Who knows. It was what she said and on her name badge. Can't see why she would want to lie.
I read the news today oh boy! Page 1,516
Quote: Marc P @ 11th April 2014, 12:22 AM BSTWho knows. It was what she said and on her name badge. Can't see why she would want to lie.
I wasn't asking.
No mention of Queen and I on BBC News, a funnier book than the Moles.
RIP an clever comic writer. 
Quote: Renegade Carpark @ 10th April 2014, 10:19 PM BSTseeking tall, slim, professional, generous man with GSOH.
GSOH? I haven't seen that acronym used since the last century. When I was internet dating, 'slim' wasn't specifically requested much, either. However, height was almost always an issue; very few women would tolerate a man shorter than them. It seemed that a man's personality wasn't very interesting to a woman, compared to his body.
Quote: Renegade Carpark @ 10th April 2014, 10:19 PM BSTNot according to the personal ads - just about every woman writes the exact same thing - seeking tall, slim, professional, generous man with GSOH.
So not only do you have to be underweight, you also need to have a good job, earn tons of cash and like spending it on the fat bint shoving Jaffa Cakes in her mush all day - that's where the GSOH comes in. Oh and don't be a short arse, chicks hate that. If you're short, fat and poor, just kill yourself*.
*Don't actually kill yourself, I don't want the blood of overweight, broke ass midgets on my hands...again!
It's not a competition, but if it was, then I'm afraid women win this one. By A LOT.
Quote: Badge @ 11th April 2014, 12:35 AM BSTI wasn't asking.
No dance for you then!
The Women Eating Food on the Tube Facebook page has been taken down due to a public outcry. A victory for privacy or the end of free speech as we know it?
'Feminists, including journalist Caitlin Moran, claimed it had become increasingly offensive, with many users posting lewd comments on pictures of women eating on the London Underground.'
'Goldsmiths student Lucy Brisbane McKay, who plans to hold an 'eating protest' on the Circle Line on Monday to highlight opposition to the social media craze, accused Burke of ignoring the group's misogynistic tone.'
Speaking to the Standard later, Ms McKay said she was still planning to hold Monday's protest as she said the original group "reflected a wider issue".
Do you know what? Maybe Moran and McKay have a point. Maybe we should stop objectifying women. Maybe we should pull any and all images of women looking sexy, young, glamorous or desirable from all media and the Internet. Just use imagery that portrays women as fat, ugly, dowdy, old slobs so we don't send out unrealistic messages to young girls.
We could put Mary Beard, Professor of Classics at Cambridge University, on the cover of Vogue with the headline: 'This is real beauty'. Or have Victorian Farm's Ruth Goodman as the host of Britain's Next Top Model. It would be a feminist paradise!
Meanwhile in the real world, men will keep chasing after good looking young women with great bodies and stylish clothes - but at least on the face of it, feminists could pretend that things have changed - which I think is the most important aspect.
Like men know what stylish clothes are.
Honestly I'm glad Facebook is taking down some of these stupid, offensive pages that support weird bullying tendencies.
If there was an argument for keeping it someone would have made it.
Facebook I would suspect ban a photo of a mumbreast feeding if she took it herself, but allow it if a pervert took it.
Moran is a witless drone though and a hypocrite who seems to succeed in the same way Japanese bind weed does
Quote: Renegade Carpark @ 11th April 2014, 2:20 PM BSTDo you know what? Maybe Moran and McKay have a point. Maybe we should stop objectifying women. Maybe we should pull any and all images of women looking sexy, young, glamorous or desirable from all media and the Internet. Just use imagery that portrays women as fat, ugly, dowdy, old slobs so we don't send out unrealistic messages to young girls.
Try the right hand side of the Daily Mail website to see how far you have to go in that aim.
Quote: Renegade Carpark @ 11th April 2014, 2:20 PM BSThttp://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/women-who-eat-on-tubes-facebook-page-is-closed-after-outcry-from-campaigners-9253430.html
The Women Eating Food on the Tube Facebook page has been taken down due to a public outcry. A victory for privacy or the end of free speech as we know it?
'Feminists, including journalist Caitlin Moran, claimed it had become increasingly offensive, with many users posting lewd comments on pictures of women eating on the London Underground.'
'Goldsmiths student Lucy Brisbane McKay, who plans to hold an 'eating protest' on the Circle Line on Monday to highlight opposition to the social media craze, accused Burke of ignoring the group's misogynistic tone.'
Speaking to the Standard later, Ms McKay said she was still planning to hold Monday's protest as she said the original group "reflected a wider issue".
Do you know what? Maybe Moran and McKay have a point. Maybe we should stop objectifying women. Maybe we should pull any and all images of women looking sexy, young, glamorous or desirable from all media and the Internet. Just use imagery that portrays women as fat, ugly, dowdy, old slobs so we don't send out unrealistic messages to young girls.
We could put Mary Beard, Professor of Classics at Cambridge University, on the cover of Vogue with the headline: 'This is real beauty'. Or have Victorian Farm's Ruth Goodman as the host of Britain's Next Top Model. It would be a feminist paradise!
Meanwhile in the real world, men will keep chasing after good looking young women with great bodies and stylish clothes - but at least on the face of it, feminists could pretend that things have changed - which I think is the most important aspect.
But aren't the pictures taken and put up without the consent of the people in them? That the gist of it? I can understand most people having a problem with that, especially if they're then ridiculed, or subjected to lewd sexual comments. It's slightly different if it's something you've put out into the world willingly. The very fact it's only pictures of women raises questions in itself.
Maybe he has a fetish of average looking women and he wants the whole world to see them?
Or there's freedom of artistic expression?
We need a lawyer who's also a feminist...?
With facebook an interesting thing is from a legal point of view, the message is the medium. They retain copyright over all material featured on their website, although they don't profit from reselling it etc only from advertising.
So they're ultimately responsible for what appears on their site, as if they themselves had produced it.
Which is why I guess they can be a little jumpy, often over the funniest things.
Quote: Matthew Stott @ 11th April 2014, 3:26 PM BSTBut aren't the pictures taken and put up without the consent of the people in them? That the gist of it? I can understand most people having a problem with that, especially if they're then ridiculed, or subjected to lewd sexual comments. It's slightly different if it's something you've put out into the world willingly. The very fact it's only pictures of women raises questions in itself.
According to the FB page's creator, it was never intended to have misogynistic overtones and he can't be held responsible for the comments that others put up under the pictures.
As for the consent issue, it's a little tricky involving public spaces. What if I took a picture of you and a woman was eating a hot dog in the background? I'm uploading the picture of you and not the woman, but she does feature in the photo and lewd comments could be made.
Obviously, this is all about context rather than any legal precedence. If the Facebook group was called 'Super Hot Intelligent Babes on the Tube' and loads of pictures were put up of women only on public transport, then only the most grumpy, man hating, die hard, feminist would complain - but only because they weren't featured.
The real reason this group has garnered so many headlines is because these women are portrayed in an unflattering way. Despite arguments to the contrary about objectification, it's their own insecurities and vanity that caused these women to take such a vocal stance. I would imagine in a lot of instances, those who are complaining have also done their fair share of people watching and judging on the Internet from celebrity paparazzi shots to the previously mentioned 'People of Wal-Mart'. They know how horrible they can be to others, so they don't want the same in return.
Again, I ask, if we were to flip this around and it was 'Men Drinking Beer in Public' or 'Men with unusual moustaches' - would there be the same calls of sexism? Would male columnists write about it? Would there be a public protest?