Co-op tells lads mags to cover up by September

29 July 2013

The Co-op is taking a stand against crap lads mags by forcing publishers to cover them up in ‘modesty bags’ if the magazines continue to feature naked women. The cover up applies to titles such as Nuts, Zoo, Loaded and Front and must happen by September 9th, or the Co-op will refuse to sell them.

lads mags

The move comes months after a group of female lawyers warned that displaying magazines that objectified women was technically illegal.

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

Piers Hernu, former editor of Tits magazine, FRONT magazine, said the Co-op had ‘caved in to a vociferous campaign from fanatical feminists’ and was ‘weak willed and spineless.’

To get some perspective on that, here’s Piers Hernu, referring to women as ‘frolicksome fillies.' Whatta guy!

Personally, I don’t think this takes it far enough. I think the INSIDE of the magazines should be covered up too.

Actually, sod it. They should just all be put in a black bin bag and kicked off a bridge – preferably by 'vociferous feminists' in steel toe capped boots.

TOPICS:   Consumer Advice   Complaints

19 comments

  • crapston v.
    They are wank material for little boys who are scared of vaginas.
  • jim
    who buys that shit anyway?
  • Spencer
    Brace yourself Lucy... Trolls are coming... Let me just pre-empt this: the issue here is the exposure to people who don't want fake airbrushed tits in their faces. Not that these types of mags should be banned... Personally, I agree with this. I don't see why this should be treated any different to porn. It has no place on the same magazine racks where people buy normal publications. If you want to buy them then either do it online and have it delivered or go to porn retailers.
  • FormerDSGandBestBuyManager
    Spencer Define a 'normal' publication then. Golf magazines? Some people are offended by having womanising cheat Tiger Woods face thrusted into theirs when they are off to get the latest Viz - but I dont complain. I think we are too quick to sensor - these magazines are titlation at best by EXTREMELY willing women looking to get on in whatever they want to do. Its not like they are FORCED into it. Then there is the matter of "oh no our little children will be harmed by this", yet they are quite happy for the Daily Star/The Scum etc to be left on the shelf uncovered and peddling lies. I hope they get a grip and leave alone. Ta
  • Paul R.
    What is the world coming to, back in the 80s and 90s you could freely walk into a newsagents and flick your eyes over the top shelf and buy whatever porn you wanted. Nowadays porn masquerades itself as "lads mags" and even the covers of those get objections. Are we taking a step backwards with prudery? Or is it just the fact no kid has to buy porn these days and can do all their wanking online everyone gets shocked seeing semi nekid pics of women on front covers of magazines in public stores offensive?
  • Han S.
    So will these women be demanding that fitness mags which have muscly blokes with their six packs out be covered up as well then?
  • oliverreed
    Bunch of whingebag divorcees all using the title Ms.
  • Grammar N.
    It's not technically illegal in anyway, they are basing that view on a warped interpretation of certain aspects of Employment Law - an interpretation that would never wash with a judge. They don't have a leg to stand on and the Co-Op need to grow some balls.
  • Inspector G.
    Good. This means that these magazines will go out of business and the likes of Lucy Pinder et al. will be forced to turn to *actual* porn to make a living which will be better for everyone concerned.
  • TeddyEdward
    I'm not one to generalise but most feminists are rug munchers.
  • kv
    don't forget to cover up all the gossip mags with bikini clad women on the covers too.
  • fibbingarchie
    Well I think it's the co-op that should be covered up. Anyone remember the £1.5 bil hole found in the co-op bank's balance sheet recently? I resent a bunch of fuckwits that can't look after their own money depriving me of a free eyeful of dumb slappers with their thrupneys oot when I'm buying my wholly respectable FT.
  • Big M.
    Why don't the publishers of 'tit mags' simply re-brand as 'Fair trade ethically sourced breast pamphlets printed on recycled paper stapled together by African orphans' and charge £8.56 a copy. Co-op would fucking love that shit.
  • shiftynifty
    Why not cover up those free pull-outs/leaflets advertising the CO-OP latest supermarket deals in modesty bags....they really hurt my eyes....possibly because they are still over-priced
  • Mr. P.
    I can't understand how the Co-Op is still in business. They're the most expensive supermarket for everything (fact) and very rarely is there no local competition. Fuck it even my Special Brew is cheaper than theirs, and that's saying something, eh Jocky?
  • Kevin
    I'd like the Co-Op to stop selling booze to local drunks but that's not going to happen is it.
  • shiftynifty
    No Kevin....And where there is no competition...usually in sleepy towns /villages where they know how to rip off...which is usually old people. where the internet shopping does not deliver...... it was the same when somerfields had the shops ..CO-OP swooped and therefore had a ready made audience....
  • Getalife
    Feminist on telly the other night making a right muppet of herself when asked about stripped off men on covers.supermarkets stop telling us what to do,
  • Jasminehatesnewbarnet
    The thing is in the street you see men and women half dressed, on the beach the same, mannequins in shop windows nude. You cant stop kids seeing all this. Not much difference between real life and these magazine covers. Life is so saturated with nudity or scantily clad people its boring. Lets face it to me these girls and guys are not very enticing and attractive, hardly Grace Kelly, Vivian Leigh (me!) or Jeremy Irons. Just the type your average person in the street finds attractive. They are everywhere. As a woman (and an ex model) I do not find it objectifying or demeaning but just they to me are not attractive. I dont particularly want to see horrible balloon muscled orange berks either on some for women or gay men magazine. However I do not see the point of banning them. God first sweets then scantily clad women on magazines. Who cares? I find Justin Bieber more horrifying on a magazine and would be happy to see magazines banned with that bland little creep on. Or anything with Madonna on. Far more revolting.

What do you think?

Connect with Facebook, Twitter, or just enter your email to sign in and comment.

Your comment