Newport woman organises a ‘page 3’ protest

South Wales Argus: PROTESTING: Newport student Becky Evans (left), with friends Milan Juracka and Ewa Lewszyk PROTESTING: Newport student Becky Evans (left), with friends Milan Juracka and Ewa Lewszyk

A NEWPORT student studying in London organised a protest against The Sun’s Page 3 feature earlier this week.

Becky Evans, a third year Public Relations student at the University of Westminster who is originally from High Cross, staged it in support of the No More Page 3 campaign.

The former Rougemont School pupil, 20, said: “Page 3 has been running for more than 40 years and it’s about time women stopped being sexually objectified in a family newspaper.”

The founder of the No More Page 3 campaign, Lucy Anne Holmes, also attended the event.

She said: “We are thrilled that the University of Westminster students are getting behind the campaign in such a big way. They are joined by many other universities around the country, 28 of which have voted to stop selling The Sun on campus, with many others campaigning hard to do the same.”

The No More Page 3 campaign has collected about 136,000 signatures on its petition on the change.org website and a gained substantial media following since it was set up in summer 2012.

Comments (20)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

4:10pm Thu 27 Feb 14

blackandamber says...

I really think being an obviously intelligent person by going to university. The young lady could find something more useful to occupy her time.
I really think being an obviously intelligent person by going to university. The young lady could find something more useful to occupy her time. blackandamber
  • Score: 9

4:11pm Thu 27 Feb 14

Dai Rear says...

Hacked email reads "Thanks for the publicity Becks. The cheque's in the post. Don't forget; if you ever need a job, just call me. Rupert"
PS What's "Westminster University"?. I've heard of the Burcow Diva Academy but never that.
Hacked email reads "Thanks for the publicity Becks. The cheque's in the post. Don't forget; if you ever need a job, just call me. Rupert" PS What's "Westminster University"?. I've heard of the Burcow Diva Academy but never that. Dai Rear
  • Score: -10

4:18pm Thu 27 Feb 14

Llanmartinangel says...

blackandamber wrote:
I really think being an obviously intelligent person by going to university. The young lady could find something more useful to occupy her time.
Yep. I can certainly think of better things to obsess about. Malaria, the price of Cod, hedgehogs having to cross busy roads.
[quote][p][bold]blackandamber[/bold] wrote: I really think being an obviously intelligent person by going to university. The young lady could find something more useful to occupy her time.[/p][/quote]Yep. I can certainly think of better things to obsess about. Malaria, the price of Cod, hedgehogs having to cross busy roads. Llanmartinangel
  • Score: -8

4:52pm Thu 27 Feb 14

GogExile says...

Meanwhile, young girls are being genitally mutilated in their thousands in the name of religion and Universities started segregating men and women in the name of religion. Our university feminists really are a credit to their suffragette fore-mothers.
Meanwhile, young girls are being genitally mutilated in their thousands in the name of religion and Universities started segregating men and women in the name of religion. Our university feminists really are a credit to their suffragette fore-mothers. GogExile
  • Score: 4

5:25pm Thu 27 Feb 14

GardenVarietyMushroom says...

Couldn't care less about page three myself. If these kids want to voice their objections though, they're entitled to do so.

I do think though that page three is possibly the least objectionable part of the Sun.
Couldn't care less about page three myself. If these kids want to voice their objections though, they're entitled to do so. I do think though that page three is possibly the least objectionable part of the Sun. GardenVarietyMushroom
  • Score: 11

5:46pm Thu 27 Feb 14

smudge100 says...

How is Page 3 any different from the girly mags advertising torso of the week etc and also no one forces the girls to take there tops off they choose to do it.

Maybe the idea is a bit dated but if it bothers you that much, don't buy the paper
How is Page 3 any different from the girly mags advertising torso of the week etc and also no one forces the girls to take there tops off they choose to do it. Maybe the idea is a bit dated but if it bothers you that much, don't buy the paper smudge100
  • Score: 10

7:46pm Thu 27 Feb 14

TerryDoncaster says...

Good for her for doing something and standing up for what she believes in!
Good for her for doing something and standing up for what she believes in! TerryDoncaster
  • Score: 5

12:20am Fri 28 Feb 14

Jammie Dodger says...

smudge100 wrote:
How is Page 3 any different from the girly mags advertising torso of the week etc and also no one forces the girls to take there tops off they choose to do it.

Maybe the idea is a bit dated but if it bothers you that much, don't buy the paper
Well said! It's no more an issue than the hoards of maxi muscle blokes that are spread across magazines.
And the girls get huge amounts of money
[quote][p][bold]smudge100[/bold] wrote: How is Page 3 any different from the girly mags advertising torso of the week etc and also no one forces the girls to take there tops off they choose to do it. Maybe the idea is a bit dated but if it bothers you that much, don't buy the paper[/p][/quote]Well said! It's no more an issue than the hoards of maxi muscle blokes that are spread across magazines. And the girls get huge amounts of money Jammie Dodger
  • Score: 1

8:52am Fri 28 Feb 14

jd1234 says...

The Sun a "family' newspaper, really? The Sun isn't, and never has been an 'A-B' newspaper. I'm not really sure that this is a burning issue. The private education could be used more productively rather than (minor) sensation seeking.
The Sun a "family' newspaper, really? The Sun isn't, and never has been an 'A-B' newspaper. I'm not really sure that this is a burning issue. The private education could be used more productively rather than (minor) sensation seeking. jd1234
  • Score: 0

9:43am Fri 28 Feb 14

Mike Roland says...

Nipples are not news items, so why should a "newspaper" print pictures of them? Page 3 does seem to be a bit of a 1970's leftover, but I don't believe a ban would serve any purpose. Maybe the Sun should be persuaded to follow the example set by the Bild Zeitung in Germany by dropping the girlie pics.
Nipples are not news items, so why should a "newspaper" print pictures of them? Page 3 does seem to be a bit of a 1970's leftover, but I don't believe a ban would serve any purpose. Maybe the Sun should be persuaded to follow the example set by the Bild Zeitung in Germany by dropping the girlie pics. Mike Roland
  • Score: 5

11:25am Fri 28 Feb 14

Jimport says...

Jammie Dodger wrote:
smudge100 wrote:
How is Page 3 any different from the girly mags advertising torso of the week etc and also no one forces the girls to take there tops off they choose to do it.

Maybe the idea is a bit dated but if it bothers you that much, don't buy the paper
Well said! It's no more an issue than the hoards of maxi muscle blokes that are spread across magazines.
And the girls get huge amounts of money
I suppose the historical difference is that women and girls have tended to be disproportionately on the receiving end of domestic and sexual violence, political and social exclusion, lower wages, human trafficking etc. I'm not sure this warrants a ban on topless photos being published in a bottom-shelf newspaper, but these campaigners are claiming a conceptual link between 'objectifying' pictures of women and the unpleasantness listed above, which would challenge a direct comparison with pictures of men you describe.
[quote][p][bold]Jammie Dodger[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]smudge100[/bold] wrote: How is Page 3 any different from the girly mags advertising torso of the week etc and also no one forces the girls to take there tops off they choose to do it. Maybe the idea is a bit dated but if it bothers you that much, don't buy the paper[/p][/quote]Well said! It's no more an issue than the hoards of maxi muscle blokes that are spread across magazines. And the girls get huge amounts of money[/p][/quote]I suppose the historical difference is that women and girls have tended to be disproportionately on the receiving end of domestic and sexual violence, political and social exclusion, lower wages, human trafficking etc. I'm not sure this warrants a ban on topless photos being published in a bottom-shelf newspaper, but these campaigners are claiming a conceptual link between 'objectifying' pictures of women and the unpleasantness listed above, which would challenge a direct comparison with pictures of men you describe. Jimport
  • Score: 7

11:39am Fri 28 Feb 14

Dai Rear says...

Jimport wrote:
Jammie Dodger wrote:
smudge100 wrote:
How is Page 3 any different from the girly mags advertising torso of the week etc and also no one forces the girls to take there tops off they choose to do it.

Maybe the idea is a bit dated but if it bothers you that much, don't buy the paper
Well said! It's no more an issue than the hoards of maxi muscle blokes that are spread across magazines.
And the girls get huge amounts of money
I suppose the historical difference is that women and girls have tended to be disproportionately on the receiving end of domestic and sexual violence, political and social exclusion, lower wages, human trafficking etc. I'm not sure this warrants a ban on topless photos being published in a bottom-shelf newspaper, but these campaigners are claiming a conceptual link between 'objectifying' pictures of women and the unpleasantness listed above, which would challenge a direct comparison with pictures of men you describe.
Or to put it another way, Sun readers pay women less, do frightful things to them , traffic them , exclude them from their socials and don't let them vote (unless it's for EDF of course) whilst Mirror, Sport, Times etc readers are models of probity and Guardian readers, dear Ms. Harman , are only concerned with lowering the age of consent to, what was it, 5? Hmm. Still, as a Telegraph reader I'm happy to be on the side of the good.
[quote][p][bold]Jimport[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jammie Dodger[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]smudge100[/bold] wrote: How is Page 3 any different from the girly mags advertising torso of the week etc and also no one forces the girls to take there tops off they choose to do it. Maybe the idea is a bit dated but if it bothers you that much, don't buy the paper[/p][/quote]Well said! It's no more an issue than the hoards of maxi muscle blokes that are spread across magazines. And the girls get huge amounts of money[/p][/quote]I suppose the historical difference is that women and girls have tended to be disproportionately on the receiving end of domestic and sexual violence, political and social exclusion, lower wages, human trafficking etc. I'm not sure this warrants a ban on topless photos being published in a bottom-shelf newspaper, but these campaigners are claiming a conceptual link between 'objectifying' pictures of women and the unpleasantness listed above, which would challenge a direct comparison with pictures of men you describe.[/p][/quote]Or to put it another way, Sun readers pay women less, do frightful things to them , traffic them , exclude them from their socials and don't let them vote (unless it's for EDF of course) whilst Mirror, Sport, Times etc readers are models of probity and Guardian readers, dear Ms. Harman , are only concerned with lowering the age of consent to, what was it, 5? Hmm. Still, as a Telegraph reader I'm happy to be on the side of the good. Dai Rear
  • Score: -4

11:42am Fri 28 Feb 14

Dai Rear says...

PS What paper do Mohammedans read?
PS What paper do Mohammedans read? Dai Rear
  • Score: -10

11:57am Fri 28 Feb 14

Mike Roland says...

Jimport wrote:
Jammie Dodger wrote:
smudge100 wrote:
How is Page 3 any different from the girly mags advertising torso of the week etc and also no one forces the girls to take there tops off they choose to do it.

Maybe the idea is a bit dated but if it bothers you that much, don't buy the paper
Well said! It's no more an issue than the hoards of maxi muscle blokes that are spread across magazines.
And the girls get huge amounts of money
I suppose the historical difference is that women and girls have tended to be disproportionately on the receiving end of domestic and sexual violence, political and social exclusion, lower wages, human trafficking etc. I'm not sure this warrants a ban on topless photos being published in a bottom-shelf newspaper, but these campaigners are claiming a conceptual link between 'objectifying' pictures of women and the unpleasantness listed above, which would challenge a direct comparison with pictures of men you describe.
Quite so, and nobody would suffer as a result of the newspaper dropping page 3. I wonder how many of the 6 million people who read the Sun each day would even notice.
[quote][p][bold]Jimport[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jammie Dodger[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]smudge100[/bold] wrote: How is Page 3 any different from the girly mags advertising torso of the week etc and also no one forces the girls to take there tops off they choose to do it. Maybe the idea is a bit dated but if it bothers you that much, don't buy the paper[/p][/quote]Well said! It's no more an issue than the hoards of maxi muscle blokes that are spread across magazines. And the girls get huge amounts of money[/p][/quote]I suppose the historical difference is that women and girls have tended to be disproportionately on the receiving end of domestic and sexual violence, political and social exclusion, lower wages, human trafficking etc. I'm not sure this warrants a ban on topless photos being published in a bottom-shelf newspaper, but these campaigners are claiming a conceptual link between 'objectifying' pictures of women and the unpleasantness listed above, which would challenge a direct comparison with pictures of men you describe.[/p][/quote]Quite so, and nobody would suffer as a result of the newspaper dropping page 3. I wonder how many of the 6 million people who read the Sun each day would even notice. Mike Roland
  • Score: 11

3:48pm Fri 28 Feb 14

Jammie Dodger says...

We live in a country where we are all privileged enough to have equal rights, a vote etc yet sexism doesn't seem equal. For example the Diet Coke ad with the girls 'oggling' the man cutting the lawn and telling him to take his top off, if that was the other way around the whole country would be up in arms.
So I believe that in this day and age where we are more sexually open than ever before, if The Sun wants to publish page 3 then let them, it would be a shame if the PC brigade get rid of it.... All in the name of equality of course...
We live in a country where we are all privileged enough to have equal rights, a vote etc yet sexism doesn't seem equal. For example the Diet Coke ad with the girls 'oggling' the man cutting the lawn and telling him to take his top off, if that was the other way around the whole country would be up in arms. So I believe that in this day and age where we are more sexually open than ever before, if The Sun wants to publish page 3 then let them, it would be a shame if the PC brigade get rid of it.... All in the name of equality of course... Jammie Dodger
  • Score: 1

5:04pm Fri 28 Feb 14

Mike Roland says...

Why would it be "a shame to get rid of it"? Come on Jammie Dodger, you say yourself that sexism isn't equal which is a view you share with millions of feminists.
Why would it be "a shame to get rid of it"? Come on Jammie Dodger, you say yourself that sexism isn't equal which is a view you share with millions of feminists. Mike Roland
  • Score: 4

5:20pm Fri 28 Feb 14

Dai Rear says...

Mike Roland wrote:
Why would it be "a shame to get rid of it"? Come on Jammie Dodger, you say yourself that sexism isn't equal which is a view you share with millions of feminists.
Are there really "millions of feminists"? How sad.
[quote][p][bold]Mike Roland[/bold] wrote: Why would it be "a shame to get rid of it"? Come on Jammie Dodger, you say yourself that sexism isn't equal which is a view you share with millions of feminists.[/p][/quote]Are there really "millions of feminists"? How sad. Dai Rear
  • Score: 1

5:55pm Fri 28 Feb 14

Mike Roland says...

Dai Rear wrote:
Mike Roland wrote:
Why would it be "a shame to get rid of it"? Come on Jammie Dodger, you say yourself that sexism isn't equal which is a view you share with millions of feminists.
Are there really "millions of feminists"? How sad.
I agree!
[quote][p][bold]Dai Rear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mike Roland[/bold] wrote: Why would it be "a shame to get rid of it"? Come on Jammie Dodger, you say yourself that sexism isn't equal which is a view you share with millions of feminists.[/p][/quote]Are there really "millions of feminists"? How sad.[/p][/quote]I agree! Mike Roland
  • Score: 3

6:12pm Fri 28 Feb 14

Luke'iloveboobs' says...

I love boobs also im a man of the theatre and i still love boobs but not cats as it contains an unsustainable amount of cats i would like the production to scale down the amount of cats by 10%

to clarifiy Too Many Cats
I love boobs also im a man of the theatre and i still love boobs but not cats as it contains an unsustainable amount of cats i would like the production to scale down the amount of cats by 10% to clarifiy Too Many Cats Luke'iloveboobs'
  • Score: 3

7:32pm Fri 28 Feb 14

Jammie Dodger says...

Dai Rear wrote:
Mike Roland wrote:
Why would it be "a shame to get rid of it"? Come on Jammie Dodger, you say yourself that sexism isn't equal which is a view you share with millions of feminists.
Are there really "millions of feminists"? How sad.
I didn't say it would be a shame to get rid of it, I said it would be a shame to get rid of it because of sexism. There's much more important things going on in the world to be discussing and focusing on :) I hope you're not implying I'm a feminist either :) I'm sure you're not
[quote][p][bold]Dai Rear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mike Roland[/bold] wrote: Why would it be "a shame to get rid of it"? Come on Jammie Dodger, you say yourself that sexism isn't equal which is a view you share with millions of feminists.[/p][/quote]Are there really "millions of feminists"? How sad.[/p][/quote]I didn't say it would be a shame to get rid of it, I said it would be a shame to get rid of it because of sexism. There's much more important things going on in the world to be discussing and focusing on :) I hope you're not implying I'm a feminist either :) I'm sure you're not Jammie Dodger
  • Score: 1

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree