>or indeed what colour this "paedophile pound" might be
According to the latest outburst, sorry, in depth research by the Vatican it is pink and definitely not a bland celibate vanilla.
Cut-price clothes retailer Primark has pulled a "disgraceful" range of kids' bikinis featuring padded tops, following a barrage of criticism over the ill-considered apparel. According to the BBC, the bikinis for girls as young as seven came in "candy pink with gold stars and black with white polka dots" at four quid a pop, and …
"It never fails to amaze me just how many High Street household names are now prepared to exploit the disgusting 'paedophile pound'."
1. Why on earth would paedophiles want children to wear clothes to make them look older and more developed?
2. If paedophiles are buying clothes for children, there is a far bigger problem than the fact that they would be buying inappropriate clothing.
3. Why do "child protection" "experts" not have to ever have to live up to basic standards of common sense?
"3. Why do "child protection" "experts" not have to ever have to live up to basic standards of common sense?"
Because as soon as you cry "wont anyone think of the children" everyone has to fall over themselves agreeing with *any* crazy fucked up crap you might come up with because otherwise they are siding with THE PAEDOPHILES..... Bastards the lot of them - kiddy fiddlers and "child protection" twats.
Its the same with terrorism...
But if they've sold enough to have profits to give to a charity, there must be a lot of people out there who did want to buy it. Where are the complaints from politicians about the poor judgement of the people who bought this bit of tat?
I suppose it's too close to an election to criticise member of the public for anything....
When I was a nipper, doing my paper round. I remember a young lady appearing repeatedly on p3 (which for some reason I always checked out on the duller mornings), she was not old enough to appear as the main item, so instead they settled for pictures of her in a tight top and the promise that you'd see the rest in a few days just as soon as she had her birthday. Her mum was regularly quoted saying how excited and proud she was at the prospect.
But of course that is totally different from anything done by evil paedophiles huh?
To be fair, the 'newspaper' in question was the Daily Sport. They probably ran this story complete with seven year-old models.
I agree with your point though on increasing levels of paedophobia - not to mention our scaremongering press (aichmophobia anyone) and fear driven legislation.
Of course children should not be sexualised, but companies have been exploiting children for financial gain for years.
Even before the boom in "tweenage" disposable income, toy companies who wanted to sell the fuck out of their products would advertise them in the breaks in children's programming, or at times when children would likely be watching.
I'm not saying it's right, I'm saying it's old news.
And those politicians and quangos can go Selbst im Arsch ficken. They're as big a bunch of parasitic, opportunistic vampires as the companies selling this crap to kids.
**Child protection consultant Shy Keenan, of The Phoenix Chief Advocates, which "helps victims of paedophiles", thundered: "It never fails to amaze me just how many High Street household names are now prepared to exploit the disgusting 'paedophile pound'."**
Huh? Surely, the paedos wouldn't be very interested in trying to make young girls look older? Or am I just completely misunderstanding the definition? I'm pretty sure that the paedo pound is spent more on products from Cadburys and Pets At Home than Primark (I was always warned to avoid grown-ups offering sweeties and puppies when I was young). Quick, get a quote from David Cameron about the evils of Rowntree Fruit Pastilles!
(Nice to see that Dave Cameron is continuing to make sure that he is the Tory SpokesPerson On Everything In The World Ever. I can't remember the last time I heard The Official Tory View on any subject from anyone else. Apart from Chris Grayling, who doesn't count, as I'm pretty sure he's not actually a human being.)
As always happens, some retards from a bizare group you've never heard of before is wheeled out to make some dramatic proclamation and allow news / sites to get a good quote in.
Based on the evidence I have currently seen (i.e. this article on El Reg) Keenan is a bit simple. Why CEOP never got to say anything is beyond me.
Paedo's are not buying bikinis for their victims - with or without them they will still have urges relating to children. I suggest Keenan / Cameron / The Sun steer clear of (for example) the disney shop where GOD FORBID they may see som costumes that an EEBUL PEDO might buy to sexualise a young girl.
Fear mongering at its best. Its what concern trolls like Cameron, Keenan et al do best.
As for the Tory SpokesPerson... bit - 100% spot on. +1 * 1 000 000 etc.
David obviously has so little faith in his cabinet that none of them are allowed to speak on any topic. Bodes well for the future government, doesnt it?
Well if there was ever any doubt. Front page headline, no matter how comical, in the farce^W Sun and Clown Cameron bends over to support them. Well done Con Central.
"Tory supremo David Cameron fulminated this morning on BBC London Radio: "There is a classic example today where Primark are apparently pushing padded bras on seven-year-olds, which I think is completely disgraceful.
"The sort of country I want* is one where it is not just the government [that] feels outraged about the early commercialisation and sexualisation of our children but companies should stop doing it, they should take some responsibility.""
What utter crap. Its almost as comical as the whole bloody outrage on a non-event (and I have an eight year old daughter before the Moral Police turn up).
Primark sell clothes. If people want to buy them, they will buy the and Primark will buy more. If no one wants them, they will stop selling them. Seems a pretty basic bit of economic theory.
However the Tories obviously dont agree with this and despite their claims for a "small government" they feel its suitable to get all involved and whine about a business doing business things. I smell hypocrisy but it might just be an after effect of lunch...
"Companies should take some responsibility" - WTF? They do. How many seven year olds go shopping in Primark on their own?
That should be the biggest headline. Where are these children getting the money to go round town to buy bras? Or should Primark and the Government step into accomodate weak, pointless parents? Doesnt sound very tory to me.
And judging on the moral outrage this has caused, it is not "just the government" that is concerned its the tabloids. And we know they pull every string that doesnt have a banker attached to one end (I will leave the jokes about the other end to reader discretion, I dont want to inflame the moralising idiots who find words evil....)
Still its good to see that the Sun can show pictures of an 18 year olds tits but find the idea that the seven year old looking at the paper might ask for a padded bra (and her parents being too braindead to say "dont be silly") morally wrong. Its even better that ConCam can clarify his cat on a hot tin roof position following the manifesto claims.
Epic fails all round reall.
I wonder if local Primark refunds desk has a big queue of Sun readers today.
This truly is hypocritical bullshit by these pushers of scandal, lies and titillation.
From wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samantha_Fox):
"In early 1983, Carole Fox photographed her teenage daughter wearing lingerie and submitted several pictures to the The Sunday People newspaper's "Face and Shape of 1983" amateur modeling contest. Judged joint runner-up in the contest, Fox had her pictures published, and was soon after invited for a test shoot for The Sun newspaper's Page Three feature. Her parents gave their consent for their daughter to pose topless, and on Tuesday, 22 February 1983, Fox's first Page Three photograph was published under the headline "Sam, 16, Quits A-Levels for Ooh-Levels"."
Sixteen years old eh? Can't do this now, but I bet they wish they could still get away with it.
Why is Cameron having a go at Primark for marketing these things, and not having a go at the people that (presumably) bought them? Primark would only have invested money into this product if they were confident that their customer would buy them - it's the parents that are 'prematurely sexualising' their children, not some faceless Primark buyer in an office somewhere.
It seems to be a serious problem for modern democracy that politicians are shit-scared of ever blaming the voters for anything.
Shops sell this stuff for one reason and one reason only: because people buy it.
Forget about reprimanding Primark, they're irrelevant. If you don't want children wearing chavvy^W sexualised clothes then you need to battle the tasteless indiscriminate scumbags who buy them. Many such "parents" are in fact children themselves, though I'll leave you to form your own opinions on whether that makes a difference.
Now don't get me wrong, I'm not a social conservative, I don't really give a shit what kids wear, you can dress them anyway you like, just keep them the hell out of my sight because I don't want to see them at all. I don't go to places where there are likely to be kids, and you don't bring your kids to places where I am likely to go to avoid kids. That's all I ask.
Having been forced onto a Child Protection course, like many of my colleagues; I can tell you that "Common Sense" was banished from all matters regarding children several years ago.
Did you know that packing your child's lunchbox with too many sweets and crisps is now classed as Child Abuse??
I kid you not!!
The logic behind this is probably "hey, look, some small kids want some padded bras, we can make money out of that". Ignoring the fact that anyone with half a brain (neatly ruling out the marketing department who made this decision) could anticipate a backlash of some sort, I think there's another more important question.
Why are their target market asking for this sort of thing?
I had 3 daughters that swam on swim teams when they were in their early teens and younger - and I can tell you that when those kids start exercising in the water and their hearts start pumping portions of their anatomy fill with blood, get hard, and are quite visible.
It is just as likely that the "padded top" actually contained some sort of pad so that you couldn't see what is underneath - and that the rest of this is just outrage from groups and politicians who have already demonstrated their lack of common sense. The fact that the store dropped the items just means that they made an economic determination that they wouldn't make enough money on the line to offset the cost of keeping it.
Padded bikini's are bad - yes - but the media has blown this out of proportion...
I fail to see how this could be any worse than the Disney High School Musical cheerleader outfits -which our local supermarket sells for 4 year olds....
Its the parents buying the stuff not the sellers that need educating to not buy the stuff.
Yes, you *are* being exploited by Huggies (but maybe not quite the way you think).
You have been fooled into thinking that risking getting a little bit of human shit behind your fingernails is more disgusting than 3650* used disposable nappies festering in a landfill site, leaching out poisons for thousands of years, and so spending good money unnecessarily.
* based on 2 years to potty-train at 5 changes a day.
I seem to recall that my sister wanted a 'binki' when she was 7 or 8 back in the late 1960s. I'm sure that if you went to any beach in the world any time in the last 40 years you'll see tots in two piece swimwear, though the top bit probably wasn't padded out to give the impression of breasts.
Not that I particularly like the item of clothing.....but the sort of country I want is the sort where the government keeps to doing what the government should be doing (like balancing the budget) and doesn't try to involve itself in every aspect of people's private and personal lives, including what they wear.
DaveC talks the language of small government but acts just like the Stalinist big-government dictatorship that is New Labour!
If there's a market for this stuff then let the market decide. The fact that we middle class intellectuals don't like it doesn't really matter, on the Swansea council estates where they probably sell they may be very popular and it's not for Dave 'Eton' Cameron to tell them what to wear. Next he'll be dictating that they must wear coat and tails to dinner!
If nothing else, it's good to be reminded that the Great Paedogeddon is in safe hands, no matter what the colour of the next Government. As bad as each other, and all incapable of rational thought on the subject, they will do absolutely nothing to restore any modicum of common sense, whilst doing their utmost best to misinform, distract and sensationalise in the desperate hope of scoring a few more cheap political points.
It's all a bit depressing.
Come on people, I seen at least a few of you say you have young daughters, so are non of you ever at home? do you never watch them play?
ITS CALLED DRESSING UP.
All little girls do it, many of them from what I've seen never stop; and yes they stuff things into tops of their costumes, tennis balls, balloons etc etc so they can look grown up or look like mum.
There is always going to be someone who dresses up their kids to look like a cheap whore, and there is always going to someone willing to print a story about it. The more you keep reacting to these sad, sick purveyors of garbage the more they will write.
Let the kids have their fun - leave them be and get a life...
They (Primark) are not exploiting children. They are exploiting parents who do not have sufficient strenth of character to say "No Kylee, I don't care what Rupert wears, you are not having one".
I suppose it is now much easier to say "Well, Kylee, you can't have one because the government says you can't.............That's right, the same man that says you can't photograph the nice policeman checking out the magazines on the top shelf to protect us all".
Personally I find it annoying to see 8 year olds with nipples poking through their tops at the pool, I'd much prefer they put some modest padding in. When they start making C cup sized padding for 8 year olds, then you can bitch. Or are these C cup sized tops we're talking about?
Like to dress up, which often includes looking older, and I think that most of them have noticed that their elders have breasts.
Sorry, kids... not allowed any longer.
On the other other other hand, I am never comfortable with adults dressing young girls in clothes that would be daring and revealing on a teenager or adult.
By the way. I just thought I'd say this..... Training Bras.
There. Said it.
I saw an 10 or 11 year old girl on a tv program with pierced ears. What kind of a parent lets their daughter get pierced ears at that age.
I should feel sorry for the boys who have socialise and play with tarted up young girls. OTOH they're probably to busy texting to even look up notice each other. I wonder how I would have turned out if I'd grown up with a mobile phone (they were brick sized when I was a teenager)...
Little children were usually naked down the beach.
Its the media thats sexualised children to the point where the average male adult is uncomfortable anywhere near naked or semi-naked children no matter how innocent the circumstances are.
Not that we get many sunny days.
Anonymous for the same reasons.
Sadly one of my co-workers reads the SUN and the first I saw about this was a headline on his desk "PEDO-BRAS!!".
What a freaking joke!
Sorry but I've been around my various neices and family little'uns long enough to know that girls like to play grown up from a quite young age, get over it.
Sure if they are stupidly ott breast enhancement type jobbies, it's very poor taste.
If it's a tiny amount of padding...get the heck over it!
Wanting to look grown up != sex mania pedo magnet insert knee jerk terror du jour here.
As for the why do kids wear tops in pools at all, paranoia, simple as that.
Britain seems to be the worst though.
Holidaying in spain and the spanish islands all the brit kids are covered head to toe, most european kids are topless, in fact so are most of the european mums, and you know what, most people don't even bat an eyelid and it just becomes normal.
It's only us brits (and the yanks) that seem to be paranoid that any show of flesh = sex.
Oh it's also traditional in spain to peirce girls ears almost from birth to the point you can have a baby girl dressed all in pink with BABY GIRL all over her clothes, and a spainard will take one look, see no ear piercing and ask "ahh what a cute boy what's his name?"
I'm surprised some sort of photo wasn't included in the article so we can decide if it is "pointless storm in a teacup" or "maybe they have a point"...
...not that it would make any difference to the ex-pat mob the other side of town. They let their kids run around with minimal clothing, and by that I mean partial underwear for both genders who are nearly into double-digit ages. Some parents are just stupid, in both extremes.
Some eight-year-olds have obvious early breast development
Other eight-year-olds want to look as if they have
Some mothers of eight-year-olds like dressing their kids as if they were teenagers
Almost all adult women emphasise their breasts to a greater or lesser extent -- even those who don't have any seem to see a need to create the appearance of breasts.
Is it surprising that someone should market a bikini top for young girls to do for them what it seems is deemed relevant for older females?
If the self-righteous would-be guardians of public morality were really interested in modesty they might be better campaigning against tops and bottoms without padding or interlining to conceal anything at all when they get wet.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2021