It seems that LUL has vetoed an advert for GT magazine on the grounds that one of the models is too scantily-clad. The bloke concerned is helping the magazine to celebrate 40 years since the partial decriminalisation of homosexuality.
Oddly, similarly unclothed men have appeared on advertising posters kissing women, or promoting underwear. We may be forced to conclude that it ws the fact that this man was canoodling with a male partner than made LUL come over all coy and censorious.
What do you reckon? Click the link above and judge for yourself.
Comments
Oh yes
Absolutely. The amount our employers - be it TfL or LUL - boasts about its commitment to equality seems to be in inverse proportion to what it actually does about it! (Similar to the way in which its propaganda about 'customer service' increases as its actual customer serivce gets worse and worse!)
Perhaps Stonewall might like to reconsider its praise for TfL in light of this censorship incident.
Ok, so I was so upset about
Ok, so I was so upset about this, I sent a email to On the Move, guess what, they did not print the email, hmm, maybe it was a bit strong, or it wuold of made TfL look really bad, and they would not of been able to defend theirself.
Anyway, on the way to work I saw the advert at Kings Cross on the Victoria line, and wow!! I was shocked, but you know what, I dont think it looked tastless at all, looked quite nice :-) well done TfL and LuL altho it has taken you long enough!
don't you think its weird,
don't you think its weird, how LUL promote theirself to be an all inclusive employer, but when it actually comes round to standing up for something they apparently believe and promote (diversity) they run a mile!!
I was acutally supprised to hear what they had done, and am completely shocked and feel a great disapointment for them