1. Consultation
Following a request for clarification, would like to make clear that BAM does consult with student organisations as to which campaigns they wish to run. However we remain of the belief that offering students’ unions the opportunity to take part in beauty pageants or the distribution of FHM magazine (which we would regard as advertising to students’ unions) is sexist, morally and politically wrong, and a pretty shoddy way to make money.
2. Thought or Permission
Following a further request for clarification, we would also like to make clear that BAM does not “place campaigns” into student organisations without thought or permission. However we remain of the belief that offering beauty pageants or the distribution of FHM magazine (which we would regard as advertising to students’ unions) is sexist, morally and politically wrong, and a pretty shoddy way to make money. We frankly don’t think they should be seeking permission to place sexism into unions in the first place.
3. Robert Hardy
Following a further request for clarification we would like to make clear that Robert Hardy of BAM regards the Joshua Foundation as a “great cause” rather than “Miss University GB” as a "great cause". The Joshua Foundation is a key backer of “Miss University GB”.
4. Advertising
Where we have referred to BAM's "advertising" of Miss University UK, we mean the advertising of the opportunity to take part to students' unions by email.
We would finally like to clarify that BAM currently offers students’ unions the opportunity to take part in a range of opportunities, restricting those opportunities where a “Ban” or “Exclusion” list is in place.
In our view this can lead to students’ unions being offered sexist, and morally and politically wrong promotions that have no place in the student movement. We believe that BAM should change the nature of its relationship with students’ unions such that it operates its own moral and ethical code that would rule out sexist promotions before even being offered to students’ unions.