Daniel Radcliffe is offensive...

Attitude is a gay magazine. Its front cover often depicts a bare chested model but not always. Sainsbury's supermarket has seen fit to cover the magazine in what's called a modesty cover. Modesty covers have been introduced by a number of retailers in recent years to cover images that customers might find potentially offensive.

A representative from Sainsbury's defended their decision, "Following feedback from customers we introduced modesty covers several years ago across a wide variety of magazines. This is to ensure no offence is caused to customers who may object to the images or the content on the covers of some magazines."

Sainsbury's later admitted that the titles included in their "modesty policy" were Gay Times, Attitude, Loaded, Zoo, Nuts and Bizarre. Magazines like FHM, Esquire, GQ, Stuff and Men’s Health were not covered by the policy. Are you telling me that Attitude is on a par with Nuts (Britain's Boobiest Babes.) and Zoo (Jordan Carver's 32HH Boobs - the rack is back.) or more offensive than FHM (8 Girls. 2 Parties. Not many clothes.).

I'm not arguing that pornographic images be displayed in supermarkets up and down the country. And I'm not going to argue that this is Sainsbury's being homophobic because I don't think it is. No; this decision to dress Attitude in a modesty cover is based on a subjective view of what passes for good taste, which, in turn, is based upon the narrow norms of an individual or a small group. It is an out dated view of nice.

Who in hell could find Daniel Radcliffe offensive?

Today's run at 17:50
Distance	4.01 km	Time	20:46
Pace	5:10 min/km	Cadence	81 spm
Comments: Overcast.