No More Porn on London Transport

Been Out Of The Loop

2010-03-22T12:18:00.000-07:00

Hi everyone. Been out of the loop through having a baby and TFL changing over their staff, making things a bit awkward - Big successes for the policing and crime bill and with the recent Sexualisation Review mean that it might be the right time to bring this issue up again. Thanks for all your support and I'll be blogging to say what'll happen next!

Taking It To the Public

2008-09-09T06:53:00.000-07:00

Members of London Feminist Network took the campaign to the streets, with a placard of a selection of images from the day's tabloids (there were far too many to fit them all on the board), to ask the question. What about this is appropriate for consumption on public transport?

We also had a petition, asking for a complete ban. With the BBC crew in tow, most of the time spent was engaging in conversation with the public on the issue. Even with so little time to stop hurrying passengers on their way home from work to ask them their opinions - still 21 people signed the petition.

Read the full London Feminist Network report here

Lads Mag's And Red Top Tabloids Do Contain Porn

2008-08-10T13:25:00.001-07:00

I have been contacted by email by someone who asked questions about my campaign which implied that he sees that the publications I find so offensive are just harmless fun.

It is important to expose the actual content of Lad's Mags and Porn Papers to illustrate that they promote misogyny, are indeed pornographic and are inappropriate for public consumption. Below is some research by Object which examines the actual content:

Please visit their website at http://www.object.org.uk/Publications.html for futher analysis of the content of these publications.

Because the person who wrote me the email probably covers a lot of points that people who disagree about the reality of gender inequality probably share, I have reproduced my response below, which may cover other similar objections to the campaign:

To your first point:

Firstly, I read your post discussing the results of your poll. Now, i'm interested as to why you refused to let other blogs link to it. Surely a poll about abolishing porn restricted to a blog that campaigns for abolishing porn is going to yield the result that the majority of respondents want porn to be abolished? Surely by opening this up to other blogs, you'd get a larger response, and one that is more representative of society. Further, by allowing the poll to be shown on a website that has never before discussed the issue, you'd get a less biased response? I haven't read the blog that originally linked to your poll, but I'd be fascinated to know your justification.

I didn't actually refuse to let other blogs link to it. What happened, was a blogger who openly admits to harassing feminists on the web put up a link to my blog and encouraged others to bombard it with negativity. There was no inkling of consideration for my arguments, just incitement to cyber-bullying. Shortly after this person linked to my post (I quickly retrieved the data from my poll as I sensed what was about to happen), the women's poll was suddenly voted on about 15 times and I could safely assume it was not by women, (as this blogger was not a woman and his blog is very 'laddish' and probably has a mainly male readership). Prior to this person linking, some women said they did not want a complete ban, but just a campaign for consideration, but to my actual surprise, the vast majority said they wanted a complete ban. None said they were happy as things are. After this blogger posted, about 15 votes appeared on the women's poll saying they didn't mind at all.

I know this was sabotage as the vast majority of people who found my blog though his link and posted comments were male. I was trusting people to be truthful about their sex, then Jackart decided to break that trust by voting a number of times on the wrong poll. That's why I regretfully had to end it. I am disappointed that I couldn't get wider stats.

To your second point:

My main contention is probably rather more interesting to you.:

I've been reading several of your posts, and the all seem to centre around the fact that you think the law is unequal between the sexes, and that people who read FHM on the tube are actively discriminating against you/women. Now, I don't know if you've ever considered it from this angle before, but the law is, in fact, perfectly equal. You (i'm making the assumption that you are a woman) have just as much right to look at images of mostly naked men/women as I do of mostly naked men/women.

In order for you to understand the inequality here, you have to look a bit deeper into the history of gender inequality and sex discrimination. Historically in the uk (and it is still the case in many other countries) women have been denied equal access to many things, for example, the right to own property, the right to education, the right to equality before the law, the right to bodily integrity, etc. I could go on, but I trust that you are educated enough to know this. In effect women have historically been considered either the 'property' of men - i.e. - a wife, not dissimilar to cattle, etc, - or alternatively they have been considered the whores of men (which would give them certain freedoms not afforded to wives -such as economic independence). The third option was of course menial work such as being maids, wet nurses etc. In other words, to put it crudely, their role has been to cook, clean, be fucked by, and/or reproduce for, men. Feminists over the centuries have fought hard to change this status quo and have made many advances.

Today, in western culture, although women now have more options, there is much to suggest that women still are the sexual property of men. The normalisation of pornography and the suggestion that women should aspire to be porn stars peddled by the media is the main force behind this. A hyper-sexualised image of a woman feigning sexual arousal in order to make a man feel that he is entitled to dehumanise that woman and view her as an object to be bought, sold and consumed by men, again like cattle, is a degradation of the female sex in relation to the male. She is viewed as an object. As a commodity. As property.

There is no way you can feasibly deny that female flesh depicted in a hyper-sexualised and dehumanised manner is unequalled in quantity by images of hyper-sexualised, dehumanised male flesh. There is simply no comparison. This is a form of gender inequality. It suggests that men are functional and women are decorative - or that men are consumers and women are consumables. If you look at the headlines on lads mags, the analogy between buying and selling cattle and buying and selling women is most apt. The women are almost overtly segmented into 'cuts' of rump, shank, etc. There is rarely any acknowledgement of them being intelligent, thinking, feeling human beings. They are just a body, to be consumed, like meat.

If there was no history of rape, sexual trafficking, forced prostitution of women and no history of exclusion from seats of power, perhaps these lads mags wouldn't be so insulting to many women. In fact, perhaps I as a woman would only feel the superficial blip of annoyance a man might feel when he sees an image of an objectified male. Unfortunately, because of the history, no one can ever know.

I don't think a man who exposes me to misogynistic pornography that he is perving over on the tube is deliberately discriminating against me. I think he simply couldn't give a shit how I feel. He feels entitled as a man, to do whatever he wants, in spite of whatever impact it might make upon me as a woman, because he sees my need for decorum to be inferior to his need for public sexual expression and gratification. I have no desire to look at porn in public. I have no desire to consume endless images of men being degraded. To say I have an equal freedom to do so is completely missing the point. I don't want the freedom to look at porn in public. I want the freedom to use public transport without being confronted with images of women being degraded. That is how the law is unequal. It favours male freedoms over females. To be clear - I do not want to do as men do!

To your next point: Because you choose not to exercise your right is your choice, no? On second thoughts, I remember seeing your spoof 'The Stun'. By putting that in the public domain, surely you are exercising your right?

By creating my spoof, I was merely trying to highlight an issue by reversing the sexes. To be honest I felt uncomfortable about doing it. I felt bad for the young men in those images. The whole process felt sadistic. That made it all the more upsetting - no one seems to care for the women in hyper-sexual images - since this sadism against women is endemic in the media. I also felt uncomfortable on a train where I had my spoof out. A woman came on the train with four young sons. I hid it, because there is no way I would want any young and impressionable boys being exposed to it and negatively affected. Again, I felt upset to thing that no-one cares to protect young girls from such images in the same way. I do not want the right to bring such material onto public transport. I am only doing so, to raise awareness.

Out of curiosity, has anyone ever expressed outrage when you've displayed it?

Outrage, no. But some people have been very annoyed and others have enjoyed the humour as they have 'got it'.

The lady who occupies the desk opposite me at work exercises her right by displaying a nude calendar of Robbie Williams. Now, the sight of Robbie Williams waving his bishop around happens to be particularly distasteful to me, but I haven't said anything, nor will I, mainly because I know that she's perfectly entitled to have it, and she doesn't have it to actively discriminate against me personally. Our localised society at work is much better off if I just ignore the picture whenever I see it (every day, as it's facing my desk) and don't take it personally. This brings me nicely to my second point: by looking at this stuff, men aren't actually discriminating against you.

I refer you to my comments above about how it is not equal when men and women do this, because of the history of inequality, the brunt of which you have never felt and never will feel, as a man. Also, I think its completely innappropriate for your colleague to be putting images like that up above her desk. Can't she keep her sexuality in her private life?

Discrimination in the eyes of the law must occur maliciously against either an entire catagory of people, or against a specific individual. Every black person gets offended by being called a nigger - it's discrimination. It obviously isn't the vast majority of women who are offended by softcore pornography, as there are so many women out there who either consent to take part in it, read it, or respond to the letters page/have interviews/write articles for magasines such as Nuts and FHM. So it can't be discrimination against women, as there are so many who are consensually actively involved in the industry. It isn't a form of harassment against you individually because it isn't targetted against you individually.

I'm glad you brought up the topic of race here. Some black people swear blind that they do not mind being called a nigger. Most do as it is reminiscent of subjugation into slavery. Now as a woman, I mind being called, 'totty', 'tart', 'bitch', 'slut', 'whore', 'dog', 'cunt', etc, etc. These terms are often used when referring to women in pornography. I find that language discriminating. Some women will swear blind that they don't find it offensive, but I do, because it is reminiscent of subjugation into sexual and domestic slavery. These words do offend me personally, because they are an insult to my sex. I don't care if I am being targeted individually or if it is my entire sex that is being targeted. I still feel personally harassed when I am exposed to that language.

The turn of phrase that men are arousing themselves whenever they look at this stuff in public, and that it should be illegal for this to happen is also interesting. My argument here may be reductio ad absurdum, but a law against this would make it illegal for most people to see Pirates of the Carribean at the cinema: many men I know find Kiera Knightly veryattractive, many women I know find Johnny Depp very attractive, and we all get a fair amount of pleasure from the film for this reason.

I am not trying to ban sexual attraction, or sexual arousal. I want to stop innappropriate sexual conduct in my prescence - and most people would agree with that. It is illegal to expose yourself in public, but not illegal to expose the public to images of other people exposing themselves. Huh? And the difference between say, the contents of The Star newspaper and Pirates of the Carribean is not exactly like for like. One is deliberately created for sexual stimulation, to facilitate masturbation, the other is just a couple of people who happen to be attractive in a movie. For the record, I do actually find gratuitous sex scenes in films a bit intrusive - primarily because they linger on the woman and rarely on the men. The gender inequality could only be balanced if every time you see a pair of breasts, you saw a cock for the same length of screen time. The resistance to doing this is because of the sexism of the movie industry - this again harks back to the idea of women as meat and men as consumers.

You may be one of these feminists, like my girlfriend, who argue that women only wear wear short skirts, low tops and make up because society forces them to (thank you, Germainne Greer), or that a pen is in fact designed to look like a penis purely to discourage women from education (I can't remember who's idea that was originally), but I sincerely hope that your arguments are more logical than this.

I'm a little bit disturbed that you could speak so disparagingly of your girlfriend's beliefs and arguments. I'm sure her ideas make more sense than the caricature you have presented. I do hope you are not one of those misogynists, who argue that rape, domestic violence, sexual trafficking, etc are a hysterical figment of women's imaginations. In order to understand the nature of sex-decrimination and harassment, you have to be able to see the bigger picture and include those rather tricky commonalities. I know I've kind of rushed through here, but to be fair, if you are genuinely interested in equality between the sexes, there are plenty of books to read on the subject.

I hope I've been able to answer some of your questions.

Bug

Small Blessings

2008-07-29T09:08:00.000-07:00

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

2008-07-22T11:05:00.001-07:00

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

2008-07-19T11:16:00.000-07:00

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

2008-07-16T12:36:00.001-07:00

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)

2008-07-15T04:24:00.000-07:00

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

2008-07-14T04:29:00.000-07:00

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

2008-07-14T04:25:00.000-07:00

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!

2008-07-04T06:51:00.000-07:00

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

2008-07-03T04:49:00.000-07:00

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

2008-07-02T06:24:00.000-07:00

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

The Stun Spoof Porn Paper

2008-06-30T08:38:00.000-07:00

TSSA - the union for people in transport and travel

"Display of offensive pictures, posters or written material "

"A procedure designed to deal with complaints of sexual harassment should be regarded as only one component of a strategy to deal with the problem. The prime objective should be to change behaviour and attitudes, to seek to ensure the prevention of sexual harassment."

Second Letter to Boris Johnson

2008-06-26T11:59:00.000-07:00

Since the mayor hasn't replied. I thought I'd write again:

mayor@london.gov.uk

Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 7:54 PM

subject Re: Publicly viewing pornographic material on London Transport.

Dear Boris Johnson,

Again, I am asking for you to consider the effect that men viewing pornographic material on public transport, without censure, has on female passenger's sense of safety and inclusion.

Women live in constant fear, whether consciously or not, of rape, sexual harassment or sexual assault, especially when we are travelling alone. In my personal experience I have had a number of intimidating experiences from men on public transport including harassment and feeling 'cornered', unwanted physical contact and lecherous behaviour. My experiences are not exceptional - just ask any woman you know.

You have given funding to rape crisis centres, which is a small comfort, but considering that only 5% of reported rapes end in a conviction, there are many rapists wandering London, freely able to commit their crimes again, knowing they would be incredibly unlucky to have to pay for their crime. Funding rape crisis centres does nothing to prevent further attacks, it only lessens the traumatic aftermath of having been raped.

I have written to the London Assembly and Andrew Boff assured me that he knows "the Mayor takes the issue of violence against women very seriously and [he] would be happy to forward on any suggestions [I] may have to make London a safer place for women to live."

I ask you to take a stronger stance on the prevention of sexual harassment, humiliation, intimidation, sex-assault and rape of women, firstly by examining the links between the sexual objectification of women, the open tolerance for men arousing themselves publicly by sexually objectifying women in pornography, the sexual crimes against women and the fear of rape women experience.

The commonality that all these things above share, is a disrespect for women and a culture that implies that men's wishes take priority over women's wishes, male sexual indulgance and expression takes priority over women's safety and dignity.

You may ask "what difference does it make if we ban porn on public transport, or class the viewing of it on public transport as anti-social behaviour and campaign accordingly against it- afterall men who harass, sexually assault/rape women are different from 'normal' men and they will do it anyway?".

It would make a huge difference. Primarily because it would increase women's sense of belonging and safety on public transport. Secondly it would encourage passengers to challenge men who are behaving disrespectfully towards women including brazenly arousing themselves with porn in front of them, and also encourage them to intervene if a woman appears to be harassed. Thirdly, it would put out a strong message that the disrespectful treatment of women is not acceptable, to the very men who behave in a callous way towards women. Fourthly, it would help women to feel that the law and politicians are on their side.

Leaving this behaviour un-challenged puts out the exact opposite message, simply by its absence. Surely this is more important than 'not eating smelly food'? Is there any reason why women should have to put up with men viewing imagery that would not be tolerated in the workplace on public transport?

Please could you explain your reasons for non-action on this issue

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.

Together we can change things!!!

My Letter to Harriet Harman

2008-06-24T10:50:00.000-07:00

I'd like to thank all the people who have commented or emailed so far to support me in this cause. Cause a Stir -I've taken up your suggestion to try to get the support of female politicans and written to the Minister for Women herself. Deborah, I have quoted from your comment... I hope you don't mind.

Big kisses

The Bug

Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 5:32

Gender Inequality on Public Transport

harmanh@parliament.uk

Dear Harriet Harman

I would firstly like to thank you on your stance on tackling demand for prostitution as this has been a cornerstone for gender inequality. While men are free to buy the use of womens bodies for sexual gratification including womens intimate sexual and reproductive organs-, all the while knowing that they are not breaking any laws (as long as they do not curb-crawl), they can be left with the impression that the world is a sexual playground for men where women are their amusements. As you yourself have emphasised, in the case of buying sexual use of the bodies of trafficked women, this culture leads directly to rape. This is a profound expression of gender-inequality - to have a culture that allows one sex to pay money to rape and abuse the bodies of the other sex.

In order to bring about true gender equality, the 'boys-clubs' of power must be changed to firstly include women, then become more welcoming environments for women by changing their andro-centric cultures so as not to exclude women. Great strides have been made in this direction. The workplace is no longer seen a sexual playground for men. We now have sexual harassment and equal opportunity legislation. It is no longer acceptable to put up pornographic calenders or imagery in the workplace. Since men now know that they are not allowed to put up sexist imagery of women or sexually harass women at work, cultures of the workplace are becoming less andro-centric and women feel entitled to expect respectful treatment whilst at work.

However the world is very different when a woman leaves her place of work and takes public transport to get home.

Currently on public transport there are stickers up saying "please give up your seat", poster campaigns saying "do not play your music too loud" and laws that make it illegal to smoke or consume alcohol, yet strangely nothing to suggest that it is anti-social for men to arouse themselves in public by using porn, and nothing to suggest that men should be considerate about the images they are exposing other passengers to and nothing at all on sexual harassment. In other words there is no indication to suggest to men that public transport, like the workplace is not their sexual playground, it is in fact a place where women belong just as much as them, and where women should be respected and be free from sexual-harassment and intimidation. This suggests that TFL are doing nothing to challenge an andro-centric culture which humiliates and threatens women who must travel alongside their male passengers. Being a public service, public transport is an unacceptable arena for such gender inequality in 2008.

As The Star, The Sun, Nuts, Zoo, etc become more explicit and prolific in their images of women in states of undress and sexual invitation, female passengers have to increasingly face a daily offensive of pornographic imagery, while men can quite proudly look at these images, arousing themselves. As a result, public transport is turning into something similar to a 'boys-club' culture where women have to simply swallow their offence (otherwise they cannot get home or to work), just as she once had to do in the workplace. I have created a blog http://nomorepornonlondontransport.blogspot.com/ to raise awareness on this issue. One woman commented on the blog that "I've also been intimidated by men reading porn on the tube - in one case even being followed off the tube by one man who was looking at some pretty hardcore stuff while in the carriage with me".

It is considered indecent exposure for a person to expose their primary or secondary sexual organs on public transport, yet considered 'normal' to expose passengers to indecent images on the printed page - this is an unacceptable double-standard. Just yesterday morning I was standing on the Piccadilly Line and a man sat quite brazenly beneath me with the Page 3 spread, right under my gaze. I said "Excuse me, could you cover that up please" and he became quite flustered and immediately turned the page. His reaction was that he knew the image was offensive to women, but he was surprised that he was being challenged. This proves that there is a culture of sexual inequality on public transport otherwise he would not have been surprised by my challenge at all.

I am writing to you as The Minister for Women, because I hope that you might support me. I am campaigning for either an outright ban on viewing/exposing others to porn on London transport, or strong guidelines in the form of sticker/poster campaigns to expose this behaviour for what it is: anti-social. I have already written to TFL and Boris Johnson on the matter but am waiting for a reply.

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.

Together we can change things!!!

My Letter To Boris Johnson

2008-06-22T06:04:00.000-07:00

After writing to the London Assembly to ask them to pressure Boris Johnson to choose advisors who represent the diversity of London, only one London Assembly member wrote back. It was the Conservative Andrew Boff. Although he was dismissive of my belief that women are the best people to advise on womens issues, he did say "I know the Mayor takes the issue of violence against women very seriously and I would be happy to forward on any suggestions you may have to make London a safer place for women to live". I was inspired to write the following email to the Mayor as well as a similar email to Transport for London:

mayor@london.gov.uk

Publicly viewing pornographic material on London Transport.

Dear Boris Johnson

Yesterday on the 106 Bus in Hackney on the way to work, I sat next to someone who was looking at the Star newspaper. On the front it had a very large picture of a sexually provocative woman in stocking and suspenders. I asked him to cover it as I did not want to see his pornography. He was unable to hide it because every effort to fold it or hold it a different way exposed me to another pornographic image of a woman. I found this very distressing as I do not want to see such material that should only be viewed in private. It is intimidating sitting on the same carriage/bus as a man when you are aware he is deliberately arousing himself by viewing this pornography even if it falls into the misleadingly benign category of 'soft-porn' - this includes page 3 of The Sun. It feels very disrepectful to the other passengers, especially women. Also, it is considered a form of child sexual abuse to expose children to pornography, yet someone viewing such material in public gives no thought to this. This situation is entirely commonplace, and it is only recently I have developed the courage to start confronting people about it.

We have the crime of 'indecent exposure' to stop people exposing their primary and secondary sexual organs to the public. This protects us from intimidation and distress, however there is no law to stop us being exposed to indecent images on the printed page. I feel that you should make an effort to ban the viewing of porn on public transport, or at least provide guidelines of acceptability, such as for men to cover it in brown paper for example, making sure that no other passengers are exposed to it.

There are public transport campaigns to 'give up your seat', to 'not eat smelly food', etc, yet I notice a glaring lack of advice to transport users to prevent this anti-social behaviour, which makes me and I'm sure many other women feel very uncomfortable.

You recently banned alcohol from being consumed on the tube, which did not really affect me (I feel more intimidated when groups of loud, already drunken men enter, than I do when there is a solitary alcoholic sipping away on a can), so it is obvious that you do prioritise the comfort and safety of passengers on buses and trains in the capital. Please could you bring this insidious but corrosive 'normality' to a halt. As The Sun, The Sunday Sport, The Star, Nuts, Zoo etc, are becoming increasingly explicit, whilst trying to market themselves as newspapers/magazines no different from any other, public exposure to pornography is now a pretty much daily experience for public transport users. Please do not leave this anti-social behaviour unchallenged. Public transport is for women too.

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.

Together we can change things!!!