The Independent


The campaign started in the summer when Lucy Holmes found she couldn’t stop thinking about the fact that the largest female image in The Sun was of a young woman showing her breasts for men, even though Jessica Ennis had just won her gold Olympic medal. She wrote this letter to the editor, Dominic Mohan.


She thought about how The Sun had affected her own relationship with her body as she was growing up…

Other people heard about the campaign..and used their amazing talent and creativity to get the message across

Here is Lucy talking to Dominic Mohan, the editor of The Sun about Page 3

And here is Lucy talking to some men about Page 3

The other day I went to a wood merchant’s to get a piece of wood for my No More Page 3 banner.

‘What are you protesting?’ one of the men who worked there asked me.

I felt a bit apprehensive before I spoke because I was outnumbered by men who I felt were probably big fans of Page 3

‘Oh, you may not like this but I’m protesting against Page 3′ I started, prepared for a debate.

‘Do you know I’ve never liked that…’ the man who’d asked me said and then spoke to me at length about it. I asked him if he’d speak on my video camera. He said yes.

Since then I’ve been asking men what they think of Page 3, and then asking them if they’d be filmed. I tried to ask people who were reading or carrying The Sun. But I also spoke to some men who were making deliveries in white vans, because I have read numerous articles which have said that it’s white van men who like Page 3. I’ve also included here some men we met protesting outside Sun HQ.

Many of the men I spoke to wouldn’t be filmed, which I can understand, but none, and I am being honest here, said they would stop buying the paper if the topless pictures were dropped.

The main reason people cited they read the paper was sport. A few said they started reading it from the back.

I always gave my reason for supporting the campaign, as being ‘I wonder what children think when they see the paper and they see page after page of men in clothes doing things, like running the country and one massive image of a woman standing there in her pants?’

Every man I said this to said something along the lines of ‘yeah, it’s not really on is it?’

And here is another video made by people not involved in the campaign about Page 3

36 Responses to “About”

  1. Eddie Lerner April 2, 2013 at 2:25 pm Permalink

    From my blog exceptforablockhead.blogspot.com
    On a modern art course recently we learned the difference between nakedness and nudity – one was pornographic, the other artistic. The trouble is I cannot remember which was which so we will call nudity porn and label nakedness art. Of course, there is not a clear distinction in practice. Great art – Michelangelo’s David, for example – can be erotically charged and I can imagine some porn having artistic qualities, although not being an expert I will eschew any examples.

    I thought of this recently when I read that the campaign to ban page three topless photos in the Sun newspaper had been revived and that Rupert Murdoch had tweeted that he was considering dropping this institution (from which he has made a great deal of money over the years). Whatever he decides, incidentally, it will be a commercial call. Whatever you think of Murdoch he is a very good businessman (good in the sense of successful – not necessarily in moral terms). If he thinks he will make better profits he will consign the topless girls to history. If he doesn’t, they will stay.

    When Clare Short first started the campaign years ago, she was wasted by Murdoch’s editors who labelled her a killjoy and implied that the fact she was unlikely to be called on to pose for these pictures was no reason for her to prevent others enjoying them. Being an MP Clare seemed to favour using legislation to ban page three which was a major mistake. The press do not like politicians telling what they can and cannot print and the difficulty of distinguishing between nudity (page three – and worse, far worse, if you look for it) and nakedness (David) in legal terms would be insuperable.

    Far better to use persuasion than coercion. I have a one man boycott of Lynx products because I find their advertising tasteless and irritating. Pay five ninety nine for one of our sprays and you will laid loads of times, they seem to say. Of course, I know they are supposed to be ever so ironical and knowing but the implication that you can buy sex by using our product is definitely there. And if it did not work, it would not be used – the advertising that is, not the product.

    Surprisingly enough my refusal to buy Lynx has not led to the company withdrawing their ads or their share price tumbling. In fact, it is a bit rich to call it a boycott at all. I just don’t like the ads so I don’t buy the stuff. This I think is a far better approach than pretending you can ignore advertising altogether. Very clever people are working on your subconscious and trying to influence you when you are deciding what sort of toothpaste or biscuits to buy when confronted by a huge range of near identical products on the shelves of the supermarket. Better to take them on rather than try to ignore them.

    The anti-page three campaign seems to have got the message and is actually targeting advertisers to encourage them to withdraw from Murdoch titles. Companies are very conscious of their image and, if you accuse them of subsidising porn, they can get very nervous. As advertising pays for so much of our media these days, they can wield enormous editorial power. Those same editors who trashed Clare Short will not accuse the advertising purchasers of being fat ugly killjoys. (Go to nomorepage3.org for details of the campaign.)

    The leader of the campaign Lucy Holmes said in an interview that she disliked being wolf-whistled as she walked past building sites and that page three was a part of the culture which objectified women as sex objects. I can sympathise with this but I do not think getting rid of page three will make wolf-whistling die out. (It is probably programmed into the male reproductive gene.)

    That will need a separate campaign. (How about nomorewolfwhistle.org?) Find out who is the contractor at the building site where you were whistled at – there will probably be a sign saying ‘ABC Building: Responsible Construction in Trouble Times’ or some such nonsense – then contact the Public Relations Department and the industry watchdog to tell them that the image of both the company and the industry is being tarnished by this boorish behaviour, threaten to name and shame offenders and boycott them financially. Eventually the message will get through and, like wearing a hard hat, it will be accepted on the building sites that, if the lads want to keep their jobs, they had better stop the whistle. But remember, it is a free country: use persuasion not coercion.



  2. Dan F April 6, 2013 at 11:40 pm Permalink

    When you link page 3 with rape and sexual violence against women are you suggesting seeing pictures of naked women causes men to rape?

    • Laura December 16, 2013 at 10:39 pm Permalink

      It contributes to men seeing women as objects, there purely for their sexual gratification. It leads, subconciously, to the view that women are inferior – men do important things and make news, and women are just bodies to enjoy. It also suggests that women are to be valued for their looks, and should be sexually available for men to enjoy – these women love being ogled so why wouldn’t every woman!

      These views encourage men to think they should be able to grope and ogle us at will without us complaining. Some men who have grown up in this culture even genuinely believe that making lewd comments and groping women is a compliment, and we should be flattered. It also means that some men are genuinely shocked and even angry when women aren’t sexually available to them, or when we don’t want to be objectified.

      Rape is about power, humiliation and control – when women don’t fit the role page 3 has placed them in, (some) men will retaliate by reasserting their power, and putting these women back in their place, with sexual assault and rape. Just look at some of the vitriol these campaigns attract from men who are horrified at women being treated as equal – some men cannot cope with women not fitting the role they think they should, and the possible leap from some of these comments to violence isn’t all that great.

    • aqua January 6, 2014 at 10:47 pm Permalink

      If it objectifies us in a degrading and humilliating way, then obviously, yes, it definitely contributes and normalises an attitude of entitlement to use and own our bodies- it suggests a characterless vacuity that is primarily an object available for use.
      Think about mens bodies being used in the same way.

  3. sue April 8, 2013 at 3:09 pm Permalink

    Just found out about this.
    Really sad to know there are females out there who take page 3 so bloody serious, it’s a bloody picture!!
    How can you blame a picture for the way you live your life, if you don’t like it don’t buy the paper!!
    If that is your aim in life then you must have such a sad and miserable life, but try telling me the death’s, rapes etc going on in India and Pakistan are the response to a topless model in a newspaper!!

    • Jay April 10, 2013 at 4:13 pm Permalink

      Sue, I think you’re missing the point. Page 3 may not directly cause rape but it’s part of a wider picture which causes women to be objectified and to an extent mocked. That bubble on the image is designed to draw the following response, “Like Lucy 34E from Glasgow really understands the complexities of foreign policy hehheh, and anyway we only want to see her bits.” Page 3 has no place in a world where women should be applauded for their brains and achievements, not just their bodies. It may “just be a picture” but that picture iss to sexism what gollywogs are to racism, not a direct cause but an ancient relic of a forgotten era which needs to be put firmly in the past.

    • Anon. April 10, 2013 at 5:26 pm Permalink

      It’s not as simple as just not buying the paper. As it doesn’t carry an 18 certificate, it is very easily accessible by all, and is often left lying around in cafes and on public transport for children and teenagers to see. It’s not something I would be comfortable with my son or daughter seeing.

    • Sarah November 11, 2013 at 2:40 pm Permalink

      If you believe that not buying the paper tackles the problem, I would advise you to read this article: http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/lucyanne-holmes/no-more-page-3_b_2883131.html
      My personal favourite expression on the topic of ‘don’t like it don’t buy it’, the source of which I can’t remember, is a woman who said: “If I lived in an age of slavery, I would not merely be content to not buy a slave. I would speak against it, because it would be wrong.” (This is not to equate page three to the existence of slavery, FYI. It’s an analogy.)
      India and Pakistan are different countries – the Sun is a UK based newspaper, making that argument a little random.
      Regardless of whether specific hate crimes and instances of serious sexual violence are directly the result of Page 3 – campaigning against it is in no way suggesting these things are caused by it, or that those things are not also deserving of attention and a fight back.
      Much rape and sexual violence in this country and across the world are the results of a culture which condones sexist representations of women and girls to abound without question. The existence of an entire page devoted to just a (often teenage) girl in her pants alongside the news is insulting to men and to women – it suggests that men are so stupid they need a helping of titillation to digest the morning’s news, and that women’s best role is in facilitating this. It degrades us all as human beings.
      I have friends in America who were completely shocked when I tried to explain Page 3 to them. I often think that a good way to frame it is that if someone tried to introduce page three today, with no such precedent, there would be an outcry against it. It would seem ridiculous to put soft porn in what claims to be a family newspaper. So why do we not question it when it’s been there for forty years? Page three is outdated and embarrassing for us as a country – it makes the UK look a bit stupid really. It’s time that it went. Now.

      • AV February 28, 2014 at 2:04 am Permalink

        I really don’t think we should take the US as a good example in this case.

        It is a country which leads the world in the production of pornographic films, yet they are hugely conservative in daily life. And don’t forget that much of what happens their is based on religion, not clear thinking.

        • Sarah April 7, 2014 at 7:55 pm Permalink

          America is almost worse than the UK for widespread sexism. If a country like that finds something of ours ridiculous I think we should at least be thinking critically about it.
          The US doesn’t have to be a ‘good example’ – the fact is, soft porn in a ‘family’ newspaper makes us as a nation look worse – and a bit stupid.
          I’m really quite amused by the assertion that when someone acts within a religion they are not ‘clear thinking’.

  4. Kathy April 10, 2013 at 10:05 pm Permalink

    As a female (Sue) I’d like to address the comments made by Dan & yourself.

    Page 3 is no more ‘just a picture’ than Murdoch is just a newsagent. It is an insidious display of femaile availability and objectification. It really is. on the tube, busses, trains, cafe’s – on park benches & in bins the smiling face of a barebrested young woman arrests your gaze before you move on.
    I do not buy the sun. I have to accommodate this diplay whether I want to or not. We all have a biologial imperitive to measure each other sexually and of course men like to look at naked ladies. A lot of ladies do too – but in real life this is (or should be ) something you have to work for. Either by input of time and effort, or even money but ladies do not come for free. this wholesale display of sexualised nudity we have to accept is inevitably cheapening.
    It is an advert for desire and we all know that advertising works.

  5. Anon April 22, 2013 at 1:13 pm Permalink

    I don’t agree with how this campaign links page 3 to the objectification of women. In fact, as a man, I actually find this patronising and plainly insulting.

    I would like to think that as a civilised human being, I have the mental ability to differentiate between what I see printed in a newspaper and the way I should behave to women in everyday life. Believe it or not, my thought process is NOT “Oh, there’s a lady’s breasts, better go rape some women today”, and it is insulting to my intelligence to suggest that it is so. I’d also suggest that you’d be hard-pressed to find evidence that this happens to other men too.

    If people have a twisted interpretation of Page 3, that is neither my fault, nor the fault of other men, nor of the editors of the Sun. It is also not my fault that young girls end up seeing this material (although I do agree it is best for them not to) because eg. school-aged boys leave it lying around after having a joke with their mates. In any case, where is the line of what is objectifying and what is not? Would you be happy with Page 3 featuring bikini-clad models only? Or does it need to go as far as all women in the media wearing a burqa?

    • Marcela May 14, 2013 at 11:21 am Permalink

      Dear Anon,
      as an intelligent man, you know that the opposite of nudity is not a burqua. The opposite of nudity is no nudity.
      It is very appreciable that you respect women in ‘everyday life’ (I didn’t know there’s other life than everyday life, btw). The point here is that we live in the world where a random guy will shout at me “Hey sexy lady, fuck you” when walking down the street. The world where I walked pass the bistro terrace on my way back home from work and I hear men rating passing women 1 to 10. The world where a bloke starts to grope me in the bus and when I ask him what the hell is he doing he insults me (‘killjoy’, ‘hysteric feminist’ and I pass).
      Anon, the campaign against page 3 doesn’t insult men’s intelligence. It’s the opposite. We (and I count myself here although I’m not a crew member) trust men are intelligent enough to want to read newspapers event without naked women. I really believe they are.
      Finally, what’s patronising is The Sun’s attitude that paints a newsreader as solely heterosexual male. Do women have to be interested in other women’s breasts? Do gays have to do so? Or being the heterosexual men (and a healthy one, who loves exclusively young big-breasted women and no other shapes/ages/styles) are the only one who should follow what’s going on in the world?
      I believe that men and women who like soft (or not that soft) pornography should simply buy porn magazines. There’s enough market for separating news, which is public interest, and sex industry which has it’s specific customers and needs.

    • Sarah November 11, 2013 at 2:49 pm Permalink

      It’s objectifying because the woman on page 3 is being treated AS AN OBJECT. She is there for men’s sexual arousal and titillation. Not to do anything other than that. I don’t quite understand what you think a ‘twisted’ interpretation would be? Page 3 reinforces the cultural message that women’s primary function is as a sexual cipher to men – and reinforces the sense of entitlement some (many) men have towards the female body.
      Nobody is suggesting your thought process goes straight from breasts to rape. As a civilised human being, I am sure you can comprehend very easily that psychology and psychological processes are rather more complicated and subliminal than that.
      I do not believe that a twisted view of Page 3 is the problem – the problem is that Page 3 promotes a twisted view of women.

  6. Cosanguinary April 29, 2013 at 1:36 pm Permalink

    Why oh why do they always bring up Jessica Ennis?

    Fifteen women in Team GB came away from London 2012 with a total of 17 gold medals in their bags. Most of those are being more or less ignored by the press, bloggers, politicians, everyone.

    I doubt that Jessica herself would want people to overlook gold medallists on her behalf, but the masses are doing just that. Even as they claim to oppose the way women are treated in the press they go on to snub Laura Trott’s two olympic golds, or to forget that Thursday when two very different women fought their way to gold in two very different combat tournaments while Charlotte Dujardin was picking up her second gold on horseback.

    Mostly this is just laziness. A few in the media probably picked up on Jessica because she’s easy to photograph well, but by now everyone is just lazily following along remembering the one name put in front of us after the events are all over. I doubt most people reading this even know that our first medallist in 2012 was a woman.

  7. Twix Raider May 10, 2013 at 10:28 am Permalink

    Bright idea, fight the Piltdown media men with humor, I’ve done a sunny parody for Professor Elemental just a few days before, feat. news about a Suffragettes flash mob:


    That helps you don’t much, but your homie can actually help, the Professor is doing a series of awareness videos for civil rights:


    See? He does not build a machine to catch Suffragettes. But tommorrow he performs at the Brighton Fringe festival, you could ask him if he could invent a wicked Page 3 sketch, too. Of course you can ask him online, too. Good luck!

  8. Andree Frieze June 20, 2013 at 10:41 am Permalink

    I have an idea for a twitter campaign to try and go viral with to promote this campaign.
    Email all your supporters with a mock-up of Page 3 in which they can put in a picture of themselves (clothed obviously) along with a para about themselves in the style of Page 3, but saying something about the campaign instead and how they don’t want to be objectified, or similar. You could do the same with pictures of famous women eg The Queen, Margaret Thatcher etc.
    Then get everyone to ‘flashtweet’ their page 3 to the Ed of the Sun and Rupert Murdoch.
    Doing this will help to highlight how ridiculous and demeaning the nudity of Page 3 is.

  9. craig July 29, 2013 at 5:44 pm Permalink


  10. w ch July 29, 2013 at 5:45 pm Permalink

    Nichi Hodgson, on Sky just now against Missy. That Hodgson is pathetic – just goes to show how for any unarguable case, as you long as there is money in it, someone will still try and make that case. I am a male and I find these magazines manipulate males as well as degrade women. Nichi Hodgson from Men’s Health actually defending these magazines is just proof that money can buy anything. Well done to Missy for getting her points across but this Hodgson creep saying covering up these porno mags in the Co Op is censorship as if that in itself is bad, is just wrong. Excessive censorship is arguably wrong but this move is not excessive censorship. And Hodgson’s pathetic argument that other publications do it, so the Co Op should not take action against men’s magazines was well defeated by Missy. The only other thing I would have added against Hodgson is Hodgson is paid by the industry, she works for a magazine. She is paid to have her opinion

  11. w ch July 29, 2013 at 5:46 pm Permalink

    Oh I see it was Lucy, I beg your pardon. I got the name wrong but very well done on Sky, just now, You won.

  12. S K August 3, 2013 at 1:42 pm Permalink

    I see there are some very basic, very nasty, ‘put down’ comments on here, referring of course to the campaign. How horrid, how sad and how predictable.

  13. Anna Newson August 9, 2013 at 3:02 pm Permalink

    I was so inspired by the ‘ No more Page 3′ campaign, that I have mentioned it in a blog about the Irish Sun dropping topless Page 3 models,


  14. Steve August 18, 2013 at 10:33 pm Permalink

    I would agree with you, however, I’ve grown up seeing men thrown in the water when the women didn’t fancy them in a programme called ‘Man O Man’ and now see men stripping off and being judged by a group of women on ‘Take Me Out’…both programmes featured at the family TV time slot on saturday nights…viewed by far more people, and young people, than the Sun.

    I then see countless adverts showing how ‘thick’ men are in the home and now see an advert for diet coke of a man stripping off for a group of women… regularly shown on TV at all times of the day.

    I’ve worked in a hostel with men who were the victims of domestic violence and who never got the help because they were men. I’ve seen the same men basically feeling worthless and some committing suicide because they weren’t getting the help women got and because the media portrays men as useless idiots in programmes and adverts such as above and teaches the country that it’s perfectly ok to treat men like that.

    My problem now is that, while I understand your anger at page 3, the suicide rate in young men is astonishing and I have no doubt their depressions are exasparated by the image society portrays, and is allowed to portray, of males in the UK.

    Where is their help?

    Where is their support?

    Why do we (men and women) only help and support women?

    These are the people my heart really goes out to and I’ve sat and cried when I’ve seen the outcome of these adverts and tv shows…

    If you are serious about stereotyping, and if you support gender equality…are you going to support the inequality towards men on TV also?

    Best Wishes


  15. Jonathan Dearth August 27, 2013 at 9:36 am Permalink

    Danny Baker was eloquently dismissive about Page 3 his show on Saturday.

    If you got someone like him, middle aged, male, football related – someone who you’d think would even like Page 3 involved – it would really broaden the support for getting rid of this pathetic and embarrassing piece of modern Britain.

    I hope you agree that this isn’t just a feminist issue, it’s one that effects us all who care about a better society.

    Please ask him.

  16. Rebecca Leonard October 25, 2013 at 8:04 pm Permalink

    where can I buy a ban page 3 t-shirt

  17. AV February 28, 2014 at 1:58 am Permalink

    Advertising is full of images of female and male models in various states of undress. We see adverts for womens perfume that involve a male model in nothing but a pair of briefs being objectified by the female actress.

    Diet Coke adverts have featured men taking their shirts off in front of women for years.

    Will this campaign seek to outlaw the objectifying of men and women in equal measure?

  18. Jim March 5, 2014 at 5:07 pm Permalink

    I just now randomly stumbled upon this whole Page 3 controversy (don’t hold it against me, I am an American young man). I simply can not believe that women are objectified in a “family” paper. to me it’s confusing and barbaric. I think about my mother, and I think about my sisters, and I think about the girl I’m currently in love with and it leaves a bitter taste in my mouth. you humans from Across the Pond have always said us Americans are a more Puritanical bunch, but for once I am proud of my country’s Puritan leanings.

    the UK does many things right that we here in the US should take note. however, I think that you have missed the mark in this instance. now way this would fly in America

    • Aimee Dowling March 23, 2014 at 1:01 pm Permalink

      The fact that an American this Page 3 is bad just shows how stupid this campaign is. America has an absolutely awful attitude towards sex.

  19. Janice Downie March 22, 2014 at 2:03 pm Permalink

    The Sun is a newspaper aimed at men which is comprised of mostly showbiz news, so having a glamour model posing in it is actually fairly appropriate.

    Using the terms ‘objectification’ and ‘exploitation’ are both rhetoric.

    Everything that is alive exploits other things that are alive, that is a fundamental rule of life, so when you use the term exploitation its effectively meaningless because its always going to be true.

    ‘Objectification’ was originally used to describe people being genuinely treated like they were not human. It was used to describe the way the Jews were treated in the holocaust for instance. Glamour models are treated like humans (except perhaps by feminists who apparently don’t think their intelligent enough to make their own choices). If you start using the word ‘objectification’ to mean people looking at a girl simply for their body while not considering their personality then it becomes fairly meaningless. I don’t consider the personality of my postman, or the plumber, or athletes. I just want them to do their job.

    So basically all this stuff about Page 3 being bad is based on baseless rhetoric and conjecture.

  20. Lorna March 29, 2014 at 1:14 am Permalink

    Why of all the things in The Sun focus on Page 3? What about their xenophobia, their stirring up hatred against disabled people, their lies about Hillsborough, their Name and Shame campaign which led to innocent people being attacked by mobs, their sticking camera’s up women’s skirts, their calling women who brought men to court only to get Not Guilty causes False Accusers? Get rid of Page 3 & all those things will still go on. The Sun are a terrible paper overall & are hugely damaging so to say things like getting rid of Page 3 & more women will buy them or you saw them as a proud part of our nation is just wrong! Why instead of focusing on just one aspect of The Sun don’t you join forces with the Boycott The Sun campaign?

  21. Pippa April 4, 2014 at 11:08 am Permalink

    Hi, I want to request Lucy Anne Holmes to speak at our TEDxSWPS conference on June 14th (a Saturday. We are an independent girls school in Chertsey and – with the theme of STORY running through the conference – would like to look at perhaps the story of your campaign – how you go from feeling strongly about something to actually doing something about it etc etc. Wouldn’t it be great to get a shot of activism and gender politics in one talk? Can you help us?!
    With every good wish for the campaign, and respect for the excellent good sense exhibited on your website and throughout the campaign,

  22. Sarah April 4, 2014 at 10:08 pm Permalink

    I suggest that before you bring your self-satisfied and paper-thin arguments here, you do some actual research about objectification about the results of objectifying and dehumanising imagery, rape culture and entitlement issues in general.

    P.S. FYI, treating a person like a sex object = objectification.

  23. In Disagreement April 5, 2014 at 2:23 pm Permalink

    why did you fail to publish my comment? I was perfectly polite and even-handed in what I said. Are you that petrified of having legitimate criticism appear on your site?

    • Lucy
      Lucy April 7, 2014 at 1:49 pm Permalink

      Hi Max,
      I’m afraid I can’t see the comment you’re referring to. Are you able to post it again?


  1. Where would we be without Page Three? | Brighton Lite - October 24, 2013

    […] following. A few weeks ago I found myself at the heart of the debate when I went to see ‘No More Page Three’ campaigner Lucy Anne Holmes speak at The Brighton Dome’s Feminism 3.0, part of the Brighton […]

Leave a Reply