Lad's mags are not a great evil of society.

I should point out before I begin that, yes I have bought Lad's mags in the past, especially in my teenage years but I also am no sexist - far from it. I am inspired by strong women, one of my heroes as a youth was a strong female lead (albeit fictional) and I've always had a strong leading woman in my life - I even married one! For me equality and society free of degradation is essential.

Lads mags have always been a contentious issue since their inception in the 1990s. They portray a lifestyle of booze, sport, boobs and cars. For many they're no more than Soft pornography filled with scantily clad celebrity women and semi naked models and unwholesome imagery and articles that degrade women.

However this is really not the case. In fact the Ladsmag is a window into a culture that is very prevalent in the UK and that both gendres are involved in equally and, without sounding classist, is something that a lot of critics do not experience.

As Journalist Rowan Pelling said;

We live in a world where people masturbate with bottles on Big Brother. Page 3 in comparison, is a cradle of innocence, and the models - virtually Vicars daughters. [1]

In deed should you have the misfortune to watch Geordie shore, TOWIE, The Valleys or the Channel 4 Documentary on Kavos it exposes this party culture of the UK's 17-24 which revolves around beer, laddish behaviour and sex. On reveller was quoted as saying that he was in Kavos for booze, pulling a few birds maybe shag a few and the female party goers are in for the same thing. The rise of the so called Ladette has been around for quite some time. In comparison, if you were to read a ladsmag you will see that they are no where near as bad as this culture. Magazines like Nuts and Zoo, rather than encouraging this lifestyle are in fact documenting it and giving a voice to it and why shouldn't there be a voice in a society based on freedom of speech?

Today, purely for research purposes, nothing to do with Kaley Cuoco being on the cover, I bought FHM and on a cursory glance through there are articles on men's fashion, health care, games and Movie reviews, articles on survival, sex and summer festivals and a full spread interview with Ms Cuoco dressed sexily but not naked or provocatively in any way.  In fact when I was a student I read a great article in a copy of Esquire on segregation in the deep south of the USA in public schools - yes I bought it because Caprice was on the cover but the articles were very thought provoking. Lure young men in with the promise of semi naked women but educate them at the same time. Surely that is a good thing?

The biggest criticism is that these magazines are degrading to women - yet the women I've spoken too disagree and are not bothered by them. The defence is two fold, one is that it provides a positive body image for young women as well as for young women too and that is all voluntary.

When asked about how she felt about whether or not Ladsmags were degrading to women, Lucy Collett (2011 Page 3 idol winner) responded (via Twitter DM):

Well, I have 1,000s of female followers who look up to me for my body. So it's not just a lads mag, women read them too.

I myself have always read lads mags as I find fashion and what celebratory is f**king who a load of sh*t. I'd rather look at a half naked pretty woman and read some comical banter and stupid pictures any day.

I don't see nothing wrong with it. Everybody had a body, some ladies and men like to show there's off.

Look at Fashion models on runways! They parade down half naked! Why not ban that? With the skin and bone bodies making girls turn anorexic.

I have a healthy body image for a lot of women, hence why I show it off and I help women be happy with themselves. On my Istagram I have 100s of women commenting that I am their role model. I make them happy.

Indeed the Ladsmag community features curvy, natural girls rather than the pneumatic surgically enhanced models from the 90s and early 00s or the waifer thin fashion models whose body image is not an example of everyday women's shape and perpetuates a dangerous myth that all women should be the same shape and only eat sparsely.




I am very grateful to Miss Collett for allowing me to reproduce her Instagram images and have done so (above) to demonstrate the above point.


Lads mags can be seen to be demonstrating to young men that - yeah, curvy women are more attractive than the fashion world's idea of beauty as well as saying to young women that men do fancy women like Lucy, Sophie Howard and Kelly Brook and they should be themselves and have the same healthy body image.

In an interview with the Independent back in 2006 the first Page 3 idol winner, Keeley Hazell said;

I'm happy doing it for now, but who knows? In years to come maybe I'll look back at all this and regret it. Perhaps I'll think it was degrading to women. I know some people think it is, but then not everything in life has to be academic, you know? An artist is someone who paints and is creative, but they are not necessarily using their brains too much. And it's the same in modelling... I know there is a stigma to topless modelling, but I'm not sure I understand it. Kate Moss is always photographed without her top on, but she doesn't get any grief. Why me? [2]

Indeed it is also a voluntary business. At no point are the models forced into these poses so where is the harm? As Lucy pointed out, some people are proud of their bodies and want to show them off to the public. Indeed both models that are quoted have won a competition to go into modelling. The weekly magazines Nuts and Zoo run weekly slots for non girlfriends to send in pictures and then appear within the magazine, Lucy Pinder, a long running model, was approached on a beach by a photographer and started her career. Indeed Lucy Pinder is an interesting case as she refused to show her nipples in any of her modelling for the first four years of her career. If this was truly a forced occupation then she would not have continued to make the covers week in week out and probably have been dropped for someone more willing by the editors. The fact is that she wasn't and her career was not negatively impacted by her decision. Surely this shows that the magazine editors are not the insensitive sexist and brutal force that is often suggested and were in fact willing to negotiate and allow Miss Pinder her modesty. None of this is forced upon women, it is just as it seems a modelling opportunity that they can feel free to walk away from.

We as a nation are bombarded by sex and sexual imagery be it in the form of magazines like FHM or Maxim,  the more blatant end of the market on the top shelf, your Escorts and Mayfairs but also in mainstream advertising and billboards. I'm not just talking about obvious things like Lynx deodorants (the Lynx effect still doesn't work and I've been wearing Africa for nigh on fifteen years!) but in other less obvious things too. A Moonpig advert with the shirtless guy with ripped abs laying on a sofa whilst Dawn French's voice over descends into that of a drooling school girl, the Galaxy advert with the two girls blatantly objectifying the Male strippers who are about to come on stage, women scantily clad indulging in sexual encounters to sell perfume or aftershave, draped over cars - it is absolutely everywhere! If you want to go after Ladsmags for sexual imagery fine, but let us also attack advertising too - lets go all Mary Whitehouse and Puritan and let the Mumsnet people decide what is right and wrong or just let things slide and stick to our own likes and dislikes.

Interestingly, last week, it was announced in the Guardian that Supermarkets could be sued for sexual harassment for stocking Ladsmags;

For too long supermarkets have got off the hook, stocking Lad's mags in the face of widespread opposition, but this time we have the law on our side, every shop that sells lad's mags - publications which are deeply harmful to women - are opening themselves up to legal action. says Kat Banyard of Feminista. [3]

Really?

I understand that they are not to everyone's taste and yes - there is a scale with magazines at Front at one end and GQ and Esquire at the other. I do agree, and teenage Chris is kicking me right now, that maybe there should be an age limit on the purchasing of the magazines set at 15, the same rating as if it were a movie for nudity however that is it.

As for the staff, I'm afraid it is your job to restock the magazines whether you appreciate the content or not. I dislike the Daily Mail, intensely, I think that it is a vile rag filled with hate and opinions from the 1950s. I also dislike the Sun as I think it uses its popularity to mislead people to going where Murdoch's lackeys want you to but those are my opinions - for my working wage I would still restock them and move them around the warehouse as it is my job. If you have fundamental problems with it then speak to your supervisor and they can find you another part of the store to work in but someone else will move them around.

Ladsmags are not this evil thrust upon civilised society, nor does it reduce all women into sex objects made to strip for our pleasure, far from it. They are a window to the Lad/ladette culture of the UK, they are entirely voluntary, they encourage a positive body image in female readers and models and are part of the Sex sells attitude that is modern Britain. Like them or Loathe them, they are here to stay and so they should.

Nick Clegg's Press release: Press regulation, a liberal solution

Having been in face to face negotiations till nearly midnight last night - followed by calls, texts and emails for many hours afterwards - I am delighted to have stood up this afternoon in the House of Commons to welcome the cross-party agreement on implementing the Leveson Report. It wasn’t easy but after a lot of hard work - led on our side by the tireless Jim Wallace, we have got there.

The Leveson Inquiry was established after public revulsion at the phone hacking scandal. So, when Lord Justice Leveson published his recommendations to reform the regulation of the press, the Liberal Democrats took a stand for the victims of press abuse, and supported them.

In fact, I took the unprecedented step of making a separate statement in the House of Commons, on an issue where we disagreed with the Prime Minister. Having been honest with the public about our differences, it was then our duty to sit down with all parties and come to an agreement.

As I mentioned in my latest “Letter from the Leader”, we set out three tests for press regulation in the future:

Delivering Lord Justice Leveson’s recommendations.

1. Commanding the widest possible cross-party support, as Lord Justice Leveson also wanted.
2. Striking the right balance between protecting and cherishing the great tradition of a free press in this country, and protecting innocent people from unwarranted intimidation and bullying by powerful interests in our media.

What has been agreed today meets those tests.

We will achieve Leveson through the Royal Charter published by the Liberal Democrats and Labour last week. Our Royal Charter ensures that editors cannot sign off their own code of conduct; cannot veto appointments to the watchdog; can accept complaints from third party groups, and must apologise properly when they make mistakes.

And, crucially, all parties have now agreed that there should be a minimal clause in law that will prevent future governments chopping and changing the new system on a whim. This was important to me as, without it, the door would be open to political meddling by future governments. We cannot take this risk.

With these protections we have got the best possible outcome today: a fair, independent press watchdog to serve the British people while protecting our free press – a thoroughly liberal solution.

Letter from the Nick Clegg; Protecting the individual and press freedom

Dear Chris,

When I came into work on Monday morning I thought this week was going to be about two things. First - National Apprenticeship Week, celebrating the achievements of the million new apprentices who have started training under this government. And second - finalising the Budget for next week.

But that got rather overtaken on Thursday morning. The Prime Minister decided to pull the plug on cross-party talks on implementing a new system of independent, self regulation for the press, as proposed by the Leveson Inquiry. I was surprised and disappointed by this decision, but I am determined not to walk away from the cross-party approach.

The next big moment on this will be on Monday, when the House of Commons will vote on what to do next.

This has been a long and painstaking process – it must not be derailed.

This is going to dominate headlines over the weekend, so I’ve made my own contribution by writing an article for this morning’s Times [subscription required], where I set out the position I’ve been taking in these negotiations, and what the party will seek to do on Monday.

We need a careful balance. On the one hand, we must vigorously defend our free press. On the other, we must protect people from harassment and bullying by powerful interests in the media.

The Prime Minister is arguing for a Royal Charter, but it falls short of meaningful reform. The other option, backed by some campaigners, is a full legislative approach. I’ve always agreed with them that this approach could work, But on an issue as sensitive as press freedom, we need as much agreement across the parties as possible. So I’ve been working for a middle way, one which I believe supporters of all three parties can back.

It simply takes the Prime Minister’s proposal Royal Charter and strengthens it in five specific ways.

One: editors would not be granted a special veto over the individuals sitting on the regulatory body.

Two: whilst editors, journalists and independent members of a standards committee will hold the pen in drafting any changes to the Press Code, those changes would require the consent of the regulator’s board.

Three: under David Cameron’s proposal, when mistakes are made newspapers would decide how to apologise to the individuals involved. Even if that meant the apology for an offensive front page was just a few sentences hidden away in the paper. Under our proposal, the regulator would ensure apologies are proportionate and fair.

Four: the regulator would have greater discretion in accepting complaints from third parties. So, for example, if a domestic violence charity wanted to voice its concern over the portrayal of a woman in a story about abuse, it would be easier for the regulator to consider that complaint.

Finally, we would put in place an explicit safeguard against future governments playing around with the Royal Charter – a crucial guarantee for both the public and the press.
My article in the Times goes into more detail on all of this, if you want to read more [subscription required].

But what I’d like you to do most of all, is get in touch with your MP and help persuade them to vote for this beefed-up Royal Charter on Monday. The vote is crucial for all of us who want press regulation to really change after the phone hacking scandal. This middle way is the best chance to secure the lasting change we all want.

Best wishes,

Nick Clegg on Cameron's step down

As you may have seen this morning the Prime Minister has decided to call off the cross-party talks on implementing the Leveson proposals on press regulation.

Throughout the talks I have sought to defend a free press while making sure ordinary people can be protected from unwarranted harassment and bullying by powerful interests in the press.

I was surprised and disappointed when David Cameron told Ed Miliband and myself that he felt there was no chance of us reaching an agreement. The talks had appeared to be progressing well with a genuine desire to come to a solution that would provide a robust, independent press regulator.

There are some issues - such as allowing the press to veto who sits on the independent regulator and whether the regulator should be able to direct newspaper apologies - where I disagreed with the Prime Minister, but these appeared to be issues that could be worked through.

Lord Justice Leveson went to enormous lengths to deliver a considered verdict on the way independent self-regulation of the press should work in the future and then rightly told politicians that the ball was in our court.

I remain determined to meet his challenge and find a workable solution with like-minded members of all parties.

As I said in my statement to the House when the Leveson Report was published:

"We need to get on with this without delay. We owe it to the victims of these scandals, who have already waited too long for us to do the right thing. Too long for an independent press watchdog in which they can put their trust. I am determined we do not make them wait any more."

That remains my view and it remains what I intend to help deliver.

Clegg attacked by Daily mail as illiberal

The Daily Mail just don't get it do they?

As I read the editorial comment (pictured) I was torn as to whether they were genuinely missing Clegg's point or being deliberately obtuse.

In Nick Clegg's statement to the press yesterday he stated that the party would carry out it's two separate enquiries into the Rennard case but they would not be updating the press/Self appointed detectives on every bit of speculation that developed.

Yes there should be freedom of the press but there is also due process and Lord Rennard, like every other human being should remain innocent until proven guilty and this can only happen during inquests.

Have they forgotten the case of Christopher Jefferies, the landlord who was interviewed by the police following Joanna Yeats? He was tried by media and found guilty before the Police enquiry was even finished, yet he was innocent.

The same was true of Barry George, who was found guilty for nothing short of being a weirdo, Before the court case was begun.

What Clegg is trying to do is give Lord Rennard s fair trial. The party will release information that is concrete rather than every piece of supposition, speculation, rumour and gossip. Freedom to a fair trial outweighs the press' will to print every detail.

In the case of Mark Oaten, it was of no one's interest what he got up to in his own personal private life. The fact that he was cheating on his wife with a male prostitute did not impact on his role as MP and the only reason it was "in the public interest" is because he was running for libdem leadership. As Mark said in 2009:

Journalists... had my story for three years I think, but hung on to it and never did anything with it. They could have made that public interest argument at any point in the three years. I had always been a Member of Parliament, but they waited until it could sell most newspapers, at the point at which I became well-known and at my most famous.

It was the press that were wrong to print the story as it is hardly holding someone to account with the public by violating his liberty. I was his constituent at the time and honestly it made no impact on me what so ever.

In the case of Expenses and Cyril Smith, yes the Press were right to whistleblow but there are differences. Smith was dead and there was no case to answer or trial of the individual. With expenses it was a Parliament wide issue and also fairly clear cut - either you added your duck house to your expenses or you didn't. The evidence was all in black and white.

As for Huhne, wasn't that report aired by Ms Pryce and her friend Constance Briscoe who "cooked up" the story rather than a press investigation?

I think the Mail have ignored some pretty clear cut liberalism themselves just to get at Clegg. After all the liberal democrats has no more problems than any other party; homophobia in UKIP, dodgy tax evading donors for the Conservatives and Harriet's driving points, brawling MPs and some interesting expense claims for Labour.

I agree that there should not be a muzzle on the press, except where personal privacy and liberty is being invaded. In this case however the release of speculation, rumour and gossip could skew an investigation into some pretty serious charges. Facts will be reported when they are established rather than casting wild speculation.

Libdems must be firm over Leveson

Feldmarschall Kesselring's defence of Italy against the Allies was marked by gradual withdrawals to pre-prepared defensive lines up the peninsula.

Much like the Libdems in Coalition. We're constantly, or at least portrayed as, constantly falling back to "the final line" and giving up another pledge or stand point. It has to stop.

To quote Captain Picard; The line must be drawn here and no further with the Leveson inquiry.

Now, I know I've not read the full 2000 page report, I barely have time to read my kids a bedtime story or the copy of Darth Plagius that I bought myself for Christmas last year!

The point is, most people won't have read it but there has been plenty of debate, news reports and discussion. From all of these, I have come up with my opinion - hardly blindly following party line- and some how I have come out agreeing with Nick's statement last week.

There is a fine balance of liberties in this case and a statutory under pinning of the press, namely legislating tighter controls and redrawing the boundaries and enforcing the laws. However once that is done the Government will take a step back and a new, more powerful independent standards agency will police how the press carry out their trade.

Sound's pretty Stalinist as if the State is policing the freedom of the press and speech. However it isn't.

Tightening the press's standards will protect the liberties and the freedoms of people like you and me as well as celebrities. Look at the McCann's or Dowler's - even the families or friends of celebrities in the manner that Charlotte Church documented last week who have had their privacy severely violated on the off chance there may be a story.

This cannot be allowed to continue. The press has been carrying on like a secret police force which is illiberal.

We, as a party, find ourselves at serious odds with our Coalition partners. Maintaining this status quo and trusting that the press have learnt their lesson is just not good enough. A lot of Conservatives feel that it is.

I believe in the freedom of the press. It has worked for the last 300 years and it is important to democracy says one of our local MPs Tracey Crouch and to the probable shock and awe of regular readers, I disagree with her on this.

Yes, a free press is exceptionally important as a voice and whistle blower on the way Government carries on it's business but the press isn't free due to to the monopolies and vested interests.I'd also argue that the free press (ignoring the war years where Government control and censorship were a necessity) worked for 280 years and it has been the last twenty that have seen the press becoming more and more invasive and above the law.

Tracey went on to say At the end of the day it's about principles. Misuse of phone hacking is illegal and should be dealt with by the law, which should be tightened up. - I agree with what she says but we have differing ideas on the implementation.

Moving back to the main thrust of the post; Nick needs to stand by this principle, lead the party in a stand on this.

Not for populist point scoring, though I'm sure we could be painted as that, but because it is what we stand for and stand we must.

There is nothing in the Coalition agreement on this so we're not tied to the Conservatives on this one. Any falling back should only be as part of the cross party negotiations and legislation.

If we falter on this and back down on our guiding principles we might as hand the keys of Great George Street to Nigel Farage and UKIP and just go home.

Nick, be strong, be resolute and stand your ground on this.

Freedoms compromised? Leveson report

Disagreement between Nick and Dave

It could be argued that we've reached one of those great turning points in British political history, one that will be debated by politicos and Historians for decades. We had one a few years ago when the virtually unknown Nick Clegg implored the Labour Government to suspend the Summer recess so that a full investigation into the expenses scandal could be carried out. Real change and legislation could have been brought in.

But it wasn't.

As Nick Clegg said in his statement yesterday, there is a balance between the freedom of speech and of an independent press and that of the individual. It cannot be argued with that the Press have behaved atrociously including hacking voice mails, bribing Police officers, rummaging through celebrity's bins and behaviour comparable to stalking. This has to stop.

I (predictably) agree with Nick that we need to side with the victims on this and need to act.

Parliament failed to do this with expenses, they cannot fail to act again.

I'm not talking about a hasty knee jerk action that would see state control of the media on the Cuban or Stalinist model, rather along the lines that Lord Leveson has suggested. I understand concerns of an attack on the freedom of speech and the freedom of the press but self regulation has not worked and the press complaints committee has no teeth.

Under Leveson's suggestions there would need to be legislation to create the independent body and to maintain it's independence. Hardly state control.

There will also be a able to breach the code IF they can prove it is in the Public interest i.e. the Telegraph rumbling the Expenses fraud in Parliament.

We mustn't now prevaricate. I, like many people, am impatient for reform. We owe it to the victims of these scandals, who have already waited too long for us to do the right thing says Nick

No more last chance saloons says Ed Miliband.

The Prime minister needs to get a grip and realise what is going on and listen to what the people want. Change is needed and careful steps that follow the Leveson blue print would really make a difference. I don't understand his prevarication on this subject - the course is clear. Yes to freedom of the press and speech but yes, always yes to the freedom of the individual and these suggestions are the best way to reach the happy medium and it is up to parliamentary debate to make sure that any legislation is well thought out and reaches this medium for the real term benefit of us all.

To not act, as Parliament did when the nation was rocked by expenses, is to fail, to break the promises that were repeatedly made at the dispatch box and to perpetuate this broken system. People are losing faith in our Politics and Governing systems, this Coalition was meant to restore faith and only the Libdems appear to be listening to the people - time for the Conservatives to wake up and smell the coffee on this too.

The continued Page 3 debate

Page 3 defender Peta Todd, Charity worker, former model

I'm probably about to draw a lot of flak from this but....

I agree with Nick on the subject of Page 3 and the sun. Liberals can, and cannot tell newspapers what to print as long as they are not infringing on other people's liberty by phone hacking or over intrusive journalism and unfortunately Page 3 is not one of those things.

I will, however quickly remind you all that I do think that some sort of age limit is needed on topless material as it is in movies. That would be the only way to remove this feature.

Page 3 is one brick in an entire ediface of similiar things.

The blunt fact of the matter is Sex sells. Women in various states of undress can be seen selling all sorts of things from Cars, deoderant, movies, Soap operas and even security hardware and it is that which captures the male mind. Afterall human beings are still just animals with the same base desires and wants and one of those is sex and clever marketing and advertising execs are happy to draw on that when they hit the market.

Do you think that teenage boys would buy lynx deoderant if the adverts were:

Lynx Africa - Smells great and you will too?

No! They see the army of scantily clad women throwing themselves at some average looking guy and their mind links the product to the ability to get women. I can tell you - it doesn't work!

Television programmes also use attractive and or scantily clad women to get people interested. Take Big Brother for example, not only did the casting teams deliberately try to cause conflict by selecting people who would grate on each other but also a bevy of young attractive people as well. There is no way it was a coincidence that Orlaith McAllister a former runner up in Miss Northern Island, Imogen Thomas a former Miss Wales and her runner up Rachel Rice were all selected at random.
Even Hollyoaks was accused of having far too many goodlooking buxom blonde actresses in it to attract some more male viewers - a problem rectified by a plot device using a Serial killer who only attacked attractive blonde girls!

Using women as sex objects in movies has gone on for decades! I hate to admit it but even Star Wars Episode IV Carrie Fisher was told not to wear a bra under her white Senatorial robes so there was more *cough* movement as she ran around. Sharon Stone said she felt pressured to do the revealing chair scene in Basic instinct and Kirsten Dunst once made reference to the famous Spiderman kiss in the rain scene where her shirt went translucent as Something for the geeks. It has taken decades for Bond girls to be more than just eye candy, in fact Golden eye was the first one with a strong female lead (arguably A view to a kill with Grace Jones) and even in some of the follow ups like Tomorrow Never dies Terri Hatcher's character is a throw back to the old days of Oh James!

I'm not saying it is something that we should accept, far from it. In the last century we have come along way in Women's rights and equal treatment, (not far enough) and with portrayals as more than a sex object. To be honest a good proportion of men (well the right kind) already know that about women because we were brought up that way by our parents.

Modern attitudes to Women can only really be changed by education from parents and indeed schools. It is a root problem that is only contributed not perpetuated by Page 3.

As to the argument that "Torso of the week" is just harmless fun - I'm sorry but it is fairly similar (and there are those who'd say the same about Page 3). The current Moonpig advert or the intermations in the Malteser advert - yes, even the classic Diet Coke advert...
I'm not saying it's right it wrong but meet me half way and admit there is a strong similarity and motivation. Why else would there be "Hunky Fireman" calendars next to the Girlie calendars?

At the end of the day the girls are willing to pose topless, they are not forced like a seedy Axis Comfort woman. Those who wish to look at semi-naked women over breakfast are free to do so as are we who don't are free not to read it.

The crux of it for me, as a liberal is the "not causing offence to others" part which obviously means not reading such material in public and exposing minors to sexually explicit images. Many would argue that "Fifty shades" is bad but it is printed text rather than imagery. I, personally think that a similar age rating on magazines should exist in the same way as movies. Who am I to tell someone what they can and cannot read in public?

My final thoughts are that this petition is only targeting the Sun not The Star or Sunday Sport.
Also, most kids have access to the Internet on their mobiles and even with the Vodafone filter you can still summon up pornographic imagery.

It is a minefield topic but I don't see any point in regulating printed material as to what can and can't be printed- tis very Mary Whithouse. The cultural attitude to women will not be changed by the removal of Page 3 and it is down to education.

Rehman Chishti - A small retraction by me.

Every great General in History has been forced to give ground, to retreat when he has over extended himself and his line of attack; Blucher withdrew from Ligny before riding to Waterloo to save Wellington, General Howe withdrew from Philadelphia to move closer to his supply bases, even Paulus knew withdrawal was necessary at Stalingrad.

I fear in my last post I over extended myself and stretched my supply lines. A very excellent post from Alan W. Collins has formed an excellent counter attack, as has the flank strike from @GrannyDarley. I am forced to admit defeat and withdraw from my forward position and confess; I was wrong.

Yep, that was an admission, something you won't hear from a lot of politicians or politicos, especially in Medway, but I am not afraid to admit it at all.

Rehman Chishti's record in parliament is indeed impressive and as I stated in my original post he may indeed be beavering away and working damned hard. Indeed it seems he is.

It is exceptionally important that an MP is at Parliament and I agree with Alan that it is their primary purpose and role - Representing the constituents and working on major bills

I will cede this ground gladly- as a constituent I am indeed glad that he is doing what he was voted in (and is paid) to do. I am also heartened that his constituents do have faith in him.

I do, however fall back to familiar land, a spot I do feel comfortable defending and here I will make my stand.

No matter how hard you work in Parliament you need it to be publicised. Normal folk do not watch BBC parliament, keep pace with Twitter, read Political journals (Hell most don't even read the paper) and if you want people to know what you are doing or what you think about key issues you need to have it in the local press. Tracey Crouch and Mark Reckless are often in the Medway Messenger voicing their opinions on national and local issues including the proposed airport at Hoo or in the estuary and some of us know that Rehman raised a question in parliament but the majority of others don't because he's not thrusting himself in the public eye.

I'm not suggesting that he do a Jordan or Kerry Katona and take over the local media until we are sick of him, I'm just saying that keeping people informed is a good thing.
It is better to tell us now as things are done rather than turning up at 2015 when people have already got in mind whom they will vote for and saying;
"But, I've been doing this...."
Better that in 2015 people can look at the pamphlet through the door and say;

"Yeah, Reh Chishti. He was the MP that fought to stop Boris Island, I may not vote Conservative but he has been good for the community so I'll vote him in again."

By not commenting on stories, by not making himself to journalists phone calls (as was reported in today's McGuinness on Monday in the Medway Messenger) he is cutting himself off from the voters. They want to know what he is doing, what his thoughts on subjects are and if they think he is self serving, or not there for the community and primarily in London to secure a ministerial career then he will face a certain amount of backlash from the electorate in 2015.
He also needs to be seen on the streets of Gillingham and Rainham more, go to events like the demonstration outside Gunwharf tomorrow to save Nelson Court, going to or being seen at local events like school fetes, charities or youth groups, actually being at Gillingham or Rainham train station to meet commuters... The odd morning here or there goes a long way in people's minds.

If things continue the way they are then there will be a MASSIVE anti- Coalition backlash and as a marginal seat holder Rehman Chishti will have to impress as many voters as he can now, give people a damn good reason to keep him on and not swing to Labour. (or dare I say it Lib Dem????)

Is this form of racism allowed in National Newspapers.

One of the things that really annoys me about this country is its bizarre double standards.

On the one hand it is incorrect to call a Chalkboard a Blackboard but in a National Newspaper it is acceptable to caricature the German Chancellor as Adolf Hitler and intimate the nations politics are Nazi.

World War Two ended for Germany in May 1945 and with the collapse of the Third Reich so Nazism ceased to exist as a Political doctrine. The period of the Third Reich is considered as not only a dark stain on the history of Germany but also of the World.
Germany itself has come a long way since those dark days and the German people are very conscious of their history. They however are looking to the future and becoming an industrial power house and strong economy. For them the EU is very important, it brings everyone together in Europe in Peace and in trade with each other. I completely agree with Chancellor Merkel's assessment of the situation.

If the Euro collapses, the EU will fall and their will be wars and the like in Europe again.

This was not a threat thrown out by a sabre rattling Nazi Fuhrer threatening a Fourth Reich that would plunge Europe into a Teutonic style darkness as some of the Press would have you believe. It was instead the concerns of a politician who knows that certain parts of Europe are still not stable and without the EU to act as arbiter we could end up with yet another Balkans conflict.

The British Press seems obsessed with wheeling out the Nazi imagery when discussing the German state or politics. In Euro 96 the press ran images of the German National Football team wearing Stahlhelms and quotes from Churchill to show that Britain could over come the hated "Hun".

Coincidentally as a fan of the DFB, I was over the moon when Southgate missed the penalty, especially in the light of the press reports.

In Germany, Nazi is a banned word, theory and practice but in Britain it is used so frequently you would think that Hitler was still in power. It is thrown around a lot especially by those wanting to portray harsh dictatorial politics or policing - in fact Nazism is a byword for evil and is often used by writers as a quick easy bad guy rather than being creative and thinking of your own villains.

Germany then. Not now.

Even when discussing history it is used unnecessarily. Terms like "Nazi Soldiers" or "Nazi Aircraft" are used a lot. This is an incredibly inaccurate term as they are not all Nazis. es the Nazi party was in power but not every serving Soldier, Sailor or Airman was a member of the party or indeed agreed with their policies - The SS were probably the exception and even then by the latter years of the war with mass conscription and heavy losses in the Waffen SS it would be inaccurate to say they all Nazis.

Indeed one German Pilot said. "We fought for Fatherland not Fuhrer"
The same inaccuracy would be to refer to British troops in Iraq as "Blairite" or US Soldiers as "Republicans". To make it even more stark were all the RAF personnel involved in Libya "Coalitionists"?

The time for racial stereotypes is long gone. We no longer refer to the Spanish as work shy lounging Diego's or the French as Onion eating surrender monkeys - BECAUSE IT IS OFFENSIVE!!!

So why is it still acceptable to refer to the Germans, not just in family gatherings or in pubs - where such racial stereotyping can be rife in the latter, but in National Newspapers read by all! How is this acceptable?

Modern Germany and Modern Germans are not what they were in 1933-45, there is not this drive to reestablish the Kaiser Reich lost at Versailles, or to dominate Europe with diplomacy and economy - well, no more so than any other nation, they aren't a militaristic, anti-Semitic, dictatorship and it is time that writers for the Daily Mail et-al learnt this and stop spreading this offensive rubbish and perpetuating this nasty stereotype.

Cleggo Fawkes

My Father once said;

The only man to enter parliament with honest intentions was Guy Fawkes - Look what happened to him!
Exposure to Parliamentary procedure and vast amounts of negative press and viciously tortured and executed.

Much like... Nick Clegg and the Lib Dem party. Nick led the party into power with the intention of bringing about electoral reform and change that would benefit everyone. The intentions of the party were pure and honest - we had nothing to hide.

However exposure to parliamentary politics and the Coalition agreement has dulled the blade of Liberalism and the policies. Association with bills such as Tuition, Austerity measures and many others has led to the fall of Clegg.
Further negative press and hyping up of throw away comments such as when asked if he knew he was running the country in Cameron's absence;
Oh yes I'd forgotten about that.

His intention and aims forgotten and now only this perceived public image of the bumbling sell out Deputy who allowed this "Cuts Government" to come to power remains.
 I do believe that Nick and the parties image has been sullied because of Politics and negative press but I also think we've signed off a few things we should have stood firm on and in some places just poorly prepared for the harsh spotlight of government. This is something that will change, hopefully, by the next election or Nick and the party will indeed be hung, drawn and quartered by the electorate.

Effigies have already been burnt and hung and had he stepped out into the mobs last November I have no doubt he would have been lynched and suffered a similar fate to Guido.

Are Nick Clegg and the Lib Dem party evil?

It is easy to demonise Nick Clegg and the Liberal Democrats. We represent the worse kind of political scum in the country. We are riddled with corruption, traitors, weak willed cowards who betrayed the electorate and are out to do the same to our Coalition partners. At the head of this collection of cut throats and blaggards is Nick Clegg, a spineless sell out who swapped his idealism for a comfy ministerial car and whose incompetent blundering knows no bounds. He wants your votes so he can overthrow the electoral system and rig it with AV to ensure future political instability that only his party would benefit from. He then wants to get rid of the Lords and replace it with a Senate?!

Then what? Remove the Monarchy and proclaim himself PRESIDENT CLEGG!!!!!

Of course this is all Boo-hockey - Unless you read the popular press.

For years the Lib Dems have been a nothing party -  A sad remnant of a once grand old party, a group of humus eating sandal wearing idealists or a desperate band of ambitious political animals - Take your pick, these are all popular views.

Granted the party provided some excellent MP's and leaders but it is only Lord Ashdown and Charles Kennedy that stick in anyones mind. One election the party was even vilified for saying they would be increasing income tax by 1p per person so that they could improve public services whilst the main two parties promised that they wouldn't be raising tax at all and then did.

Ever since the first successful leadership debate the media appears to have taken a dim view of the Lib Dems and Clegg. I'm not including genuine, researched critique of the party's policies or role in government as these are the duties of a the press, to report the truth and to criticise policy. This does include the prickly nettle of Tuition fees.
The press were right to single us out for a certain amount of Flak. The party had stood against tuition fees in principle and against rises, pledges were signed and SHOULD have been upheld by all those who signed them, no abstentions, straight "No" vote.

What wasn't mentioned in the press is that not all the party voted "Yes". Greg Mulholland gave a very impassioned speech to the house imploring his LibDem colleagues to vote "No" and I believe Julian Huppert also voted "No" to name just two. It would be a shame for them to lose their seats in 2015 for the Tuition Betrayal.
Nor is the LibDem inspired revision of the repayment system that actually makes University fees cheaper to pay back if you don't get a high paying job, which lets face it is fairly difficult for graduates.
What is also cannily forgotten is Labour's role in all of this. The party that brought in Tuition Fees, then raised them, then commissioned the Brown review in the first place. They cannily sat on the opposition benches and denied any involvement and repainted themselves as the defenders of young people. Nor are the Conservatives attacked for it either, after all the majority vote of "Yes" came from them!

What does frustrate me, and other Lib Dems around the country is the non stories that are thrown around including headlines like:-

NICK CLEGG IS A NAZI!

A story followed that stated that all Nick had said was that World War Two had ended and that we were no longer the Empire we used to be. All true, no National Socialist policies there, no antisemitic or pro Germanic slogans.

Other stories include:

CLEGG DIDN'T KNOW HE WAS RUNNING THE COUNTRY!!!

Again, a nothing story about a sarcastic throw away comment by the Deputy Prime minister.

But the media's attention is just limited to Calamity Clegg!

Doctor Vince Cable, a well respected Liberal Democrat and economist, whose wisdom and experience made him indispensable to Clegg and the party in power. Yet he was a target of a sting by the Telegraph along with many other Lib Dem ministers because "There might be a story there..."

As it transpired there was a story... Doctor Vince had an opinion! What's worse he had an opinion that was contrary to the Governments and he was willing to talk about it!!!!

Now Vince is somewhat of an outcast among the front benches and distrusted by the PM and maligned as a trouble maker in the eyes of the media rather unfairly as he was stating Lib Dem policy and his beliefs.

Of course the biggest casualty was David Lawes. The Telegraph's timing was well placed to strike at this rising star within the party just as he came into office. I don't deny that fraud is not illegal, nor that it should not have been published its just that it happened some months after the main body of accusations and the sceptic in me says they only released the story in May last year because before then no one had heard of him.

Even Chris Jefferies, the lead suspect in the murder of that poor girl at Christmas was described as an eccentric loner Liberal Democrat. What has his party affiliation got to do with anything? He wasn't a councillor, nor an MP, just an activist. I don't think I have ever seen anyone else described by their party membership, nor is the fact that he is a Liberal Democrat got any link to murder.

The other parties have a deft ability to manipulate the printed media. Ed Miliband has been able to absolve any former guilt for his party or himself and is able to oppose for oppositions sake and criticise Government action. His impassioned speech at the TUC cuts event had negated the fact that his party had no alternative to the cuts and whose mis-management had caused the crisis in the first place. He was also quick to criticise any government policy and play off people's passions without any substance or an alternative. Good opposition should offer alternative routes and policies rather than sniping from the side lines.

As for the right-wing, Murdoch press - well, we were always going to lose there as we are diluting right wing policy.

It is as if the left and the right fear what the Lib Dems could be, a new voice of the left or a new direction that could alter British politics for good. A party that does not have allegiance to the TUC or to big business and the young charismatic Clegg could have led the party to greatness. Not now though.

The Public love a hate figure, they also love to get riled up over causes and campaigns the Sun or Mail start. Clegg, as an outsider, is an easy target as are the Lib Dems but it is a real shame as our policies are actually benefiting real people, higher threshold for income tax, free preschool education from poor backgrounds, pupil premium, scrapping the ID data base, setting up the Green bank, none of which are publicised. The people aren't interested so why should the papers report it? Last week a friend and colleague said we were Spineless and cowardly and Labour should be given another go, all this a year after they were ousted for mismanaging the whole problem! He was also unaware of what we had done for the people, including himself! Also ignorant or ignoring the fact that we have a mere 50 odd MP's so only have a limited affect on national policies, in fact we have been punching above our weight in the policies we have pushed through, this is also little reported on! This for me is a mass failing of the media and it isn't isolated to one person.

It should also be mentioned that the populous are lazy or lack time to seek out information and were more interested in whom was responsible for the Super injunction for the sleaze factor than the notion of freedom of speech. The press must therefore deliver a fair and balanced view of party's policies and actions, it is their duty as well to be neutral rather than sensationalist to sell papers. I understand people aren't all interested in politics As it has been said before;

"What is in the public interest is seldom in the public interest."

BUT surely the amount of negative press received by the Lib Dems is disproportionate to the amount of bad press. In Nick Clegg there is no evil oppressor nor crook and the Lib Dems are not the harbingers of evil out to oppress your rights and steal your hard earned money, far from it.

I apologise if this has turned into an angry rant, however I feel quite strongly that the Press have a duty to report all of the news all of the time and treat every party on its merits and drawbacks weighing them against each other.

.