My Response to Eleanor Stanhope

Dear Eleanor Stanhope,

Thank you for your response to my further email to Boris Johnson. It was of particular interest to me when you said "I can assure you that the response you received prior to this was not a standard reply as we do not receive many complaints at all similar to this". This was of particular interest to me, since an associate of mine wrote an email complaining of innappropriate material on London Transport and the response is reproduced below. You may notice that although this response is from David Broughton, rather than Angharad Mead, it is identical. I am interested to know your explaination for the identical nature of these responses, being written by two different people, if there is indeed no standard response.

Thank you for your email to Boris Johnson about bus passengers reading inappropriate publications. I am replying on the Mayor's behalf.
I am sorry to learn that you have encountered instances of men reading magazines and newspapers which make you feel uncomfortable on public transport. I appreciate that you may find the images contained in these newspapers to be offensive. However, since these publications are freely available, we are not in a position to ban them on our services. On the whole, we get extremely few complaints about this matter, and therefore conclude that the newspapers and magazines you've mentioned are not offensive to the majority of passengers.

Thank you once again for bringing your concerns to my attention. I'm sorry that I can be of no further assistance at this time. Please feel free to contact me again if you have any further query regarding transport in London.

Yours sincerely

David Broughton
Customer Services


As to your following comment: "I can only reiterate that we have no plans to ban these newspapers as they are freely available. They are not deemed as offensive pornography although if you object to the content of these daily papers I would suggest contacting the paper directly to voice your opinion". As I am sure you are well aware, these newspapers, unlike TFL (a public organisation) are not under a duty as outlined in the Equality Act to actively promote equality and eliminate sex-discrimination in their business as well as their employment practices. Under sexual harassment law, it is actually down to the individual to define what is offensive to them and these papers are banned from a number of work places because a lot of people do find them offensive and discriminatory in a working environment. Unfortunately the incorporation of porn into newspapers and lads mags occurred prior to the Equality Act, and passengers are still not aware that they are entitled to expect the same commitment to equality from TFL as from their own employer.

TFL has a duty to actively promote equality in its business. I see no evidence of this kind of inequality being challenged by TFL. Just because women have been quietly 'putting up' with an offensive enviroment on London Transport, is no reason to suppose that these publications are not deemed offensive or discriminatory. Many women would simply not know where to begin to challenge this 'boys club' environment on trains, because they are unaware of the law, yet they are completely aware that complaining to these very papers about the sexual exploitation of womens bodies to stimulate male readers, would meet with no positive response, instead only ridicule. The sexual exploitation of women is the bread and butter of these publications and they have few limits on what is a very lucrative business - including no duty under the Equality Act. I imagine there was a tone of sarcasm in your email when you suggested that I contact these publications directly to voice my opinion. The feeling of impotence women experience when they feel discriminated against in environments where this sexism is tolerated, is no evidence that they are not offended.

As you say TFL has 'no plans' to ban these freely available newspapers (no more freely available than alcohol of course), I would like some explaination as to why there are not even any guidelines or suggestions to customers that it is anti-social to arouse themselves on public transport by looking at pornographic images, anti-social for them to expose other passengers to the pornographic content of these publications, and that such anti-social behaviour is inappropriate on London Transport and will not be tolerated. TFL has a duty to promote equality. To continue to ignore this issue shows a bias towards the comfort of your male passengers at the expense of your female passengers which means - sex-discrimination.

You could assist me by explaining firstly, how two independent people Angharad Mead and David Broughton write the same email, without using a standard response, and also telling me what TFL are going to do about this form of sex-discrimination on London Transport, as you are under a duty to eliminate it.

I look forward to your response