A purse-lipped piece in the Mail on Sunday directed at politicians who dare to support the legitimate adult industry has backfired, with sex tradeshow Erotica 2010 turning the slagging to its own advantage. Erotica is an increasingly jaded attempt to generate excitement around matters sexual. It takes place once a year, toward …
Sorry, isn't this paper owned by Richard Desmond who also owns lots of porn empires? (including Red Hot TV). Readers of Private Eye will know they regularly bang on about such hypocrisy.
Who the hell reads this sh*t paper anyway?
Not Richard Desmond
It's the Express and the Star that are his papers.
Doesn't stop them being rubbish though :)
...is owned by Desmond, along with Channel 5.
Well not yet.
Re: Richard Desmond?
Thought it was the express that was owned by the porn magnate...
You're thinking of the Sunday Express (Sunday Depress to Eye readers?).
The Daily Fascist and The Fascist on Sunday are owned by DMGT - Props variously Lords Rothmere and Northcliffe.
As a PS I highly recommend the Wikipedia page on the Daily Fail as it has an example front page. Oddly nothing about immigrants, house prices or Cancer but "Legalise all drugs, says Jane Asher" made me laugh
Desmond owns Express Newspapers - strapline: "Papers for those who find the Mail too intellectually stimulating".
Desmond runs the Express newspapers and a fair few porn channels and magazines. The Daily Fail is owned by Lord Rothermere I think with Paul "You C**ting C**t" Dacre, famous for his Vagina Diatribes because of his liberal use of the C word. Ironic really, considering such a puritan paper has such a foul mouthed editor!
Re: Not quite
There is a link though when it comes to snotty-nosed, holier-than-thou stories about filth. The Sexpress and the Fail have a famous "non-aggression" pact here. The Fail is not allowed to print anything about "Dirty" Desmond's seedy porn empire and the Sexpress in return spikes any salacious information it may come across regarding Lord Rothermere's, er, extracurricular activities.
Think of the two, fat files of unpublished dirt as Mutually Assured Destruction for journalists.
Title says it all.
"schoolboy titters and school-marmish disapproval"
At the bottom of the article:
NSFW Erotica 09: Bit limp, but crowds still up for it (23 November 2009)
NSFW A sex show of truly Olympian proportions? (25 November 2008)
Oh Ian, whomever should own the paper rarely has an affect on content, look at Rupert Mur.. oh wait..
I also am confused
By your utter, utter nonsequitur.
I have posted my previous message to a wrong thread
Ok a touch obscure...
But was just pointing out that the pedestal from which this article was apparently written has occasionally been descended by the very Reg which we know and love.
Paris cos she'd have got it.... ;)
"As seen in the Mail on Sunday"
I thought we dumped all the Puritans in USA. Where do the new ones keep popping up from?
I have been wondering the same, since they can't have parents with the same attitude to sex ...
"this smutty event is below the dignity of the Commons".
Unlike thieving expense monies from the public purse I presume?
"this smutty event is below the dignity of the Commons"
In the Member's Dining Room...
That is all!
Mines the rubber trench-coat!
I'd rather have the commons hosting a party for a bonk-fest than the usual death-merchants of BAE.
Anyway, I'd have thought that the Daily Fail would have loved the uniforms and correction stuff - all those shiny boots, tight clothing, whips and restraints, must make the readers think they are back in the good old days of the older Mosely. Discipline is what they want and, by God, they're going to get it. Or are they worried about being mentioned by thier twice-weekly 'massuer'?.
Sir Oswald was certainly risking his respectability at times, including an adulterous relationship with his first wife's mother, and hanging around with the Bright Young People of the 1920s, Or were you thinking of another leather-wearing fascist?
With a URL like that, it hardly needs to be a link...
I would think that shock and outrage about something to do with (shock, horror!) sex being honored in the sacred precincts of the House of Commons is entirely understandable. Even if any other complaints about the Erotica 2010 trade show would be easy to dismiss.
After all, our taxes pay for the House of Commons, and Britain is a diverse nation, containing many people who do not wish to be made complicit in any naughtiness.
... did what the population think mean anything in the Commons? I don't see them shooing BAe out the door on behalf of the pacifists or Grampian Foods for the vegetarians. The cellars of the commons itself would be anathema to the teetotallers among us. I personally don't like politicians but I don't see my views being represented.
Good ol' Daily Wail
This would be the same newspaper whose website features a prominent right hand column where they keep the lascivious photos of "celebrities" with their tits out on the beech.
Then again, this is also the same paper that goes on endless rants about padeos and the sexualisation of children while featuring regular pictures of Miley Cyrus in her pants.
Never before have I seen such clever positioning of "[sic]". :-)
WHAT??? and MP supporting kinky sex?
I hope he does not carry children when he goes on his publicity drive!!! because if you are into kinky things or anything other than 1:1 covers over the head and lights off fun in your 'not so' private life whilst being a public fugure you must be punished... oh...
Paris, because she knows what a monkey rocker is...