies.

    @Alix’s huge rant.
    First up please don’t put words in my mouth, it’s rude. I’m not against ‘your group’ nor even ‘you’ I’m vaguely in favor of a Policy which you’re disagreeing with. Nice of you to make it personal an all, I mean gosh, I don’t even warrant capitalization and spacing in my name now? I think I might break down here. <> 😉

    Since it is clearly a pointless discussion if I’m not even reading your posts I’ll re-phrase the anti-arguments so you can correct me if I’m way off the mark or missing some aspect of your position.

    1) You do not think legislation curtailing the freedom of corporations is effective because governments are slow and plodding and corporations are not (see tax codes), thus the policy will have no effect as the nimble companies will dodge it.
    2) You do not like banning things because it is inherently illiberal & curbing peoples liberty is not what we’re about.
    3) Whilst you dislike the ‘shopping of images as much as anyone. You are of the view that you got over your insecurities thanks to intelligence and education and they can do the same.
    4) In order to facilitate this you would like to modify the behavior of businesses and those who manipulate photos for them through some voluntary market based ‘financial incentive’ also lobbying.
    5) You do not think that the policy will sufficiently reduce the number or severity of the offending manipulated images.
    6) You do not think it is ever really a good idea for the Lib Dem party to ban things because it generates bad PR.

    Did I miss any? Assuming not, my ‘strawman’ is a refutation of (2) this was because I believed I had already refuted (4) and (3) is merely an argument for other action rather than a good reason to avoid this action. I have to admit I did not realize you were trying to argue (1), (5) & (6) prior to the huge rant, my bad.

    Lets try again!

    3) I totally agree with you, in an ideal world we would see everyone educated such that these images did not move them. Cultural change to make these adverts unacceptable to the advertisers and consumers would prevent them ever being made far more effectively than regulation.
    Other parts of the paper tried to address this directly, but, it in no way precludes the use of regulation to attack the problem from both sides and so more quickly change the socially accepted norms. If advertisers are forced to consider the legality of their adverts directed at children whilst they’re being educated upon the evils they’re undertaking I think the culture will change faster.
    The supporting evidence from this come from the smoking ban, much as I disagree with it I can’t argue that it has changed the behavior of people far faster than simply trying to educate them. I suspect that now no one is smoking in pubs the cultural norms will change faster and we can repeal the ban.

    1) Whilst governments are slow and plodding there are examples of similar legislation which the companies have failed to avoid. Tax laws are hideously complex and administered by the book. This policy is very simple and the ASA has more flexibility in applying the rules. 37 years ago health warnings were introduced on cigarette packets, in all that time have the cigarette companies managed to dodge the regulation? No, in fact, in all that time the warnings have become more pronounced.

    2) Yes this policy is illiberal in that it reduces freedom. BUT, it only applies to a very narrow set of people in a commercial setting. This is not a reduction in ‘free speech’ because adverts are not speech, it is not even a limit on communication except when directed at children (outside of that you can still ‘say’ anything provided you explain that you’re ‘lying’).
    Hence “I really don’t understand why you guys are coming down so much in favor on the rights and freedoms of business to mislead and manipulate”.
    Given the VAST numbers of people in the anti crowd who’s main argument is ‘banning stuff is illiberal’ this is not a strawman. The refutation is “I’m in favor of liberty for everyone where it doesn’t impinge on other peoples” not ranty ad-hom’s. I presume you resort to ranty ad-homs because it’s obvious this DOES impinge on other peoples liberty.

    4) Here’s were we get to the youtube links and your failing to read my arguments whilst complaining I do the same.
    The crux of your argument for alternative action rests upon the ability of lobbying to achieve the same reduction in negative ads being run. The relevance of the two adverts is this:
    * Dove have for some time run an ad campaign focused on “Real Women”.
    * As a result Dove will have far more data on the effectiveness of this campaign
    * However, Dove is really just a brand of Uniliever,
    * Unilever have not rolled the “Real Women” campaign out to their other brands.

    Thus, the people with the most information to know if it’s a good idea are of the view that their cosmetic products will not be well served by a “Real Women” advertising campaign. IF I were to follow your suggestion and go to a cosmetics company and say:
    “Hi, look at how successful Doves ‘Real Women’ campaign is, shouldn’t you copy it?”
    D’ya think they might not notice that the company who’s running the campaign hasn’t rolled it out for their own cosmetic products?

    5) This is quite hard to disprove because we’re in the realms of psychology, however you seem to be of the prevailing western view that people take on concepts through rational thought. The girls computer like brain will see a single photoshopped images on the mags cover (not a advert) and BAM! suddenly she instantly assimilates the concept that this is normal beauty and she must conform to this.
    We’re kinda outside the scope of a LibDem voice comment here but persuasion & advertising doesn’t work like this (pity, we could get away with a single focus delivery per voter). Basically with a huge amount of repetition & likely with little conscious thought the concepts of ‘normal beauty’ will move. Yes, the policy would not prevent all girls from having self esteem issues. But, it doesn’t really curtail much in the way of liberty & it could well have a positive impact as well as helping change culturally accepted norms. I mean most images in a girls mag are going to be photoshopped and probably at most half will be adverts, so it’s not like anyone is expecting this to be a panacea but it will probably help and any kind of panacea would involve actually curtailing freedom of artistic (rather than commercial) expression.

    6) Couldn’t agree more, in my opinion the clause should’ve simply regulated for the advisory rather than the ban. Not only is this better PR wise there would still be vast numbers of ‘shopped images viewed by the poor kiddies so giving them the information to say ‘thats fake’ is more plausible than protecting them.
    Sadly your rabid anti-regulation friends decided that they’d remove any kind of legislation for photoshopping so the option was ‘vote for sweet FA or vote for a ban’.

    Incidentally I can’t find a more authoritative source than wikipedia but EU regulations on children’s TV advertising coming into effect end of 2009 apparently ban adverts which aim to exploit children’s naivety so looks like something similar may become law fairly soon anyway.

  • Iainm 21st Sep '09 - 8:17am

    New Labour just called, they want their copy of Policy Justification For Dummies back.

Post a Comment

Lib Dem Voice welcomes comments from everyone but we ask you to be polite, to be on topic and to be who you say you are. You can read our comments policy in full here. Please respect it and all readers of the site.

To have your photo next to your comment please signup your email address with Gravatar.

Your email is never published. Required fields are marked *

*
*
Please complete the name of this site, Liberal Democrat ...?

Advert



Recent Comments

  • Stephen Glenn
    Willie I would love there to be a world in which those of us who stand up and defend trans rights can disagree well with those who are gender critical. The p...
  • Michael KilpatrickMichael Kilpatrick
    It has just been intimated to me that the working group for this paper were expressly forbidden from considering further taxation changes in conjunction with th...
  • Mary Regnier-Wilson
    To be clear when I say there are things that we should be discussing a society, I mean things like how we ensure sex and relationship education doesn’t exclud...
  • Andrew Hickey
    "I’m a liberal and a contrarian, when everyone is agreeing with each other I want to start poking holes." That must be very nice for you, to be able to t...
  • Mary Regnier-wilson
    This post may well have been perfectly valid 10 years ago. There are things to be discussed as a society about how we as a society deal with a growing number of...