26 June 2013 - 12:28pm | posted by | 3 comments

The Sun’s Page 3 is set to stay, new editor insists, saying ‘stuff at the British Museum is more raunchy’

The Sun’s Page 3 is set to stay, new editor insists, saying ‘stuff at the British Museum is more raunchy’The Sun’s Page 3 is set to stay, new editor insists, saying ‘stuff at

David Dinsmore, who was appointed new editor of The Sun last week, has announced that Page 3 girls will continue in the newspaper.

Dinsmore insisted that the topless pictures are ‘a good way to sell newspapers’, while comparing it to a new Japanese exhibit: "This stuff at the British Museum is far more explicit and raunchy."

He revealed his plans while speaking on the radio station LBC 97.3 and BBC Radio 5 Live today, adding that only people who ‘don’t read The Sun’ want the page canned.

Campaigners No More Page 3 tweeted their thoughts on the news:

Don't miss out... Get your Media news by email

See all specialist newsletters


26 Jun 2013 - 13:17
rosiemilton's picture

What a comparison! A suitably inflammatory comment from a man in such a role..! One must admire the aesthetics of the statement, even if the spokesperson in question clearly hasn't got a clue about historical applications of beauty..

26 Jun 2013 - 15:46
kathug's picture

Wonder if David Dinsmore has daughters

26 Jun 2013 - 16:32
scritty's picture

I would fight for his right to show topless models on Page 3 - but all the same it seems like an anachronism. Worse, just innapropriate. Would people really stop buying the Sun if it stopped? There is a place for erotica - in fact there are probably too many "times and places" for it now. It's overkill, - I'm not sure a daily newspaper really has any place in that market. As for "historical applications of beauty" what a crock of nonsense. Justifying a cheap thrill isn't something that just happned in the post 1950's era. Michaelangelo's David was supposed to have been one of the most fantasized about artworks ever (by gay men of the day) it got to the point where they had to legislate to stop people from touching it "innapropriatel;y" It was art. Sure - hallowed by time - certainly - allowed because of that to have a different rule set to anything modern? No - definitely not! Even Marge Simpson learned that one.


Please sign in or register to comment on this article.

Latest Projects from the Profile Hub

Video your best #ThriftyFamily saving tip for a chance to win £100

Saving money doesn’t have to be tedious – it can be fun too...

Case Study | RLH

Chris Ross, MD of full-service B2B advertising agency RLH,...

Brand new logo design for The Scottish Graduate School for Arts and Humanities

The Scottish Graduate School for Arts and Humanities (SGSAH...

DrupalCon 2014

We were selected by the Drupal Association through a...

New Forest National Park - Young David Attenborough discovers the Tech Creche

Research conducted by the New Forest National Park...