The Sun banned at The University of Worcester. Watch

Poll: The Sun Banned at The Uni of Worcester
Right decision. (12)
23.08%
Wrong decision. (32)
61.54%
I just wanted to vote. (8)
15.38%
Lady Comstock
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#41
Report 4 years ago
#41
How authoritarian.

Lefties: giving you freedom of choice and expression since.... never.
0
reply
Zarek
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#42
Report 4 years ago
#42
Keen as I am on free speech etc, this infantile, oft offensive and pathetic masquerade for journalism has little place in a bastion of academic excellence.
0
reply
Chlorophile
  • Study Helper
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#43
Report 4 years ago
#43
(Original post by Snagprophet)
It may as well be the same thing. It's like with the Blurred Lines song, they wouldn't stop people playing it, but it was removed from any playlist that the university might be affiliated with. I dunno if this includes SU owned clubs like the one in my city if my uni banned Blurred Lines, but it just means if the uni plays music or has a radio show, they won't have it being played.

It may as well be the same thing because that's the only way this university is affiliated with this paper.
Well I can completely understand why they'd want to distance themselves from things like that song and The Sun. Nobody is saying that people are not allowed to access these media, the university is simply agreeing that as an institution, it does not want to be seen as agreeing with the message of said media. Why would a university want to be associated with a video parading topless girls around a man or a newspaper that at the very best is a shameful interpretation of journalism? People can indulge themselves in these things if they want, that doesn't mean the university has to agree.
0
reply
anarchism101
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#44
Report 4 years ago
#44
(Original post by Chlorophile)
No, The University of Worcester has not banned The Sun. The SU shop has stopped selling it. That is quite a flipping big difference...
Indeed. You're perfectly free to buy the Sun elsewhere and read it in the SU, but that sounds less good for the righties to complain about.

Seriously think about it - the alternative is that the SU shop should be forced to sell the Sun.
1
reply
Drewski
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#45
Report 4 years ago
#45
(Original post by sr90)
- Printing blatent lies about the dead in the aftermath of the Hillsborough disaster (it took them 20 years to apologise)
Why hold the current Sun to this though? I'd be amazed if anyone involved in the organisation then was even slightly close to the organisation now.

It's akin to saying that because the Daily Mail supported fascism in the 30s that we should avoid it now (we should avoid it now, but not for that reason) or that because Henry Ford and Walt Disney were anti semitic we should never drive Ford cars or watch any Disney film.

That argument was a legitimate reason to hate the sun then, it's a lazy reason to hate it now.
1
reply
Student20
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#46
Report 4 years ago
#46
The problem they are trying to solve only becomes worse. The Sun is a stupid tabloid with a lot of objectification of women, I would agree with that and I would never go out of my way to buy it. Creating a form of regulation to stop people reading it though doesn't actually solve any route problem as to why people choose to read it in the first place. It will actually just annoy people who didn't already read it but wanted the choice to read it, therefore they will go out of their way to read it or just criticise and become opponents of the feminist type of ideology that has prevented their choice of reading it in this place. Stopping people's choice of doing something is only going to make people who had the choice of doing it more angry and inhibit the messages of the Sun.
0
reply
Clip
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#47
Report 4 years ago
#47
(Original post by Chlorophile)
Well I can completely understand why they'd want to distance themselves from things like that song and The Sun. Nobody is saying that people are not allowed to access these media, the university is simply agreeing that as an institution, it does not want to be seen as agreeing with the message of said media. Why would a university want to be associated with a video parading topless girls around a man or a newspaper that at the very best is a shameful interpretation of journalism? People can indulge themselves in these things if they want, that doesn't mean the university has to agree.
It's not the university, it's the union.

And unions are notorious for supporting things that just as many (if not more) people find equally (if not more) offensive.

You may not like images of topless women. I do. You may not like Emily Ratajkowski dancing around. I do. Yet unions like to ban these things, purely as politically motivated attention seeking.

Equally, unions give succour to all sorts of nasty radical groups and divisive ideas which are extremely far from the mainstream.

Look at what's happening at UCL right now. The union is running out of money very fast and is £250,000 over budget annually. UCLU has nearly twice as many full-time paid sabbatical officers as comparable London colleges. The clubs and socs tabled a motion to cut the number of FT Sabbs (losing the FT Womens officer and BME officer in favour of an Equality Officer).

What did the union incumbents do? Tabled a counter-motion suggesting an increase in the number of Sabbs; with no plan whatsoever to decrease the deficit. Then, they set out on a smear campaign of the socs and their committees, making out that they were priviliged males declaring war on the minorities.

In a nutshell - that's what unions do.
0
reply
Lady Comstock
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#48
Report 4 years ago
#48
Under this logic, why not bad Attitude Magazine? If this SU believes that newspapers should be banned if they offend the sensibilities of others - i.e. those who are offended by what they perceive to be the objectification of women - then why not ban Attitude Magazine for offending Muslims or Christians?
0
reply
caravaggio2
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#49
Report 4 years ago
#49
(Original post by Clip)


Look at what's happening at UCL right now. The union is running out of money very fast and is £250,000 over budget annually. UCLU has nearly twice as many full-time paid sabbatical officers as comparable London colleges. The clubs and socs tabled a motion to cut the number of FT Sabbs (losing the FT Womens officer and BME officer in favour of an Equality Officer).

What did the union incumbents do? Tabled a counter-motion suggesting an increase in the number of Sabbs; with no plan whatsoever to decrease the deficit. Then, they set out on a smear campaign of the socs and their committees, making out that they were priviliged males declaring war on the minorities.

In a nutshell - that's what unions do.
Future Labour chancellor right there.😊
0
reply
Roving Fish
  • Forum Helper
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#50
Report 4 years ago
#50
(Original post by Lady Comstock)
Under this logic, why not bad Attitude Magazine? If this SU believes that newspapers should be banned if they offend the sensibilities of others - i.e. those who are offended by what they perceive to be the objectification of women - then why not ban Attitude Magazine for offending Muslims or Christians?
They don't stock Attitude...
0
reply
Spetznaaz
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#51
Report 4 years ago
#51
I find the most ridiculous argument the feminists have against the Sun is that it's a "family" newspaper and we must protect the poor children's eyes.

Please, as if little kids read ****ing newspapers.

Then again, the whole "a pair of tits objectifies wiminz" argument is equally ridiculous.
1
reply
Zhukov
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#52
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#52
(Original post by Spetznaaz)
I find the most ridiculous argument the feminists have against the Sun is that it's a "family" newspaper and we must protect the poor children's eyes.

Please, as if little kids read ****ing newspapers.

Then again, the whole "a pair of tits objectifies wiminz" argument is equally ridiculous.
An interesting view.
0
reply
Birkenhead
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#53
Report 4 years ago
#53
I don't think there is a single class of organisation in all the world that I find more irritating than the student union.
3
reply
Birkenhead
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#54
Report 4 years ago
#54
(Original post by Chlorophile)
Well I can completely understand why they'd want to distance themselves from things like that song and The Sun. Nobody is saying that people are not allowed to access these media, the university is simply agreeing that as an institution, it does not want to be seen as agreeing with the message of said media. Why would a university want to be associated with a video parading topless girls around a man or a newspaper that at the very best is a shameful interpretation of journalism? People can indulge themselves in these things if they want, that doesn't mean the university has to agree.
Stocking this media is not an implication of agreement with it, but refusing to stock it is an implication of disagreement. The point is that it should be entirely independent: to adapt your final sentence, 'People in the SU can refuse to indulge in these things if they want, but that doesn't mean they should enforce their views on the rest of the student population'.
0
reply
Clip
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#55
Report 4 years ago
#55
(Original post by caravaggio2)
Future Labour chancellor right there.😊
This isn't even funny, because it's so likely.
0
reply
Lady Comstock
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#56
Report 4 years ago
#56
(Original post by Roving Fish)
They don't stock Attitude...
Argument still applies.
0
reply
Zhukov
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#57
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#57
(Original post by Birkenhead)
Stocking this media is not an implication of agreement with it, but refusing to stock it is an implication of disagreement. The point is that it should be entirely independent: to adapt your final sentence, 'People in the SU can refuse to indulge in these things if they want, but that doesn't mean they should enforce their views on the rest of the student population'.
Great point.
0
reply
-Native Briton-
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#58
Report 4 years ago
#58
(Original post by Evening)
The Tab deliberately tries to put a certain angle on things - twisting the truth for their own financial gain - whilst trying to maintain the visage that they're more intellectually challenging than other toilet rags like o.
sounds like all newspapers to me
0
reply
Zhukov
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#59
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#59
(Original post by abbiemac)
Idgaf if people want to look at other naked people, then whatever carry on, but does it really have to be in a newspaper? Seriously? Can people not go so long without looking at a pair of tits that they have to have them available between headlines?
I have no problem with stuff like that otherwise, but to me having it in a newspaper is just tacky.
Surely, one can simply choose not to by said newspaper? Why the need to ban something so innocuous?
0
reply
Zhukov
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#60
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#60
(Original post by -Native Briton-)
sounds like all newspapers to me
I agree.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Have you registered to vote?

Yes! (546)
37.73%
No - but I will (113)
7.81%
No - I don't want to (100)
6.91%
No - I can't vote (<18, not in UK, etc) (688)
47.55%

Watched Threads

View All