News1 min ago
A little over the top?
35 Answers
http://www.telegraph....om-childrenswear.html
I am all in favour of the outlawing of adult type clothes for youngsters, but isn't separating the adult lingerie section from the children's wear section, a little over the top?
We are not talking Anne Summers here, but underwear that some may see their mothers wear on an almost daily basis.
Must admit though in my local departmental stores, I have never seen a model posing as in the picture, I think that would be classed a little over the top.
I am all in favour of the outlawing of adult type clothes for youngsters, but isn't separating the adult lingerie section from the children's wear section, a little over the top?
We are not talking Anne Summers here, but underwear that some may see their mothers wear on an almost daily basis.
Must admit though in my local departmental stores, I have never seen a model posing as in the picture, I think that would be classed a little over the top.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
AOG
<<<<but underwear that some may see their mothers wear on an almost daily basis.>>
Agent Provocateur is bloody expensive and not the sort of thing that women wear on a daily basis......unless they are very high class prostitutes.
No ....I agree that adult lingerie should be quite separate from the children's wear section.
<<<<but underwear that some may see their mothers wear on an almost daily basis.>>
Agent Provocateur is bloody expensive and not the sort of thing that women wear on a daily basis......unless they are very high class prostitutes.
No ....I agree that adult lingerie should be quite separate from the children's wear section.
-- answer removed --
Answerprancer
/// but it's all part of the 'paedo-hysteria' hype that is being deliberately encouraged by our beloved government in order to keep the population in a healthy state of fear, a bit like the so-called terrorist threat. ///
I can't see what the government have to gain by this latest bit of legislation, in fact it has nothing to do with the government, in fact it is a report by Reg Bailey, head of Christian charity Mothers' Union and author of a report in the sexualisation of children.
But the so called (as you put it) 'terrorist threat' has, and a jolly good job too.
Are you suggesting, there is no terrorist threat in this country? If so pleas tell me why, in fact tell the whole country, then perhaps we can all stop being vigilant.
/// but it's all part of the 'paedo-hysteria' hype that is being deliberately encouraged by our beloved government in order to keep the population in a healthy state of fear, a bit like the so-called terrorist threat. ///
I can't see what the government have to gain by this latest bit of legislation, in fact it has nothing to do with the government, in fact it is a report by Reg Bailey, head of Christian charity Mothers' Union and author of a report in the sexualisation of children.
But the so called (as you put it) 'terrorist threat' has, and a jolly good job too.
Are you suggesting, there is no terrorist threat in this country? If so pleas tell me why, in fact tell the whole country, then perhaps we can all stop being vigilant.
a) I see it as yet another government *influenced* knee jerk response to the paedo-hysteria.
b) I accept that there is probably a minor terrorist threat.
a) and b) Both situations are of benefit to the government because a populus kept in a steady state of unease is a population that is pliable easy to influence and control.
I don't for a minute ignore and totally poopoo any threats to national (or international) safety, I just refuse to swallow the whole thing hook line and sinker.
b) I accept that there is probably a minor terrorist threat.
a) and b) Both situations are of benefit to the government because a populus kept in a steady state of unease is a population that is pliable easy to influence and control.
I don't for a minute ignore and totally poopoo any threats to national (or international) safety, I just refuse to swallow the whole thing hook line and sinker.
Perhaps I worded it wrong, I was not implying that adult ladies underwear should be on the same racks as the children's, but even so what parent would mistake children's from adults?
I have never see Adults and children's sections together, they are mainly well away from one another, but for instance hiding the adult underwear completely away from children's eyes is to me a little over the top.
I have never see Adults and children's sections together, they are mainly well away from one another, but for instance hiding the adult underwear completely away from children's eyes is to me a little over the top.
