You would never accept a job where harsh comments and bullying were part and parcel of the job but it seems we expect celebrities to because they have a better life than the majority of us.
As a woman, a journalist and a mum, I don't 'get' what the fuss is all about over page three. Comments about tomorrow's chip paper, poor little crack whores and sexual discrimination do not faze me. They do not convince most discerning consumers.
Defined by a storm in a D cup, this week The Sun newspaper's decision to 'hilariously' pretend it had listened to anti-Page 3 campaigners was offensively unfunny. Put to one side the endless debate and incorrect columns about Page 3's supposed demise, if the aim was to cynically generate a shed load of free PR for the declining red top then bravo, didn't they do well. Now the challenge they face is trying to convince the rest of us that we should keep reading.
While we may have no power on the decision to kill off Page 3, public opinion is everything. There is arguably far greater power in influencing the mood around representations of women in media. And this has certainly happened.
Taking the bare boobs out of The Sun is a momentous step in the right direction. But let's not dance in the street just yet (maybe just a few fireworks and a glass of bubbly?). We're not done people.
We receive mixed messages and begin to think that if you're sexy you can't be smart. Therefore we don't want to be viewed as sexy because we believe it disregards our intellectual abilities. But is avoiding sexuality and getting rid of things like Page 3 the answer to our problem? Or is it just repressing sexuality?
Yesterday was a bad day for Sky News. But I've no doubt they will consider it a triumph - and I find that incredibly worrying.
Today Oxfam announced that the combined wealth of the richest 1% will overtake that of the other 99% of people next year unless the current trend of rising inequality is checked. Inequality is spiralling out of control, but consensus on taking action against this issue of our time is gathering pace.
This week I and many others in the Labour Party have joined readers of Grazia magazine to write to the Business Secretary to ask him to implement pay transparency. This measure would see large companies of over 250 employees publish the pay gap between the hourly wages of men and women on an annual basis.
When it comes to Dieudonné, however unpalatable his views are, let's recognise his right to express them.
Whether it be the Pope or a media commentator - we must avoid capitalising on a terrorist incident to vocalise our opinion on these cartoons and society's attitude towards religious beliefs.
I don't in fact blame the people who think in this way actually. Despite their views, some of them were actually quite nice, The question is: If this is their public information service how else can they think after, being bombarded with information like as the great 'terror expert' Steven Emerson told Fox News?
I don't doubt many people would have found the Charlie Hebdo cartoons extremely offensive, and I'm not here to tell you that's wrong, but the insinuation that insulting/offending people may have invited this horrific tragedy on any level is tantamount in my eyes to the old age adage that a rape victim "asked for it" by wearing a short skirt. It's victim blaming at its very worst, and especially against people who fought in many ways for the rights of those who attacked them. So long as offence remains within the bounds of what is legally acceptable, then it is just that - acceptable - whether you personally like it or not.
Let's be clear: I agree there is no justification whatsoever for gunning down journalists or cartoonists. I disagree with your seeming view that the right to offend comes with no corresponding responsibility; and I do not believe that a right to offend automatically translates into a duty to offend.
This week the magazine Charlie Hebdo will publish a defiant response to the terrorists who assassinated 8 members of its staff and four shoppers in a Jewish supermarket. This response will involve publishing an image of the Prophet Muhammad.
Placing an entire population under surveillance whilst failing to adequately resource not only the intelligence agencies but those tasked with holding them to account, is both an unacceptable intrusion of our freedoms and creates nothing more than a chilling effect on free expression for anyone communicating in, or with, the UK.