Co-operative ban hits lads' mags where it hurts

[MikeBigg]

Co-operative ban hits lads' mags where it hurts

The Co-operative Retail Trading Group has announced that as of September 9 it will no longer sell Front, Nuts and Zoo in its 4,000-plus Co-operative stores after publishers refused to meet requests to sell the magazines in sealed modesty bags.

The Daily Sport and the Sunday Sport are also being pulled from Co-operative stores after the publisher said it was no longer able to fulfil its earlier undertaking that it would deliver all editions to Co-operative stores in modesty bags.

The request to publishers was made at the end of July in response to growing concerns by members, customers and colleagues over exposure of children to the overt sexual imagery on the front covers of these publications.

Steve Murrells, chief executive of retail for The Co-operative Group, said: "As a community-based retailer, we have listened to and acted upon the concerns of our customers and members, many of whom said they objected to their children being able to see overt sexual images in our stores.

"We believe individual, sealed modesty bags are the most effective way of addressing these concerns, so we will no longer be stocking the titles that have failed to meet our request. This action will make our stores more attractive to families with young children, by creating a more family-friendly shopping environment."

Kathy McGuinness, co-founder of child protection charity Child Eyes, commented: "Child Eyes is delighted that The Co-operative has taken the lead to protect its customers' children from sexualised images in its stores.

"We applaud The Co-operative for putting children's welfare first, and hope other supermarkets will listen to their customers and follow suit."​

From Sorted magazine:

Sorted | The UK's Only Christian Magazine for Men | Co-operative ban hits lads' mags where it hurts

Any thoughts?

 

[Danny777]

It's not often you here of a retail outlet running a significant risk of losing revenue by taking a moral stand at the request of its customers - I think this is great.

My only question would be whether some ladies magazines would also fall foul of this. I accept that many popular ladies magazines do not have "sexualised" images of women on their front cover, but I think very often they do have scantily dressed models? Is there a difference from the perspective of a child looking up at these front covers?

 

[ianb321red]

Gutted

 

[MikeBigg]

It's not often you here of a retail outlet running a significant risk of losing revenue by taking a moral stand at the request of its customers - I think this is great.

Me too.

You know we Brits have a reputation of being protesting letter writers - I'm tempted to write to the co-op to thank them for their efforts.

My only question would be whether some ladies magazines would also fall foul of this. I accept that many popular ladies magazines do not have "sexualised" images of women on their front cover, but I think very often they do have scantily dressed models? Is there a difference from the perspective of a child looking up at these front covers?

Yes, and the whole aspect of normalising size zero comes into this, too.

 

[Paradoxum]

It makes sense to put them in 'modesty bags' in my opinion.

Do you think many men buy them now, considering the internet exists?

 

[Robban]

Not a bad idea, saves people flicking through them,
also if it is absolutely need to sell them keep them stored higher up.
As for small children, would Think they are more intrested in the sweets that you always find at most cashpoints.

If you offer a small child a sweet or a 100 Pounds, which will s/he take.

 

[Gadarene]

It's censorship. Arguably necessary if they're going to be sold in a public space shared by those under legal age.

There are plenty more magazines than just lads mags though that could fall foul of this scrutiny as well, and it is also somewhat pointless given that the internet exists. It seems rather one-sided and petty to me.

 

[Cjwinnit]

It's censorship.

It's freedom. A shop shouldn't be compelled to sell a product they don't like or serve someone they don't like.

 

[Gadarene]

It's freedom. A shop shouldn't be compelled to sell a product they don't like or serve someone they don't like.

That's nice. It's still censorship. And I'm sure the campaigns against lads mags in the past have nothing at all to do with it. As I said, it can be argued as necessary given the environment but that does not mean it is not censorship.

 

[saffron park]

A group of private companies making moral choices without government coercion? Impossible!

 

[Cjwinnit]

That's nice. It's still censorship. And I'm sure the campaigns against lads mags in the past have nothing at all to do with it. As I said, it can be argued as necessary given the environment but that does not mean it is not censorship.

Say you were writing a book and I was one of many booksellers in a town. My refusal to stock the book may or may not be censorship (I may have no space!). Censorship would be my attempt to stop you selling it in any other bookshop.

There is a difference. One action only controls myself, the other controls you.

 

[Jonathan Jarvis]

The Co-op isn't all Christians friends BBC NEWS | UK | Co-op bank bars Christian group

 

[MikeBigg]

The Co-op isn't all Christians friends BBC NEWS | UK | Co-op bank bars Christian group

From 2005.

I wonder if anything has changed in that time, with both how Christian Voice speak out and how the Co-op bank vets its customers.

Interesting article.

 

[Gadarene]

Say you were writing a book and I was one of many booksellers in a town. My refusal to stock the book may or may not be censorship (I may have no space!). Censorship would be my attempt to stop you selling it in any other bookshop.

There is a difference. One action only controls myself, the other controls you.

And if every vendor responded in the same way then a particular medium is effectively extinguished.

Just because it isn't universal or done by government edict doesn't mean it is not censorious. It is, once again, arguably necessary, but that doesn't mean I'm not going to call it what it is.

 

[Gadarene]

The Co-op isn't all Christians friends BBC NEWS | UK | Co-op bank bars Christian group

And I have no doubt if it was Bibles being put in morality bags or whatever the word censorship would be thrown around like it's in the January sales.

 

[saffron park]

And if every vendor responded in the same way then a particular medium is effectively extinguished.

Just because it isn't universal or done by government edict doesn't mean it is not censorious. It is, once again, arguably necessary, but that doesn't mean I'm not going to call it what it is.

It is censorship, but I'd argue that the fact that since it isn't the government who's censoring the material, there's nothing immoral going on here.

Technically, the retailers have to purchase the magazine before they can sell them on their shelves, so opposition to this as censorship would mean you either want to remove their right to utilize their property as they see fit, or removing their right to negotiate with the producer of the magazine, depending on who exactly the retailer wants to do the actual bagging.

 

[Gadarene]

It is censorship, but I'd argue that the fact that since it isn't the government who's censoring the material, there's nothing immoral going on here.

Technically, the retailers have to purchase the magazine before they can sell them on their shelves, so opposition to this as censorship would mean you either want to remove their right to utilize their property as they see fit, or removing their right to negotiate with the producer of the magazine, depending on who exactly the retailer wants to do the actual bagging.

I'm not necessarily suggesting anything be mandated in response. Just pointing out exactly what it is people are getting themselves into. It is simply naive to think that governments are the only threat to freedoms.

The heckler's veto (in the colloquial sense) is just as potent as the government ban, IMO. But people seem rather myopic when it comes to former, largely because the general public has a rather large sense of self-righteousness - but doesn't do so well when it comes to self-awareness and accountability.

The only censorship arguments that hold water are the fact that these publications are sometimes sold in venues frequented by under-18s and that they occasionally make some really misogynistic foul-ups. Beyond that, there is no reason they should not continue to be available.

 

[Cjwinnit]

Technically, the retailers have to purchase the magazine before they can sell them on their shelves, so opposition to this as censorship would mean you either want to remove their right to utilize their property as they see fit, or removing their right to negotiate with the producer of the magazine, depending on who exactly the retailer wants to do the actual bagging.

You assume that there is such a thing as private property. Not everyone in the UK thinks this.

 

[BlunderAngel]

Very wise choice! Good news.

 

[saffron park]

You assume that there is such a thing as private property. Not everyone in the UK thinks this.

So we should base public policy on what some people think?