FHM publish topless photo of a fourteen year old girl
Posted by charliegrrl on September 17, 2007
I’m sure most of you will have read that FHM published a topless photo of a fourteen year old girl in their April 2007 edition. The photo was taken by her boyfriend and sent to the magazine without her consent. FHM couldn’t be bothered to take it seriously, and came up with the unbelievable excuse that she didn’t look 14 and that they get thousands of photos of every week, and they can’t check them all.
Well, isn’t that kinda the point? FHM along with all the other lads mags, get thousands of photos of young women/girls every week- but how do they prevent photos of underage girls slipping through the net..? The answer is they don’t. They don’t ID these girls who they publish half-naked. They get photos sent to them via post, email and mobile phone…but they don’t ID these girls. They don’t come with a photocopy of their passport or drivers licence, or in deed a signed declaration that the young woman consents to the photo being published.
Now if a fourteen year old girl tries to buy herself an alcoholic drink in a bar, she would most likely get asked ID, cos most likely she looks under 21. But if she sends topless photos of herself to a lads mag, she won’t get asked ID. If the bar got caught serving her alcohol, they would be prosecuted. Saying she looks over 18 wouldn’t work, cos the law requires proof of age before serving her. So how is it that lads mags can just get away with assuming a young woman is over 18, just by looking at her photo? So you need ID to get served alcohol, but no ID to pose topless. It’s seriously fucked up.
I for one think FHM should be prosecuted, and there should be action taken against other lads mags to prevent this happening again. If the average man had in his possession a topless photo of a fourteen year old, he would be prosecuted. Why should FHM get away with it? They could argue that they did not know she was fourteen, but the alcohol industry wouldn’t get away with this excuse, nor should they. FHM did not have in place measures to prevent photos of under 18 year old girls from being published in the magazine. It is an offence under The Protection of Children’s Act 1978, to distribute indecent photos of a child. It is an offence under the Sexual Offences Act 2003, to publish a sexualised photo of a person without their consent.
FHM publishing a topless photo of a fourteen year old girl is by no way an isolated incident. It is easy for an underage girl to make herself a profile on the Nuts and Zoo messageboards, and upload topless photos of herself. They don’t even have to lie about their age, they can register as 14 years old. Go onto the Myspaces of lads mags, and browse through their ‘friends’. You will find many girls under 18 posing seductively, and underage girls who actively message lads mags saying they want to pose for them. Do they screen these girls? No. It doesn’t bother them that underage girls are desperate to pose for lads mags. They couldn’t impose all the measures needed to ensure every woman featured in lads mags was over 18…because they would crumble. They wouldn’t be able to get away with most of their features in their magazines. Lads mags would lose the steady influx of free photos sent via post, email or mobile that they rely on. The way it is now, when you read a lads mags, you have no idea if all women you are looking at are over 18. If they did their job properly in line with the law and child protection, they would have to verify each photo on age and consent, and they wouldn’t be able to sustainably do this.
I think if you look under 21 and have to show proof of age to buy alcohol, then you should have to show proof of age to pose topless for lads mags. Makes sense.
Please complain to your MP and demand that lads mags should ID girls and have their consent before publishing their photos. Or specifically Harriet Harmen, Diane Abbott and Claire Curtis-Thomas.
Please lodge a complaint with the local police station to the FHM office.
HolburnPolice Station
10, Lambs Conduit St, London, WC1N 3NR
+442074041212
Blog of Feminist Activism 
charliegrrl said
I’m going on holiday for a week, so I’m leaving comments unmoderated. Apologies if there are loads of trolls.
jennifer drew said
Before the trolls send their innumerable spam. There is something seriously wrong within our society, when the legal system refuses to enact legislation in respect of protecting under-age girls from being sexually exploited by the so-called lads’ mags or what I prefer to term misognystic mags. If a young woman under the age of 18 is caught drinking alcohol or smoking, the sellers are prosecuted. Yet, sexually exploiting under-age girls is apparently acceptable. All because men supposedly need their daily supply of half-naked or totally naked young women. No men are not biologically programmed to need a constant supply of naked women. This is just a myth.
polly styrene said
Of course if they did ID them Charliegrrl that would cost money and that’s the bottom line here. They would rather risk committing a sexual offence than pay hard cash for verifiable photos.
Sigh said
“I think if you look under 21 and have to show proof of age to buy alcohol, then you should have to show proof of age to pose topless for lads mags. Makes sense.
Please complain to your MP and demand that lads mags should ID girls and have their consent before publishing their photos. Or specifically Harriet Harmen, Diane Abbott and Claire Curtis-Thomas.”
They do and they have to, you fucking idiot.
Nic said
I found something for you misandrists. It’s a game. It’s like the ones that you complain about because you shoot at drawn females that make us rapists.
http://www.frontsteps.com/games/shoot_the_drunk_guys/
Now you are a murder if you click on the link. How do you like it? Does it make sense that you become a murderer for playing this game?
Is it time you woke up just a little bit? There’s happiness out there, you just have to want it.
polly styrene said
Get back under the bridge eh chaps, you make no sense in daylight.
Polyestergirl said
Nic and Sigh:
What the fuck are you talking about? Nic, What the fuck did that link have to do with a shitarse magazine sexually exploiting underage girls? Go fuck yourselves! I don’t care if your a man or a woman defending this rubbish! FHM always publish photographs of women that are clearly taken without their consent,esp in the section where readers are encouraged to send in photographs of well, anything really, but women are a usual target.
I’m not going to hop on to your fucken stupid link, whatever the fuck it is. Where is the “misandry” offered by Charlie on this post? Just tell me where. Although perhaps she should have, Charlie did not pass any blame nor judgement onto the readers of the mag, for a crime the shit-for-brains publishers and editors committed. I think to many readers, however, it is very obvious if a girl is underage. The circumstances are increased tenfold because there is just no way of knowing if she consented to the photo being published, or even having the photo taken in the first place.
I am sick and tired of hearing excuses such as “Oh, but I didn’t know she was underage”, or “But she looked so much older”. FUCK OFF!!! I read that in Britain a judge let off two men who sexually assaulted a 9 year old girl in a park, then again when they took her back to their house, because she was wearing “provocative” clothing. Fuck, her underwaer was mentioned as being too sexy. I mean, they would of had to of taken her clothes off before they saw her underwear!!!
Nic:”Is it time you woke up just a little bit? There’s happiness out there, you just have to want it.”
Obviously it’s time you woke up… a whole fucken lot. What’s to be happy about with FHM breaking the fucking law? Any material that sexually exploits underage girls is child pornography under the eyes of the law. Lads mags are NOT above the fucken law!
Sigh: “They do and they have to, you fucking idiot.”
You’re the fucken idiot! Obviously if they had, they wouldn’t have published a photo of a topless 14 year old girl! And if you are right, and they do, that means they KNEW the girl was 14! What the hell are you trying to prove stupid?!?
Next time you wankers have got something to say, make sure its not the defending of child pornography (yeah, it is actually). Go fuck your own brains out, you fuck-tards!
sigh said
One person’s ineptitude with paperwork does not a paedo trend in lads’ mags make. “Fuck-tards”? Don’t say things like that, it makes you sound American, and that’s not something you should be aiming for. Unless you ARE American, in which case your opinions are worthless anyway. Lads’ mags, and indeed porn mags, DO ID girls and DO require consent – someone at FHM was just being lazy and will almost certainly have lost their jobs, so celebrate that while you are styling your leg hair or whatever it is that you man-hating types do.
I hate people who say “fucken”.
Polyestergirl said
Sigh:
““Fuck-tards”? Don’t say things like that, it makes you sound American, and that’s not something you should be aiming for. Unless you ARE American, in which case your opinions are worthless anyway. ”
Ha! Saying rediculous shit like this only makes YOUR opinions worthless. What nationality are you that makes your opinions so much more valid? Trying to undermine someone based on what country they are from is extremely low, and pathetic. And I can say what ever the hell I want. Americans are certainly not the only ones who say “fuck-en”. Just come to Australia and see. “Fuck-tard” isn’t even a real word.
“Lads’ mags, and indeed porn mags, DO ID girls and DO require consent – someone at FHM was just being lazy and will almost certainly have lost their jobs…”
Pfft, I beg to differ. You are obviously VERY naive. They can’t ID women AND girls who send in pics of themselves via email, or via text, esp the images sent to them by readers who take photos of women and girls in public places, who they don’t even know, or ask for consent. I assume you read lads mags, unless you really are as dull as you let on, you should realise this. And this is not the first time this has happened. I doubt anyone would have lost their job over this, considering it’s the EDITOR responsible! If so pursued, the wrong person would have lost their job. And the way you say it is as if whoever responsible for this does lose their job, it is some sort of injustice.
“…so celebrate that while you are styling your leg hair or whatever it is that you man-hating types do.”
Bwa ha ha! Who sounds like a “stupid” American now? That is just so typical. There is nothing that I nor Charlie have said that comes close to being “man-hating”. Please, do quote me, or Charlie. It would seem that if anyone critises anything persieved “male”, they are man-haters. And as for that whole hairy leg thing, you don’t know anything about me, you’re grasping. I’m suprised you stopped there. Why not go the full hog like you sorts do and start banging on with the homophobia? Or were you saving that for next time?
Blaming feminists is just a lazy way of snivelling out of any intelligent discussion on an issue, usually social related problems. It’s sad, really. It’s just an easy, uneducated way out. You represent that lame excuse-making, Blame-the-feminists brigade perfectly.
And when people blame fems, it’s usually just a gilded way of blaming women for all the troubles in the world.
“I hate people who say “fucken”.”
What, do you think I care? To hate someone who pronounces a word ( a specifically politically incorrect and intentionally offensive word at that) differently from you really isn’t something YOU should be aiming for either. And what’s the big difference between saying “Fuck-en” and “Fuck-ing”? It’s all slang, anyway.
Polyestergirl said
Sigh:
“One person’s ineptitude with paperwork does not a paedo trend in lads’ mags make.”
Sheesh, no really, what country are you from? It LOOKS like English…
Dan Factor said
Yes I agree.
Girls under 18 should not be allowed to pose in magazines or anything else.
Magazines should check girls age and make sure the age they say they are is their age.
But I suspect this has been highlighted to further the cause to ban lads mags.
cellycel said
“I think if you look under 21 and have to show proof of age to buy alcohol, then you should have to show proof of age to pose topless for lads mags. Makes sense.”
On top of proof of age, I’d also want proof that all the photos of naked women are published with the consent of the model. It sounds like it’s really easy for boyfriends to send naked pictures of their girlfriends (or ex-girlfriends) to the magazine without the girls permission, and that’s just not right.
:<
sigh said
“Ha! Saying rediculous shit like this only makes YOUR opinions worthless.”
“Rediculous”?
“What nationality are you that makes your opinions so much more valid?”
Pick and choose any nation on earth.
“Trying to undermine someone based on what country they are from is extremely low, and pathetic.”
Just tailoring my arguments for the audience.
“And I can say what ever the hell I want”
Yes you can. Just don’t blame me that it clearly marks you out as a fucking idiot.
“Americans are certainly not the only ones who say “fuck-en”. Just come to Australia and see. “Fuck-tard” isn’t even a real word.”
Australian, eh? Now it all makes sense.
“Pfft, I beg to differ. You are obviously VERY naive. They can’t ID women AND girls who send in pics of themselves via email, or via text, esp the images sent to them by readers who take photos of women and girls in public places, who they don’t even know, or ask for consent.”
Every image published in lads’ mags has to be, and is, accompanied by a model release form and proof of age. What are these “images sent to them by readers” of women in public places? Can you provide examples of these?
“I assume you read lads mags, unless you really are as dull as you let on, you should realise this. And this is not the first time this has happened.”
Really? Examples (again)?
“I doubt anyone would have lost their job over this, considering it’s the EDITOR responsible! If so pursued, the wrong person would have lost their job. And the way you say it is as if whoever responsible for this does lose their job, it is some sort of injustice.”
At which point did I say or suggest that? Or are you miraculously able to ascribe extra meaning to typed words just by looking at them? I say, “Fire the fucker”, if for nothing more than giving the likes of you carte blanche to wank on about this as if it happens all the time?
“Bwa ha ha! Who sounds like a “stupid” American now? That is just so typical.”
I know, that was sort of the appeal.
“There is nothing that I nor Charlie have said that comes close to being “man-hating”. Please, do quote me, or Charlie. It would seem that if anyone critises anything persieved “male”, they are man-haters.”
Well, she does have a direct link on her blog to another called Dead Men Don’t Rape. You should really do your research before you start making claims like that. Bit too easy to shoot down…
“And as for that whole hairy leg thing, you don’t know anything about me, you’re grasping. I’m suprised you stopped there. Why not go the full hog like you sorts do and start banging on with the homophobia? Or were you saving that for next time?”
I wasn’t going to mention homophobia. I’ll just stick with what I know, and point out how thick you are.
“Blaming feminists is just a lazy way of snivelling out of any intelligent discussion on an issue, usually social related problems. It’s sad, really. It’s just an easy, uneducated way out. You represent that lame excuse-making, Blame-the-feminists brigade perfectly.”
No, I represent the Telling Stupid People That They Don’t Have Their Facts Straight Brigade. But then, when did you lot ever let pesky things like facts get in the way?
“And when people blame fems, it’s usually just a gilded way of blaming women for all the troubles in the world.”
I’m not blaming anybody. When did I blame anybody? And what did I blame them for? Are you normally this paranoid?
“What, do you think I care? To hate someone who pronounces a word ( a specifically politically incorrect and intentionally offensive word at that) differently from you really isn’t something YOU should be aiming for either.”
Well, clearly it is, or I wouldn’t have said that. Fucken idiot.
“And what’s the big difference between saying “Fuck-en” and “Fuck-ing”? It’s all slang, anyway.”
One’s the right way to say it, the other’s a twat’s way of saying it. Happy to clear that up.
cellycel said
Y’know, that goes both ways, what you’re saying isn’t marking you out as particularly clever. Stop using logical fallacies. If half your arguments against Polyestergirl are made up of ad hominem attacks (like her spelling nationality and state of leg hair) and not you know, logic, I’m not sure if you have any authority to say how stupid or idiotic someone is or isn’t.
Also: It’s funny that you say you’re the one representing the side of factual evidence. Charliegrrl posted a link to a news article in which the Press Complaints Commission were quoted saying FHM aggravated a significant breach to codes of practice.
The article also said that FHM is putting new measures to stop this thing, indicating further proof that the old measures weren’t good enough.
Charliegrrl used this source of information, which included statements from PCC and FHM officials, and complained that FHM doesn’t seem to being prosecuted.
Meanwhile: You’re spewing unfounded bullshit.
Polyestergirl said
Sigh:
““Rediculous”?”
What, you’re picking apart my spelling errors now? Like, SORRY if I don’t have time to spell check and proof read every little word I type. It would seem you have to pick apart every single word I say to find something that might help your piss weak arguement. Try again.
“Australian, eh? Now it all makes sense.”
You continue to try to undermine others based on their nationality, possibly even race. Well, I’m not suprised really. I suppose you’re from Britain, aren’t you? Britain was once on top of the ladder, and terror of the world. Not any more. You have no power based on where you are from. But in reference to your arguements, perhaps your nationality is all you have to grasp onto. Unlike the “Anti-Misandry” sites, your nationality and race doesn’t mean jack shit to anyone here. Except perhaps your little friend.
“Yes you can. Just don’t blame me that it clearly marks you out as a fucking idiot.”
What have I said that makes me look like the “Fucking” idiot. I probably say it differently to you, so what. By suggesting that there are more sophisticated ways to pronounce and spell an unsophisticated word only makes you look stupid. The more you drag it out, the more desperate you look.
“What are these “images sent to them by readers” of women in public places? Can you provide examples of these?”
Just pick up few copies, you should come across a few. I can find the magazine, its date and page, if you really want.
“Every image published in lads’ mags has to be, and is, accompanied by a model release form and proof of age.”
Ha! Not every woman OR girl featured in lads mags is a professional model. There is just NO way of checking a woman OR girl’s identity if she, or otherwise, sends in a pic via email or text, etc. A lot of the time they don’t even know featured’s name!
And if you’d like some examples of a lads mag publishing images of underage girls, back check on previous posts on Charlie’s Lads Mags features. I’m pretty sure it was ZOO that fucked up last time.
“At which point did I say or suggest that? Or are you miraculously able to ascribe extra meaning to typed words just by looking at them? I say, “Fire the fucker”, if for nothing more than giving the likes of you carte blanche to wank on about this as if it happens all the time?”
Well, you did say something like:”…someone at FHM was just being lazy and will almost certainly have lost their jobs, so celebrate that while you are styling your leg hair or whatever it is that you man-hating types do.”
Cone to your own conclusions. I never once said this happens ALL THE TIME either. Noone did. So who’s putting words in whos mouth now?
“I wasn’t going to mention homophobia. I’ll just stick with what I know, and point out how thick you are.”
What do you know, precisely. You don’t know anything about my body. Suggesting that someone doesn’t shave their legs or what not because they’re a feminist is the thickest assumption anyone can make. Congradulations. As you made that association based on outdated stereotyping, I was anticipating the homophobic slur usually attached.
“Well, she does have a direct link on her blog to another called Dead Men Don’t Rape. You should really do your research before you start making claims like that. Bit too easy to shoot down…”
I did ask for a quote, but seeings you could not provide any I’m not suprised you’d begin relaying the issue onto another subject matter. Repeat: QUOTE me or Charlie. As for that site, I think there are a lot of extreme sites by the “Anti-misandry” brigade, but unless I can quote something directly misogynist, I won’t sound on about what woman haters they are. You’re the one that is easy to shoot down.
“No, I represent the Telling Stupid People That They Don’t Have Their Facts Straight Brigade. But then, when did you lot ever let pesky things like facts get in the way?”
Facts? What facts have you presented. That’s the problem with you lot. You’re always under the impression what you’re spewing is facts, when you don’t even know what a real fact is. Basing an ideology on assumptions is NOT a fact.
“I’m not blaming anybody. When did I blame anybody? And what did I blame them for? Are you normally this paranoid?”
That quote wasn’t even aimed at you, I did not specifically refer to you. You’re the one that’s paranoid.
““What, do you think I care? To hate someone who pronounces a word ( a specifically politically incorrect and intentionally offensive word at that) differently from you really isn’t something YOU should be aiming for either.”
Well, clearly it is, or I wouldn’t have said that. Fucken idiot”
You admit being a retard is what you are aiming for. Yeesh. Fucking idiot.
““And what’s the big difference between saying “Fuck-en” and “Fuck-ing”? It’s all slang, anyway.”
One’s the right way to say it, the other’s a twat’s way of saying it. Happy to clear that up.”
Well CLEARLY!!! I do quote you, again:
“Well, clearly it is, or I wouldn’t have said that. Fucken idiot”
Well you really did put the last nail into you’re own coffin there.
Sigh said
“Well you really did put the last nail into you’re own coffin there.”
YOU’RE own coffin! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! THE classic indicator of a halfwit! Goodnight Australia!
cellycel said
“YOU’RE own coffin! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! THE classic indicator of a halfwit! Goodnight Australia!”
Ad hominem attacks! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! THE classic indicator of a halfwit!
Sigh said
You like saying “ad hominem”, don’t you? Did you get that from Latin Phrase Of The Day Toilet Paper? There’s no disgrace in calling a halfwit a halfwit, if they’re a halfwit. And she’s a halfwit, wallowing in her own illiteracy like a contented pig in poo. Now then, onto this…
“The article also said that FHM is putting new measures to stop this thing, indicating further proof that the old measures weren’t good enough.
Charliegrrl used this source of information, which included statements from PCC and FHM officials, and complained that FHM doesn’t seem to being prosecuted.
Meanwhile: You’re spewing unfounded bullshit.”
You shouldn’t believe everything you read in magazines and newspapers, you know, and even less what a magazine official says when the magazine they represent is in a bit of doodoo. There’s what you THINK about this situation, and then there’s what I KNOW, and what I know trumps what you think. I could elaborate, but fuck it, why should I furnish the enemy with facts…?
cellycel said
I’m using the phrase ad hominem because it’s apt.
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/adhomine.html
Polyestergirl’s spelling, nationality and state of leg hair is irrelevant to the question of whether FHM should be prosecuted for failing to prevent the image of an underage girl appearing in a magazine. You’re using irrelevant personal information to discount her arguments. That is fallacious.
Questioning where I got the term ‘ad hominem’ is also fallacious, because it has nothing to do with the argument.
I’ll stop saying you’re using logical fallacies when you stop using them.
My point was: You claim to have the facts, while producing no factual evidence. You’re just stating unfounded opinions. Meanwhile, Charliegrrl did happen to cite a source, giving her opinions the weight of evidence.
You can tell me you know everything and maybe you do. (Though I don’t believe it for a second.) However, if you can’t or won’t argue what you know effectively what is the point in talking? You’re not proving us wrong by failing to cite sources and failing to use effective logical arguments. Neither are you showing that you’re right, or that you’re clever.
Telling me you know everything doesn’t make it true. You need to prove it before your statements can be of any use in discussion.
sigh said
And give you valuable insight into the way that lads’ magazines are run? Why on earth would I want to do that?
As for ad hominemememememem… Who’s debating? I sure ain’t!
cellycel said
You fooled me.
Sigh said
Yeah, like I say, I’m not doing that.
polly styrene said
I wouldn’t bother CC & PG, it only encourages them. I’ve said it once but it bears repeating, back under the bridge menz.
Definitely not debating…..
Polyestergirl said
Sigh:“Well you really did put the last nail into you’re own coffin there.”
YOU’RE own coffin! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! THE classic indicator of a halfwit! Goodnight Australia!”
What the fuck are you talking about? Didn’t I previously say that I don’t have the time to spell check and proof read every single thing I type? How does this make me the halfwit? Everybody else here is engaging in some form of intellectual discussion except you. OMG, Cellycel and I have nothing on the superior wit and character of the lads mags supporter. If you class childish schoolyard bully tactics as superior wit. The FACT is you can’t engage in serious, practical discussion on the issue at hand, so instead you look for other ways to try to beat us. It’s not really working. Obviously you don’t take yourself or your own opinions seriously, so what the hell’s the point in coming here. It’s pretty embarrassing to be honest. Drop all the spell check crap and actually engage in the discussion. It’s no wonder feminist sites edit you retards’ comments out.
Sigh to Cellycel:”You shouldn’t believe everything you read in magazines and newspapers, you know, and even less what a magazine official says when the magazine they represent is in a bit of doodoo. There’s what you THINK about this situation, and then there’s what I KNOW, and what I know trumps what you think. I could elaborate, but fuck it, why should I furnish the enemy with facts…?”
Bullshit. You don’t know anything about the inner workings of the media, esp magazines. If you think your cutting edge intellect is somehow superior to everyone else on this blog, why the hell are you wasting your time posting shitarse comments that do not compliment your intelligence one tiny bit?
At the beginning of the discussion you offered your views on the subject matter, but failed to offer any substantial evidence to back you opinions up. Because you don’t actually know anything about the topic, you have resorted to embarrassingly childish name calling and stereotyping. You are by far the stupidist “Anti-misandrist” (or whatever) I have ever come across. I didn’t even have to make a fool of you. You did it yourself.
I already predict you’ve got the dictionary and grammar-check devices at hand, because you want to evade serious discussion. Pfft, talk about single handedly defaming the MRA cause. I’ll ask the question again: Quote anyone on this post that has expressed “man-hating” opinions. Repeat: QUOTE! If you can’t, then fuck on off out of here.
Polyestergirl said
Polly Styrene:
“I wouldn’t bother CC & PG, it only encourages them. I’ve said it once but it bears repeating, back under the bridge menz.
Definitely not debating…..”
I suppose. The little arrogant shits haven’t put forth anything worth discussing.
Oh, and Sigh, I do believe I will post your own comment for you:
“(Polyestergirl)”At the beginning of the discussion you offered your views on the subject matter, but failed to offer any substantial evidence to back you opinions up.”
Sigh: Evidence to back YOU opinion up? Hahahaha, I’m so much smarter than you, you stupid halfwit Australian… Bla bla… something about a pig in poo ( A little ironic?)…Bla bla…”
I’d also like to refer to one of Sigh’s previous quotes:
“One person’s ineptitude with paperwork does not a paedo trend in lads’ mags make.”
Yeah, I am THE illiterate one who doesn’t make any sense. Perhaps you should have found something else to evade me with, considering you yourself are the illiterate halfwit.
Goodnight Britain.
polly styrene said
I think it’s quite instructive really PG – it helps us see all the crap we’re missing and highlights why feminist sites are so keen on ‘censorship” as the Friends of the Billy Goats Gruff like to put it….Am amazed there have only been 2! But yeah – if you’re reduced to attacking someone’s language you clearly don’t have any actual valid points to make…
*nb if anyone wonders what I’m on about and isn’t versed in fairy tales:
http://www.eurotales.eril.net/billyuk.htm
polly styrene said
PS – Valuable insight into the way lads mags are run? Because that’s obviously top secret information that MI6 have been after for ages! Presume you’re the editor of one then Sigh – or are you just their biggest fan?
Back under the bridge or big Billy Goat Gruff will get you!
Polyestergirl said
Polly Styrene,
Here here! What you see from these trolls’ comments is pretty much the same as what you’ll find on their “official” sites. So far it has TRIED to debase me by marginalising my nationality, called me a halfwit based on some typos I had made (which is especially ironic considering all it has been doing is talking incoherent dribble), called me a “pig in poo” (my favourite) and (the most amusing) lectured me on my use of the word “fucken”. Because, like, I’d hate to think I’d have used that word in a totally inappropriate and offensive way. However, compared to the comments I’ve copped from other MRAs (Including a “blow it out your cunt, bitch!”) this little Troll is child’s play.
Oh, and it also posted a comment, followed by it’s highly intellectual companion “Simon” in Charlie’s post on women’s prisons, previous to this one.
Kaliphornia said
Where can we see a picture of the slutty 14 yr old girl (sorry, I mean grrrl!).
Polyestergirl said
Kalophornia,
Ooooooooh, look! A PEODOPHILE is now amongst us! When the cat’s away… Googled “Topless 14 Year Old Girl” and got directed to this site, now did we? This is yet another example, Polly Styrene, of why feminist sites are “censored”.
Continue your Google search, you perve, and hopefully you’ll be busted soon enough. Or you can go down to the publisher of FHM and ask them.
P.S. Before the other troll comes back, what I meant by “here here”; it’s a mix of “Hear!Hear!” and “hehe”. I probrably shouldn’t have used it. 🙂
Polyestergirl said
And yes, I meant to type kal-o-phornia.
Debs said
Aaaaarrrrgggghhhh! I can’t stand it anymore! Come back Charlie and save us from this madness!!
Rachel H-G said
To all the trolls claiming that all pictures are vetted for age and accompanied by a “model” release form – it is perfectly possible to upload photos of any sort to the Nuts website with no actual checks on who you are. That’s how I managed to upload a series of jpegs of feminist slogans before they banned me…
Debs said
Yay! Good for you Rachel! 😀
Polyestergirl said
For any of the trolls who need any more proof of this, google Lara Bingle and ZOO, the scumbags even made out she’d consented to her image being used with the smutty captions, and Isabel Lucas and Ralph, and you will find these mags used their pics without permission and got away with it due to the loopholes of photographer ownership. More recently, ZOO is being sued by a female golfer for using her image without ANY consent and making her out to be a prostitute. There are many more examples but I can’t think of them off the top of my head…
Scheminist Fum said
You know, you people place an awful amount of stock in the things that you read in other magazines, whether they be the ones that you support or the ones that you detest. You should all get out a bit more. Maybe protest a few more of those nasty prisons, eh?
Missus B said
Perhaps the idiot men (Fum included) buying this misogynistic, paedophilic porn should disengage nob from hand and get out a bit more. BTW – ‘get out a bit more’ is a lazy way of saying we should think about sexism less and subscribe to the same capitalist, sexist, patriarchal values that you do; itself an inherently lazy way of thinking.
Missus B said
Also, is ‘I didn’t know she was fourteen’ a defence which has kept many paedophiles out of prison? I certainly think FHM and ZOO should be penalised (pun intended) for publishing these photos (and also for their piss-poor content). If not, then an inconsistent message is being sent out to publishers of lads mags and their consumers.
Scheminist Fum said
“I certainly think FHM and ZOO should be penalised (pun intended) for publishing these photos (and also for their piss-poor content). If not, then an inconsistent message is being sent out to publishers of lads mags and their consumers.”
They are. FHM are being fined, Zoo are being sued, because what both of them did was illegal and against magazine industry rules.
charliegrrl said
Back off holiday. Sorry about the trolls. Comments are now being moderated.
Polyestergirl said
Scheminist Fum (or is it Feminist Scum?)obviously spends its days getting out more than us by logging on to feminist blogs and telling us we need to get out more.
And we all know these magazines are being punished, moderately. ZOO is always being sued, but they usually find a loophole. Anyway, the fact is the buggers never learn their lesson, do they? They continue to fuck things up and make up bullshit excuses, whether its about them straightening up their act, or that they’ve done nothing illegal, or they didn’t realise blah blah blah. It’s always the same story. It’s funny that people will go on to argue how women’s mags are just as bad, when you never hear any of this shit happening to them. It’s one thing to say leave the sexist garbage alone if you don’t like it (which is a stupid thing to argue in the first place) and another to have to open the Sun every week (or find it here 🙂 ) to discover yet another fuck up by a lads mag.
And since when is child exploitation (“accidental” or not) ever been something to be tken lightly? That poor girl will have to live with this for the rest of her life. These mags need to cop shit for their stupidity, otherwise they will continue fucking up.
sparklematrix said
Unless scum (filmy layer on surface of liquid: a filmy layer of extraneous matter or impurities that rises to or is formed on the surface of a liquid) really is just trolling in the nonsensical trying to derail the focus sort of way. Which is of course, from a place of awareness. Or am I purely underestimating its ignorance?
polly styrene said
I thought our old mate FS vowed some time back to never send comments to Charliegrrl again? Anyway back to this ‘model release form’. Anyone can sign a piece of paper. Unless you take a picture of someone yourself and the person then signs the ‘model release form’ in front of you HOW DO YOU KNOW IT WAS THEM THAT SIGNED IT? DOH!
ps – this is assuming the ‘model release form’ exists which it clearly doesn’t in the case of FHM and ZOO.
polly styrene said
And if you can’t be arsed/are too stupid to click on the link above here are the edited highlights:
FHM said it received around 1,200 photos of women either topless or wearing lingerie for publication each week. It added that it was “extremely surprised” to learn that the girl was 14 “as she certainly appeared to be older”, the PCC reported in its ruling today.
“The magazine had been informed that the complainants’ daughter was in a cohabiting relationship with the person who submitted the photograph and, in those circumstances, no further enquiries about the image were made,” said the PCC.
The PCC said the publication of the photo was a “serious intrusion” into the girl’s private life.
“The magazine had clearly not taken any sort of adequate care to establish the provenance of the photograph and whether it was right to publish it.
Clear FOBGG’s?
Rachel H-G said
If she was only 14 then why was she in a “cohabiting relationship” with someone? Was it a family member or just a liar who sent the picture?
don said
I think the piss poor excuse of ‘i didn’t know she 14’ is an awful one, i hope whoever approved the pics got fired. I can’t see this type of magazine disappearing anytime soon unfortunately along with the, mostly, idiotic readers trying to live up to its chauvinistic misogymist ideals. just go out around any town of a weekend and that fact is clear, we live in a demand and supply society, there’s clearly always going to be a demand until enough fuck ups like this happen, even then they’ll just get watered down and concentrate on more wounds or deformities!
Fanny Blood said
you have to remember that it was FHM who kept banging on charlotte churches door for years before she was finally at the right age to appear in the vile magazine. fhm has a paedophillic mentality. of course they know these girls are under-age. they get off on it.
Jessica said
This is purely unbelievable! I can’t believe that such a huge magazine doesn’t check through their images! 14! I mean you’re mean’t to be trying alcohol and smoking by then not on a cover of a dirty lads magazine. It’s simply unexceptable!
I hope they get burned to hell and all lads magazines are banished – well I can dream.
Jessica.
Polyestergirl said
The thing I hate most is that they have the “Real Girls” section in the first place. People argue the girls in these types of mags are for fantasy purposed, which is how they get away with degrading women the way they do. But how do you justify that with “Real Girls”? The message behind it is “Hey, REAL GIRLS can be objectified too!”
Thene said
God, that’s appalling! I’ll definitely be writing to my MP asking for the law to be tightened up. It’s unbelievable that FHM can get away with a slap on the wrist for abusing the image of an underage, unconsenting woman – and how many other cases like this have happened without our knowing, I wonder? It’s even stranger that the CJB is going to tighten up the law about how of age, consenting women can be shown in porn…when you can just walk into your local news agent and buy this child abuse and the government doesn’t give a damn!
Thene said
I’d just like to add that it’s a crying shame that this post attracted off-topic harassers; now I understand why you moderate your blog so carefully. It’s ridiculous – no one in their right minds could support FHM’s position here, and indeed these people don’t, they’re just so alarmed by the thought of women speaking out about sex that they have to harass you the one time you give them the chance, eh? Isn’t that a great way to get some meaningful dialogue? I really wish there was more dialogue between anti-porn folk and neutral/pro-porn folk, especially over issues like this that we all agree on and could all campaign for together. But it’s not going to happen as long as insecure idiots keep harassing you like this.
CoolAunt said
Oh, can I play, too? Please?
Sigh, do you know the proper use of the ellipsis? Are you even aware that you are using ellipses improperly? Fuck, do you even know what an ellipsis is?
el·lip·sis
/-siz/ Pronunciation Key –
1. Grammar. a. the omission from a sentence or other construction of one or more words that would complete or clarify the construction, as the omission of who are, while I am, or while we are from I like to interview people…sitting down.
b. the omission of one or more items from a construction in order to avoid repeating the identical or equivalent items that are in a preceding or following construction, as the omission of been to Paris from the second clause of I’ve been to Paris, but they haven’t.
2. Printing. a mark or marks as ——, …, or * * *, to indicate an omission or suppression of letters or words.
[Origin: 1560–70; < L ellīpsis < Gk élleipsis an omission, equiv. to el- (var. of en- en-2) + leip- (s. of leípein to leave) + -sis -sis]
Surely you know all about the ellipsis and it’s proper usages. So, Sigh, The Grammar And Spelling Guy, please allow me to fill in the words you intentionally left out.
“Now then, onto this so that I may finish up here and get back to jerking off to photos of underage girls and cum before Kalifornia does. It’s wanker racing time, you know.
“I could elaborate, but fuck it, why should I furnish the enemy with facts when I wouldn’t know a fact if it fell from the sky unless it fell from the sky and landed on my dick.”
“As for ad hominemememememem, do you actually expect me to know the definition when I obviously can’t spell it?”
Polyestergirl said
Hehe! I really hope he comes back and reads that!
trendy wendy said
I have a question, mainly for you polyestergirl because you seem to be on here alot.
so whether the girl is 14 or not, would you say that having topless women in magazines is an out of date way of selling lad’s mags to men.
Polyestergirl said
I LOVE LADS MAGS!!! they are great, the naked women are the best!!!
(the real) Polyestergirl said
Obviously I didn’t make the 55. Comment.
And just to correct who was impersonating me (I am rather flattered, though you are a bit sad) there are no naked women in lads mags, or if so their nipples are covered. Well, in Aust anyway.
To Trendy Wendy, well obviously it doesn’t take a genius to figure out that “topless” women are a very good way to sell lads mags. That is not the issue, but in the end it is what mags like this are all about. Sales.
trendy wendy said
cheers darlin!
ur a star and i was well confused about that imposter, bless that silly bill.