Small Blessings

A little more headway here:


Dear...

I am sorry that the issues you have raised have not been addressed to your satisfaction. I can also assure you that we do take your views extremely seriously and that we will endeavour to find appropriate solutions.

We are equally sorry that you have had this experience and understand that you found this distressing and intimidating. We can also appreciate your point that many other women may feel equally uncomfortable in similar circumstances. However, as my colleagues have already repeated in previous responses; to date this is not a matter about which we have received many complaints and it is therefore difficult to assess the true extent of the situation.

The Mayor’s initiative of banning alcohol on public transport has addressed some anti-social behaviour and via Transport for London’s recent campaign, Considerate Travel, we are trying to address more anti social behaviour, as you correctly state in your letter.

Since this matter has been brought to our attention, we have contacted the department which is responsible for the Considerate Travel Campaign, with a view to extending their current campaign, to include being responsible and sensitive to other passengers for reading material whilst on public transport, as you have suggested. I have been informed that this matter will be taken into consideration when the next phase of messaging is being agreed. This will take place at the end of this year, as the messaging for 2008 has already been planned and agreed.

I will also be contacting the relevant department responsible for undertaking passenger research on Transport for London’s services, with a view to exploring the possibility of a user survey to ascertain the extent to which women and men find the sort of pornographic images to which you have referred unacceptable on public transport. We will then be in a more informed position regarding the overall views of the travelling public and be in a better position to address them long term.

I would like to thank you again for contacting Transport for London with such interesting and valuable comments.

Yours sincerely,

Clive Saunders
Equality & Inclusion Delivery Manager

The Troll Results

There are currently many sites where trolls bait feminists for a pastime - it seems surprisingly popular. This blog is however, not one of them. Even though there are plenty of other opportunities on the web to do their 'pig-tail pulling' elsewhere, they still seem to find my policy of deleting their comments when devoid of an actual point a little bit upsetting.

So trolls, here is your space. Feel free to follow in the footsteps of jackart- this blogs first troll - and comment to this post with homophobic, misogynistic, bigoted, juvanile and ill-informed insults til your hearts content.

Tips: Why not give your comment a quasi-intellectual veneer by using the slippery-slope argument against making new laws (which fails to take into account checks and balances), cries for absolute liberty (which conveniently avoids the reality that this inevitably leads to the strong oppressing the weak), suggestions that feminsm aims for superiority not equality (which reveals your lack of education) and ill-founded parallels between feminism and religious oppression. Jackart's comment is a perfect example that you might want to use as a template:

If the BoJo's of this world listened to every loony with an axe to grind, we'd be swimming in ludicrous laws, with busybodies sticking their noses into areas of conscience and personal choice just because someone like you is a bit of a Puritan and likes to ban stuff of which you disapprove. Well I dislike androphobic lesbians, but I'm not calling for them to be banned.

I know trolls don't like being confined to the play-pen where they belong, but I'm afraid that on this blog that is your only option. I will continue to delete trolls in any other comments section.

The Poll Results

I asked the question:

How would you like to see the viewing of pornography changed on public transport?

The options were:

1) A complete ban, similar to the ban on alcohol
2)A campaign for consideration of other passengers similar to the campaign to be considerate when listening to music
3) Not at all, I'm happy as it is











The results showed a clear gender divide - which does suggest it is an issue of sex-discrimination, in that it means that women and men feel differently in how offended they feel by porn when accessing public transport.

Unfortunately I had to end the poll early, because a silly chap decided to put a link up on his blog and the poll was suddenly flooded with other silly people who decided to sabotage the poll. Fortunately I had a guessed that it was about to happen after the silly blogger posted some silly comments. I took the results of the poll at the time before they could be corrupted. I deleted the said silly chap's comments and also others left by the poll saboteurs. I have kept some comments that make slightly interesting points though I disagree with the spirit in which they were left

The Stun Spoof Porn Paper

Please print this out and use it as a cover for your tabloid, to raise awareness of the issue.

Fourth Letter to Boris Johnson (responding to Eleanor Stanhope's reply)

I have discovered that writing to TFL directly or responding to particular customer services personnel at TFL does not seem to get a reply. They seem to just send one easy answer and that's the end of it if you are lucky.

It seems that when the letters are re-directed from the mayor's email, the response from TFL is swifter, as though they are under more pressure to respond, so its definately worth persisting, even though you do get an automatic response saying the mayor gets too much mail blah blah...

In the light of this I decided to re-jig my letter to Eleanor Stanhope and address it to the Mayor. I've got more hope of something happening.

Here it is:

Dear Boris Johnson,

I'm writing regarding Eleanor Stanhope's response to my further email to you:

On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 12:43 PM, Customer Services (Buses) wrote:
Our Ref: 651598/4/es Date: 13 July 2008

Dear....

Thank you for your further email to Boris Johnson regarding material you find offensive in some daily newspapers. I am replying on behalf of the Mayor on this occasion. 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. 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. I am sorry I cannot be of further help or provide the answer you may be hoping for. Please do contact me again if I can be of further help.
Yours sincerely

Eleanor Stanhope
Customer Services

It was of particular interest to me when she says

"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 the explanation 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 Eleanor Stanhope's 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. They certainly don't have any duty to me personally, since I do not buy them. However I do pay for public transport, both through paying tax and by purchasing my not-inexpensive travel - also I have no other alternative for transport in many cases. TFL, as a public organisation, do have a lawful duty to me and all its passengers, to actively promote equality in its business. I see no evidence of this kind of inequality being challenged by TFL.

According to 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. So it is dismissive of Eleanor Stanhope to say this pornography is "not deemed offensive". And it also, obviously begs the question - deemed by who? I am certainly offended, other women are offended, therefore, according to sexual harassment law, they are offensive.

Eleanor Stanhope's recommendation to approach the publications themselves, also suggests that she hasn't considered the fact that how offensive something is, depends on its context. If someone chooses to look at page 3 of the Sun, or just about any page of The Sport, The Star, Nuts, Zoo, Loaded, FHM, Playboy, Hustler, etc at home or in an environment where it is appropriate (i.e.- no children, no women who might be offended by the images and behaviour), then it is arguably not offensive. When these images are used/presented in an environment with no consideration for the children exposed to them or for the women who might be offended by them - it IS offensive. Just because women have been quietly 'putting up' with an offensive enviroment on London Transport, is no reason to suppose that these images are not 'deemed' offensive or discriminatory by them.

I can suggest a good reason for the professed lack of complaint about these images on public transport:

Because the incorporation of porn into newspapers and lads mags occurred prior to the Equality Act, that without laws to protect them, many women have felt too ground-down by this encroaching sexism without bounds, to feel empowered enough to complain. The laws are slowly improving for women, but women's expectations have not yet caught up. So passengers are still not aware that they are entitled to expect the same commitment to equality from TFL as from their own employer. In other words, the feeling of impotence women experience when they are discriminated against, such as having to enter environments where this sexism is tolerated, is no evidence that they are not offended.

I can also sense a tone of sarcasm in Eleanor Stanhope's email when she suggests that I contact these publications directly to voice my opinion. I'm sure she is aware that complaining to these very papers and magazines about the sexual exploitation of womens bodies to stimulate male readers, which I don't even purchase, would meet with no positive response, instead only ridicule. The sexual exploitation of women's bodies 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.

Overall am very disappointed with this response I received from Eleanor Stanhope. It is dismissive, ill-considered, contains a probable falsehood, and has sarcastic overtones. This is not the kind of response I would expect from an organisation which professes to be "committed to providing accessible transport for all, promoting equal opportunities, good relations between different groups and eliminating unlawful discrimination" and ensures that "those who provide services on our behalf (contractors and sub-contractors) have a similar commitment to equality and inclusion". I trust that you will hold TFL to account for this.

According to Eleanor Stanhope, TFL has 'no plans' to ban these freely available newspapers (no more freely available than alcohol of course). I am not necessarily asking for a ban on particular publications, instead a ban on using/exposing all pornographic images on public transport. By pornography I mean images with the sole purpose to sexually stimulate the viewer, and if in doubt, err on the side of caution. It is not too much to ask. People can always look at them when they get home.

Even if Eleanor Stanhope is expressing a phobia about the practicalities of executing such a ban, she has still not offered any explanation for why nothing is being done. Why are there 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, that such anti-social behaviour is inappropriate on London Transport and it will not be tolerated? TFL has a duty to promote equality and I deserve a genuine explanation. To continue to ignore the issue like this, shows a bias towards the comfort of male passengers at the expense of female passengers - which means: sex-discrimination.

Obviously Eleanor Stanhope's response is completely insufficient. Please could you let me know what you intend to do to eliminate the use and exposure of sex-discriminatory images on London Transport, in order to fulfill the lawful duty under the Equality Act.


I look forward to a considered and satisfactory response

Yours sincerely,

..........

Please bastardise and plagiarise my letters as you like for the cause!

Together we can change things!

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

The Second Reply to My Letters to the Mayor

On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 12:43 PM, Customer Services (Buses) <customerservices.buses@tfl.gov.uk> wrote:
Our Ref: 651598/4/es Date: 13 July 2008

Dear Ms ....

Thank you for your further email to Boris Johnson regarding material you find offensive in some daily newspapers. I am replying on behalf of the Mayor on this occasion.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.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.I am sorry I cannot be of further help or provide the answer you may be hoping for. Please do contact me again if I can be of further help.

Yours sincerely
Eleanor Stanhope
Customer Services

Porn On Public Transport Is Already Unlawful If Unchallenged By TFL!

When a man views pornography public transport or exposes you to it, and his conduct has the effect of violating your dignity or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for you, then this classed as 'sex discrimination' in the form of 'harassment', according to the 2005 amendments to the original 1975 Sex Discrimination Act.

In 2006 as part of the Equality Act, public transport was placed under a duty to eliminate sex discrimination and sexual harassment and promote gender equality in their business as well as their employment practices.

Since many women feel that their dignity is violated when men view pornography and expose them to it, and it also creates an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating and offensive environment for them on public transport, then TFL are failing to fulfil their duty under the Equality Act, by failing to challenge this aspect of sexual harassment.

Check out the Sex Discrimination Law and TFLs pledges below (see how they should already be making an effort in this area, instead of worrying about 'smelly food'):

According to sex discrimination law “A person discriminates against a woman in any circumstances relevant for the purposes of any provision of the [Sex Discrimination Act 1975] if: 1.-(1)(a) on the ground of her sex he treats her less favourably than he treats or would treat a man”.

In The Employment Equality (Sex Discrimination) Regulations 2005, harassment and sexual harassment were included in the 1975 Act after section 4 (discrimination by way of victimisation). What was inserted in 2005 was “4A (1) a person subjects a woman to harassment if (a) on the ground of her sex, he engages in unwanted conduct that has the purpose or effect (i) of violating her dignity, or (ii) of creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for her.”

The Sex Discrimination Act (1975) was amended again, by the Equality Act (2006) “to place a duty on public authorities to ensure that they promote equality between women and men and transsexuals both in their employment practices and in their business.”

On equality and inclusion, TFL states that: “We are committed to providing accessible transport for all, promoting equal opportunities, good relations between different groups and eliminating unlawful discrimination. We believe transport is one of the most powerful mechanisms for tackling inequality and exclusion. The Group Equality and Inclusion (E&I) team is responsible for leading TfL's agenda to achieve equality and inclusion across its services.

We do this by:

• Removing barriers to accessing our transport services
• Ensuring we employ a diverse workforce that reflects the diverse population of London
• Ensuring those who provide services on our behalf (contractors and sub-contractors) have a similar commitment to equality and inclusion

As part of Transport For London's Women's Action Plan, the Gender Equality Scheme policy states that the Gender Duty “which comes into force in April 2007, requires all public authorities to eliminate sex discrimination and sexual harassment and to promote gender equality. Specifically, the duty requires public bodies to: l ‘Have due regard to the need to eliminate unlawful discrimination’ – that is, to be conscious of their obligations under the Sex Discrimination and Equal Pay Acts, and to take steps to ensure that they comply, and to: l ‘Have due regard to the need to promote equality of opportunity between men and women’ – to take active steps to promote gender equality when they are carrying out their functions and activities.”

Please use any of the information above in writing your letters!

My Respose to Boris Johnson

tomayor@london.gov.uk
dateThu, Jul 3, 2008 at 12:45 PM
Re: Publicly viewing pornographic material on London Transport

Dear Boris Johnson,

Thankyou for forwarding my complaints regarding -me be exposed to both pornographic images and men arousing themselves using pornography on public transport, to London Buses.

Unfortunately the standard response I was sent in reply was obviously formularised before you brought in the drinking ban. The standard response says "since these publications [i.e.- porn papers/ lads mags,etc] are freely available, we are not in a position to ban them on our services", yet you yourself have defined as your greatest moment so far as Mayor, has been bringing in the alcohol ban, almost without a hitch. Alcohol you will be aware, is freely available, so the argument that 'free availability' means it can't be banned on public transport, is clearly untrue, as you yourself have proved.

The standard response also says "on the whole, we get extremely few complaints about this matter", yet TFL obviously gets enough complaints to warrant formularising a standard response to it. I would also suggest that the women who are offended by being exposed to these publications in the cramped conditions of public transport, are far greater than you might estimate. In places where we are forced to close proximity of other people, there are far more acts that are considered anti-social than when we can move freely in the open air. This includes the workplace, where it is already considered sexist and discriminatory to be viewing pornography or exposing others to it.

I caught a bus this morning and a poster in front of me said "I will not eat smelly food" "and I won't play my music too loud"...... Where was the poster saying "and I won't look at pornographic images"?

This glaring absence of consideration for women on London Transport has to change.

Yours sincerely....

If you feel similarly outraged that behaviour that is no longer acceptable in the workplace (ogling over porn or displaying it the the form of calenders, etc) yet women are expected to put up with this on public transport, please join me in writing to the Mayor, TFL, the London Assembly and/or your local MP to complain.

My Reply from London Buses to My Letters to The Mayor

I received this rather lame non-response from the Mayor today. Apparently women don't mind it and although it is as freely available as alcohol, for some reason porn is impossible to ban on public transport.

London Buses Customer Services
Customer Services (Buses) to me show details 3:34 PM (22 hours ago) Reply
Our Ref: 651598/2/ASM Date: 01 July 2008

Thank you for your emails to Boris Johnson about bus passengers reading newspapers such as the Star and the Sun. 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 your emails. I apologise that in this instance I have not been able to provide you with a more favourable response. However, if you require any help in the future please do feel free to let me know.

Yours sincerely
Angharad Mead
Customer Services