Am I the only one that thinks commercials for condoms would be a good way to help reduce the number of teenage pregnancies?
And I’ve got a feeling that many of the daughters of the Daily Mail readership DO get pregnant when they’re teenagers, and have abortions in secret so that their parents can carry on living their deluded lives.
I wouldn’t describe a blip on a graph as “soaring”. Can anyone remember the last time when the teenage pregnancy rate increased more dramatically than this? Ah yes, it was in 1995 under the ZaNuLiebo… oh, the Conservatives.
I’m quite tickled by the idea that the condom ads need to be on before the watershed because it’s past those most at risk’s beddie byes, heh.
I’ll be interested to see these ads for abortion. “Hey there! Do you often find yourself knocked up by mistake? Ever wish there was a quick and easy solution? Then why not try . . . an abortion? Guaranteed to end 98% of unwanted pregnancies every time!”
Of course, the ads will be for the full range of family planning services offered by pregnancy advisory services, not just abortion, but no need to let that get in the way of a good headline.
It’s symptomatic of such a bunch of nearsighted and manipulative tossers such as the Mail that they believe more information and education causes the problem, not more ignorance.
TEENAGERS HAVE SEX. ALWAYS HAVE. ALWAYS WILL. THERE IS NO ‘CURE’, AND NO ‘CURE’ IS MORALLY JUSTIFIED ANYWAY AS SEX IS NOT IMMORAL, SO PREVENTION (OF STDS AND UNWANTED PREGNANCY) NOT SEX IS THE ONLY WAY TO GO.
It’s like the AIDS epidemic in Africa being helped along by the papal ban on condoms. It always amazes me how the self appointed narcissistic moral guardians of society are usually the ones busy tearing it apart under the guise of altruism.
Lol. I can almost hear the splutter of indignation of every mail reader who read this. Who knows if these ads would help but surely the ads aren’t going to be as bad as what the Mail make them out to be. Its not going to be like antigarkens example (which would be pretty funny) I’m typing this from the netherlands where the teen pregnancy rate is very low.
…sorry, that should have been “prevention of STDs not prevention of sex is the only way”
I’m reminded of a CEO I once worked for who had to regularly get me to show him how to send emails (in 2003 no less!), despite earning over £100,000 a year. Mail Journalists are incredibly out of touch and don’t seem to understand with the internet, porn (and therefore knowledge of sex) is only a click away.
It’s education about contraceptives that is lacking and not usually available on BitTorrent unlike “Swedish Whores 17″. They seem to think that without ZaNuLieBor and their immoral sex-ed kids today would be reading Janet and John and playing with spinning tops like themselves.
I like the use of “the government’s answer?” as a rhetorical question. Does the Mail have a *better* answer than promoting access to services? Is there a leader on why teen slags should be paraded outside the local post office instead?
So what would they prefer?? By their own warped logic tennage pregnancies are high (although not really increasing significantly if you break down the figures) so is this not a way to curb this?? All vitriol and no solution once again.
I think the Mail is concerned that this means a return to the 60’s and free love, rather than their beloved 80’s (and 1880’s) puritanism. If the British are taught to express themsleves sexually without shame and humiliation, they will lose the repressed rage that built the empire!
Well frankly I feel much better about going out and having unprotected sex now that I know an abortion is easily available. FFS! When I was a teenager I wouldn’t have gone out and ‘done it’ just for that reason – partly because I wasn’t inclined that way and so fear of pregnancy wasn’t even a factor, cos I was a bit of a nerd tbh.
Yes, I think that now women know they have the safety net of a painful and invasive medical procedure to fall back on they’ll be conceiving unwanted babies left, right and centre instead of wasting their time with contraception. Slags.
I wonder whether it is the perception of abortion as murder which upsets the Mail most, or the idea that it’s just one more aid to women’s sexual liberation and control of their own bodies?
This is supposed to be new? I’ve seen adverts for condom use on television before. Good thing too. And I’ve seen adverts – not on television, but in magazines and around London – for abortion services, pregnancy help lines (no doubt a few of which are religious “crisis” lines to convince people to not have abortions).
Given that adverts for contraception already exist – both commercial advertising for condom brands and public service adverts telling young people to use contraception – and for abortion too, I’m not sure what the problem is.
What’s the right wing alternative? Well, add a shit load of moral guilt to the situation, and end up with girls in Wisconsin drinking veterinary prostaglandins intended for bovine use and sourced from their pals on the Internet to terminate their pregnancies. Great.
“That headline is so badly phrased.. it does make it sound like the ads are promoting abortion which is a load of cobblers.”
I’m sure that’s a genuine coincidence and nothing to do with the DM editorial staff trying to shove their own opinions (or those of the owner) down our throats.
I bet there’ll be less sex in the johnny ads than there is in half the ads for perfume and cars that are on pre-watershed. The sexualisation of many aspects of society combined with a lingering oh-so-British taboo about anything explicitly sexual probably has more to do with teen pregnancy rates than anything. Everywhere teens look there’s sex because it’s highly marketable, and they’re choc full of hormones telling them to give it a go, but there’s very little explicit information telling them the risks of sex or how to do it safely. And the Mail’s solution is to put bags over their heads until the whole puberty thing is done with, very constructive.
if you want some idea of what the pre-watershed condom ads are going to look like just take a look at any of the tampon ads currently running on tv.
footage of young people running around being happy, vague talk of “confidence” and “feeling secure”, and ending on a picture of the box with no image of the thing that’s actually inside it or any explanation of that it actually does.
Quite apart from all the excellent points already made here, I think we’ve missed something else, which is that teenage pregnancy is not necessarily the big disaster that some people make out. While I wouldn’t recommend having kids on purpose in your first flush of youth, I can think of at least three people I know off the top of my head who had unplanned children between the ages of 17 and 19, and all of them have coped very well and raised well-adjusted kids.
It’s probably better than doing it at 14, though. And condom ads would be a great help, especially because – shockingly – the “you can’t get pregnant the first time you do it” myth still seems to exist out there.
I also detest the sexism of the Mail’s ads, parading young girls around like little sluts, while forgetting that many of them are having sex because of intense pressure from their boyfriends – who seem to escape blame completely.
Well, my comment on Railroad Man’s post must be awaiting moderation because I put a link in it. Anyway, I was saying there is a good article on the TES site about the benefits of teen pregnancy for the girls involved called “Swell idea”, have a search for it.
My ma was knocked up at 18, and I think I turned out reasonably well adjusted. I’m not sure it did her much good in a lot of respects, but I think the financial struggles of being a single mum during the Thatcher years was probably more of a reason for any negative outcomes than her age. Still, having kids while in teens is not something I’d recommend, but like RM I agree that the Mail presenting it as a slippery slope to a life on benefits and the decline of the kids produced into juvenile delinquency does teenage parents a disservice – many, most even, probably develop excellent coping mechanisms and do a great job as parents, as did my own mother. And I managed not to grow up into a drug addict or career criminal, well done me.
I’d go a step further and say that children born when their parents are in their late teens and early twenties are BETTER adjusted than children born later on in their parent’s lives.
I think to be the best kind of parent (although this doesn’t apply to everyone) you need to not be a kid yourself, and to have achieved a lot of your own goals in life first so you can devote your entire self to your children and not either neglect them or resent them due to missing out on your own desires.
I just don’t see many people below their 20s being able to truly do that. Also how many teenagers can afford to give a child a good start in life? Barely any, and those than can do so only because they’re lucky enough to have a wealthy and/or supportive family, and as statistics show, most early pregnancies are from poorer or splintered families.
I do agree with Steven to an extent. I don’t think becoming accidentally pregnant as a teen is absolutely the most diabolical thing ever and mother and baby are destined to be a social drain and waste of space for all eternity, but there are good reasons why having a child below a certain age is not desirable, for both social and emotional reasons. My mum had no career, no home, no qualifications, no financial security and no partner when she had me; had she been 10 years older when starting her family, she would have been more likely to have at least some of these things. We muddled along pretty well and I know she would never say she regretted having a kid, but I wouldn’t need to be Sherlock Holmes to work out that if she knew then what she knows now she probably wouldn’t have made the choices she did. We need to remember that teen pregnancies factor two people – a parent and a child. There is too much focus often on the negative consequences for either one or the other, but both need to be taken into account.
I agree with the Mail to an extent on this one. The only real way to curb the terrifying number of teenage pregnancies in this country is to promote helpful alternatives.
This is why I’m advocating advertisements for anal sex to be shown three times every advert break before the watershed. Teenagers need to realise that it’s their responsibility to suggest to their partners that they try it up the wrong ‘un.
I personally think far too many people leave having kids far too late – I’m 34, and I have children of seven and eight. Most of my fellow schoolgate parents are ten or in some cases almost twenty years older than me. This comes about because of the general opinion that you need a job, mortgage, security blahblahblah before having children.
If you spend your whole life waiting for things to be perfect, they never will be. I had my first kid in my mid-twenties when on a pretty low salary. It’s limited the size of property I’ve been able to buy, but I don’t care – I love my family and I’m glad I’ve had them now, rather than waiting years.
What I’m saying is…circumstances don’t necessarily matter. The Mail always wants to portray the children of single mothers as dismal failures who will grow up to be druggie benefit scroungers, but there’s plenty of people from the middle classes who end up there as well. Life can throw random things at us that you just can’t predict, and we have to make the best of things, right here, right now. The paper trying to preach at us like this, and tell us how to live our lives, is disgusting. The best way to live is by making informed decisions that you then take responsibility for – the paper is all for punishing people who make mistakes, but doesn’t want to think about how to stop mistakes being made in the first place.
Railroad Man – I do agree, circumstances are different. Personally I’m nearly 29 and still far too restless and unsettled to be a good father unless circumstance forced it on me, and then although I’d be the best I could, I’d still resent having missed out on the things I could have done without children such as doing more travelling.
Some people however are at an optimum place in their life at 21, it all just comes down to whether you can provide enough love and financial support for them, and I think in your teens you can’t do either to the best of your abilities mainly due to peer pressure regarding the things your friends are doing and lack of financial advancement.
Its certainly a concern about the number of underage people having sex, its such an importent time in someones life that it needs to be thought through clearly. Headlines like this don’t help matters in the slightest.
I await Pete Hitchins next article, probably entitled ‘Perverts in the govenment’ with resignation
I understand where your coming from and I’m definitely not advocating unplanned teenage pregnancies. I just feel that parents and their children are able to connect with each other much more than when the age difference between them is not as big.
Littlejohn has commented briefly on this in his column this week. I managed to get through a comment on this quote of his:
“Call me old-fashioned, but I thought sanitary towel adverts were a bridge too far. What’s wrong with confining them to women’s magazines? ”
My comment:
“Absolutely, sir. After all, if women want to make the lifestyle choice to go around having periods, they should just keep it to themselves and have the good grace to feel ashamed and dirty while they have the painters in, instead of flaunting it as if it’s somehow “normal”. They should just stay indoors for the week and read their women’s magazines like good girls.
I’d go further than calling you old-fashioned: how about obsolete, and with all the maturity of a sniggering adolescent boy learning about “women’s things” for the first time?”
Currently holding on to a solid 5 recommends. I can’t help feeling some Littlejohn fans may have missed my native sarcasm.
“Take two coat hangers into the shower? NOT ANY MORE!” “Hello, Mexican Abortionists? It’s just possible that you could save my life!”, “Abortion! The Best A Slut Can Get!” or, for buses – “There Probably is No God, so go about your abortion.”
Man, I detest The Mail so much. It’s the only paper my Mum reads and it is utter poison. Just like you need a certain amount of meat in a pie before you can call it a meat pie newspapers should only be classed as newspapers after some lab testing. DM isn’t a newspaper, it’s a gossip rag with a penchant for commemorative plates. I’d rather it be classed alongside asbestos, preferably by rigorous EU legislation.
The logic burns! “Teenage pregnancy is rising and we, the paper who are so worried about over-population and teenage sluts getting pregnant all over the place completely abhor prevention methods!”
Am I the only one that thinks commercials for condoms would be a good way to help reduce the number of teenage pregnancies?
And I’ve got a feeling that many of the daughters of the Daily Mail readership DO get pregnant when they’re teenagers, and have abortions in secret so that their parents can carry on living their deluded lives.
Got to love the usual Mail logic – These ads will surely encourage our youth to have underage sex etc!
I wouldn’t describe a blip on a graph as “soaring”. Can anyone remember the last time when the teenage pregnancy rate increased more dramatically than this? Ah yes, it was in 1995 under the ZaNuLiebo… oh, the Conservatives.
I’m quite tickled by the idea that the condom ads need to be on before the watershed because it’s past those most at risk’s beddie byes, heh.
I’ll be interested to see these ads for abortion. “Hey there! Do you often find yourself knocked up by mistake? Ever wish there was a quick and easy solution? Then why not try . . . an abortion? Guaranteed to end 98% of unwanted pregnancies every time!”
Of course, the ads will be for the full range of family planning services offered by pregnancy advisory services, not just abortion, but no need to let that get in the way of a good headline.
About time to!
It’s symptomatic of such a bunch of nearsighted and manipulative tossers such as the Mail that they believe more information and education causes the problem, not more ignorance.
TEENAGERS HAVE SEX. ALWAYS HAVE. ALWAYS WILL. THERE IS NO ‘CURE’, AND NO ‘CURE’ IS MORALLY JUSTIFIED ANYWAY AS SEX IS NOT IMMORAL, SO PREVENTION (OF STDS AND UNWANTED PREGNANCY) NOT SEX IS THE ONLY WAY TO GO.
It’s like the AIDS epidemic in Africa being helped along by the papal ban on condoms. It always amazes me how the self appointed narcissistic moral guardians of society are usually the ones busy tearing it apart under the guise of altruism.
Lol. I can almost hear the splutter of indignation of every mail reader who read this. Who knows if these ads would help but surely the ads aren’t going to be as bad as what the Mail make them out to be. Its not going to be like antigarkens example (which would be pretty funny) I’m typing this from the netherlands where the teen pregnancy rate is very low.
…sorry, that should have been “prevention of STDs not prevention of sex is the only way”
I’m reminded of a CEO I once worked for who had to regularly get me to show him how to send emails (in 2003 no less!), despite earning over £100,000 a year. Mail Journalists are incredibly out of touch and don’t seem to understand with the internet, porn (and therefore knowledge of sex) is only a click away.
It’s education about contraceptives that is lacking and not usually available on BitTorrent unlike “Swedish Whores 17″. They seem to think that without ZaNuLieBor and their immoral sex-ed kids today would be reading Janet and John and playing with spinning tops like themselves.
I like the use of “the government’s answer?” as a rhetorical question. Does the Mail have a *better* answer than promoting access to services? Is there a leader on why teen slags should be paraded outside the local post office instead?
That headline is so badly phrased.. it does make it sound like the ads are promoting abortion which is a load of cobblers.
So what would they prefer?? By their own warped logic tennage pregnancies are high (although not really increasing significantly if you break down the figures) so is this not a way to curb this?? All vitriol and no solution once again.
I imagine the Mail’s ideal solution to teenage pregnancies would probably be some kind of ambitious sterilisation programme.
You’re all missing the real issue here. What will happen to all of those lovely horses who are victims of the credit crunch?
Evens Glue
5-1 Dogfood
10-1 Marital aids for Ann Widdecombe
I swear ive seen condom ads before. Long after the watershed though.
As for Fern quitting – well gee, maybe it wasn’t about the money?
I think the Mail is concerned that this means a return to the 60’s and free love, rather than their beloved 80’s (and 1880’s) puritanism. If the British are taught to express themsleves sexually without shame and humiliation, they will lose the repressed rage that built the empire!
Well frankly I feel much better about going out and having unprotected sex now that I know an abortion is easily available. FFS! When I was a teenager I wouldn’t have gone out and ‘done it’ just for that reason – partly because I wasn’t inclined that way and so fear of pregnancy wasn’t even a factor, cos I was a bit of a nerd tbh.
Yes, I think that now women know they have the safety net of a painful and invasive medical procedure to fall back on they’ll be conceiving unwanted babies left, right and centre instead of wasting their time with contraception. Slags.
I wonder whether it is the perception of abortion as murder which upsets the Mail most, or the idea that it’s just one more aid to women’s sexual liberation and control of their own bodies?
This is supposed to be new? I’ve seen adverts for condom use on television before. Good thing too. And I’ve seen adverts – not on television, but in magazines and around London – for abortion services, pregnancy help lines (no doubt a few of which are religious “crisis” lines to convince people to not have abortions).
Given that adverts for contraception already exist – both commercial advertising for condom brands and public service adverts telling young people to use contraception – and for abortion too, I’m not sure what the problem is.
What’s the right wing alternative? Well, add a shit load of moral guilt to the situation, and end up with girls in Wisconsin drinking veterinary prostaglandins intended for bovine use and sourced from their pals on the Internet to terminate their pregnancies. Great.
@QueerFreeThinker:
“That headline is so badly phrased.. it does make it sound like the ads are promoting abortion which is a load of cobblers.”
I’m sure that’s a genuine coincidence and nothing to do with the DM editorial staff trying to shove their own opinions (or those of the owner) down our throats.
Ooh look, a flying pig!
I bet there’ll be less sex in the johnny ads than there is in half the ads for perfume and cars that are on pre-watershed. The sexualisation of many aspects of society combined with a lingering oh-so-British taboo about anything explicitly sexual probably has more to do with teen pregnancy rates than anything. Everywhere teens look there’s sex because it’s highly marketable, and they’re choc full of hormones telling them to give it a go, but there’s very little explicit information telling them the risks of sex or how to do it safely. And the Mail’s solution is to put bags over their heads until the whole puberty thing is done with, very constructive.
@ Ken
I have the solution….Inside your Daily Mail today…..a free horse!!!!!
if you want some idea of what the pre-watershed condom ads are going to look like just take a look at any of the tampon ads currently running on tv.
footage of young people running around being happy, vague talk of “confidence” and “feeling secure”, and ending on a picture of the box with no image of the thing that’s actually inside it or any explanation of that it actually does.
oh god, wont someone think of the children.
Quite apart from all the excellent points already made here, I think we’ve missed something else, which is that teenage pregnancy is not necessarily the big disaster that some people make out. While I wouldn’t recommend having kids on purpose in your first flush of youth, I can think of at least three people I know off the top of my head who had unplanned children between the ages of 17 and 19, and all of them have coped very well and raised well-adjusted kids.
It’s probably better than doing it at 14, though. And condom ads would be a great help, especially because – shockingly – the “you can’t get pregnant the first time you do it” myth still seems to exist out there.
I also detest the sexism of the Mail’s ads, parading young girls around like little sluts, while forgetting that many of them are having sex because of intense pressure from their boyfriends – who seem to escape blame completely.
Well, my comment on Railroad Man’s post must be awaiting moderation because I put a link in it. Anyway, I was saying there is a good article on the TES site about the benefits of teen pregnancy for the girls involved called “Swell idea”, have a search for it.
My ma was knocked up at 18, and I think I turned out reasonably well adjusted. I’m not sure it did her much good in a lot of respects, but I think the financial struggles of being a single mum during the Thatcher years was probably more of a reason for any negative outcomes than her age. Still, having kids while in teens is not something I’d recommend, but like RM I agree that the Mail presenting it as a slippery slope to a life on benefits and the decline of the kids produced into juvenile delinquency does teenage parents a disservice – many, most even, probably develop excellent coping mechanisms and do a great job as parents, as did my own mother. And I managed not to grow up into a drug addict or career criminal, well done me.
Railroad Man and Antigherkin,
I’d go a step further and say that children born when their parents are in their late teens and early twenties are BETTER adjusted than children born later on in their parent’s lives.
Anything below 17 is a bit too far, though.
Shafiq – I’d argue not.
I think to be the best kind of parent (although this doesn’t apply to everyone) you need to not be a kid yourself, and to have achieved a lot of your own goals in life first so you can devote your entire self to your children and not either neglect them or resent them due to missing out on your own desires.
I just don’t see many people below their 20s being able to truly do that. Also how many teenagers can afford to give a child a good start in life? Barely any, and those than can do so only because they’re lucky enough to have a wealthy and/or supportive family, and as statistics show, most early pregnancies are from poorer or splintered families.
I do agree with Steven to an extent. I don’t think becoming accidentally pregnant as a teen is absolutely the most diabolical thing ever and mother and baby are destined to be a social drain and waste of space for all eternity, but there are good reasons why having a child below a certain age is not desirable, for both social and emotional reasons. My mum had no career, no home, no qualifications, no financial security and no partner when she had me; had she been 10 years older when starting her family, she would have been more likely to have at least some of these things. We muddled along pretty well and I know she would never say she regretted having a kid, but I wouldn’t need to be Sherlock Holmes to work out that if she knew then what she knows now she probably wouldn’t have made the choices she did. We need to remember that teen pregnancies factor two people – a parent and a child. There is too much focus often on the negative consequences for either one or the other, but both need to be taken into account.
I agree with the Mail to an extent on this one. The only real way to curb the terrifying number of teenage pregnancies in this country is to promote helpful alternatives.
This is why I’m advocating advertisements for anal sex to be shown three times every advert break before the watershed. Teenagers need to realise that it’s their responsibility to suggest to their partners that they try it up the wrong ‘un.
Interesting comments.
I personally think far too many people leave having kids far too late – I’m 34, and I have children of seven and eight. Most of my fellow schoolgate parents are ten or in some cases almost twenty years older than me. This comes about because of the general opinion that you need a job, mortgage, security blahblahblah before having children.
If you spend your whole life waiting for things to be perfect, they never will be. I had my first kid in my mid-twenties when on a pretty low salary. It’s limited the size of property I’ve been able to buy, but I don’t care – I love my family and I’m glad I’ve had them now, rather than waiting years.
What I’m saying is…circumstances don’t necessarily matter. The Mail always wants to portray the children of single mothers as dismal failures who will grow up to be druggie benefit scroungers, but there’s plenty of people from the middle classes who end up there as well. Life can throw random things at us that you just can’t predict, and we have to make the best of things, right here, right now. The paper trying to preach at us like this, and tell us how to live our lives, is disgusting. The best way to live is by making informed decisions that you then take responsibility for – the paper is all for punishing people who make mistakes, but doesn’t want to think about how to stop mistakes being made in the first place.
Railroad Man – I do agree, circumstances are different. Personally I’m nearly 29 and still far too restless and unsettled to be a good father unless circumstance forced it on me, and then although I’d be the best I could, I’d still resent having missed out on the things I could have done without children such as doing more travelling.
Some people however are at an optimum place in their life at 21, it all just comes down to whether you can provide enough love and financial support for them, and I think in your teens you can’t do either to the best of your abilities mainly due to peer pressure regarding the things your friends are doing and lack of financial advancement.
@ Ken
I’ve heard that Dog Food sales are down, so I’ll put a tenner on the Winne bet.
They should get that bloke of the Cillit Bang adverts in to do the ads.
“HI, I’M BARRY SCOTT!!! IF YOU HAVE SOMETHING GROWING UP YOUR PLUG HOLE, DESTROY IT NOW, WITH CLIT BANG!!”
Its certainly a concern about the number of underage people having sex, its such an importent time in someones life that it needs to be thought through clearly. Headlines like this don’t help matters in the slightest.
I await Pete Hitchins next article, probably entitled ‘Perverts in the govenment’ with resignation
Steven and Antigherkin,
I understand where your coming from and I’m definitely not advocating unplanned teenage pregnancies. I just feel that parents and their children are able to connect with each other much more than when the age difference between them is not as big.
This is an ideal opportunity for the Mail, a rant on abortion and a rant on single mums. But they offer no solution themselves.
“Buy one abortion, and get another absolutely free! That’s right, free! Only at Abortionz4U!”
Littlejohn has commented briefly on this in his column this week. I managed to get through a comment on this quote of his:
“Call me old-fashioned, but I thought sanitary towel adverts were a bridge too far. What’s wrong with confining them to women’s magazines? ”
My comment:
“Absolutely, sir. After all, if women want to make the lifestyle choice to go around having periods, they should just keep it to themselves and have the good grace to feel ashamed and dirty while they have the painters in, instead of flaunting it as if it’s somehow “normal”. They should just stay indoors for the week and read their women’s magazines like good girls.
I’d go further than calling you old-fashioned: how about obsolete, and with all the maturity of a sniggering adolescent boy learning about “women’s things” for the first time?”
Currently holding on to a solid 5 recommends. I can’t help feeling some Littlejohn fans may have missed my native sarcasm.
So what have we got today?
Woman leaves job
There may be a change to some advertising regulations
In hard times people struggle to keep expensive pets
Move along; nothing to see here.
“Take two coat hangers into the shower? NOT ANY MORE!” “Hello, Mexican Abortionists? It’s just possible that you could save my life!”, “Abortion! The Best A Slut Can Get!” or, for buses – “There Probably is No God, so go about your abortion.”
Man, I detest The Mail so much. It’s the only paper my Mum reads and it is utter poison. Just like you need a certain amount of meat in a pie before you can call it a meat pie newspapers should only be classed as newspapers after some lab testing. DM isn’t a newspaper, it’s a gossip rag with a penchant for commemorative plates. I’d rather it be classed alongside asbestos, preferably by rigorous EU legislation.
“As teenage pregnancies soar, the governments answer? Promotion of the things that will prevent them! It’s common sense gone mad!”
The logic burns! “Teenage pregnancy is rising and we, the paper who are so worried about over-population and teenage sluts getting pregnant all over the place completely abhor prevention methods!”