Watchdog bites bar over 'offensive' Facebook ad
The Advertising Standards Authority has sunk its teeth into the Manhattan Bar in Stoke on Trent, for a Facebook promotion "likely to cause serious or widespread offence". The offending Manhattan Bar promotion as seen on Facebook The ASA ruled the offending ad, seen right, in breach of CAP Code (Edition 12) rule 4.1 (Harm and …
This topic is closed for new posts.
Re: I DONT GET IT
Oh do bore off...and while your away, see if you can figure out how to turn off Caps Lock
Re: I DONT GET IT
I think it's kinda cute, that he's getting on the Internet with an Apple ][.
Re: I DONT GET IT
At the risk of repeating myself, please go away.
p.s. your Caps Lock key still appears to be broken
and while your away
see if you can figure out when to use you're
Re: I DONT GET IT
You really are a bit of an arse, aren't you?
Mrs BIG DUMB GUY
I wasn't expecting this! I seriously pissed myself laughing at the concept!
Re: I DONT GET IT
The lovely Ms Bee wouldn't have let him away with being an arse.
Rather than everyone having to hit the report button for his/her posts and flood your system, shouldn't you guys be stopping this breach of netiquette?
Re: I DONT GET IT
NOW NOW HUNNY - IT'S FRIES AND PEAS FOR TEA YOUR FAVOURITE. ANY MORE ABUSE AND IT WILL BE WHAT WAS ADVERTISED ON THAT NASTY FACEBOOK POSTER.
Re: Re: I DONT GET IT
At first we thought he would show promise and turn out to be a funny character. But you're right, he's just an arse.
C.
Re: I DONT GET IT
If you are going to keep moderating him then my job as his wife is over :)
Glad el reg has come to its senses.
Toodles x
Re: I DONT GET IT
Ooops I think I just "reported" the wrong post. Sorry diodesign, I think you know what I meant though...
I read
Harm and offence as ham and offence.
I'm not sure if it made the story more or less pleasant; it didn't seem completely inappropriate.
Sir
That's an awful font they're using. Still, twice...shiny :)
Re: Sir
20 upvotes to the winner of the 'name that font' competition.
'name that font'
CUMic Sans?
Mine's the one with the crusty socks in the pocket.
Re: Sir
I think it's FF Enzo Black
In my defence for being such a sad git that I looked it up, I was hoping I could legitimately identify the font and then suitably pun its real name. I was wrong.
Re: Sir
"It's "Cumdribble Bold Caps", isn't it?"
I should have barred entry to professional headline writers*
Well done Mr Haines, you win the slightly soggy biscuit :)
*insert your caveat here.
Lester, you made me cry...
You cunt! (In a matey way).
Fuck, my head hurts from this childish grinning and giggling...
ASA powerless
The ASA are a joke. A group of jumped of liberals picking up on any complaint that has tends towards those that are accepted by the liberal left but ignores any from the right. So complaints by gays looked into more favourably than complaints by Christians.
Just look at how they attempted to silence Archbishop Cranmer (@His_Grace) when he showed a Campaign for Marriage advert. It's pretty much exploded in their face as they frantically backtrack after Cranmer published his correspondence with them. They say they weren't investigating and he had no compulsion to reply but the emails say otherwise.
http://archbishop-cranmer.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/asa-semantics-and-lies.html
Anyway, the ASA can ask advertisers to stop showing adverts but they can't force them to. It's only because Google and other agencies follow ASA rulings that the ASA have any power.
Re: ASA powerless
Really? When did we get into using this nonsense left/right liberal/conservative drivel over on this side of the pond?
It's pretty meaningless distinction in the US, even more so in this country. Do attempt to get a clue, please. (hint: clue available here - http://www.politicalcompass.org/analysis2)
Re: ASA powerless
Hang on, let me try and summon some sympathy for the homophobe...
*Nrrrrrrrg*
Sorry, couldn't do it. He'll have to continue shoving his religion up his arse. Or up the arses of any altar boys that pass nearby.
Incidentally, you are aware that Archbishop Cranmer died in the 16th century...?
Re: Re: ASA powerless
"homophobe" - that's just name calling, shirly?
Since when has it been *anything*-phobic to say that "marriage" means a woman/man thing?
I think that to talk about "Gay Marriage" is newspeak re-definition of the language. You are of course entitled to your own opinion.
And hey, sticks & stones and all that - but it's just not polite to call people names - even long dead Archbishops ;-)
Re: ASA powerless
Oh dear. Let me explain. It's not very hard, but do try to keep up - I know that being angry and afraid that some people are gay and in love must be tiring for you. Saying "marriage means a man/woman thing" is the same as saying "gay people shouldn't be allowed to marry" right?
To check if you're being a twat, replace "gay" with "black" or "jewish" or "christian" or whatever and see if what you're saying still sounds OK.
Is it racist to say "Black people shouldn't be allowed to marry"? (hint: yes)
Is it anti-semitic to say "Jewish people shouldn't be allowed to marry"? (hint: yes)
Still think you're not homophobic? (hint: you are)
Re: ASA powerless
To say that gay couples shouldn't be allowed to live together is homophobic. To say that the definition of marriage excludes gay couples isn't homophobic, it's just shows a grasp of what the word currently means.
It's good that gay couples have enough rights these days that they can focus on semantic fluff like this, but a civil partnership is a marriage in all extents except the word used, isn't it?
TBH I don't give a toss either way, Marriage is not really an institution I have much time for, gay or straight. But to claim that everyone who thinks marriage means a man and woman is homophobic is wrong, it's just the traditional defintion of the word.
Don't be silly (Re: ASA powerless)
Black, Jewish, Christian all include men and women. For marriage you need a bloke and a woman. Don't matter about the ethnicity. So any of your suggestions sound OK.
Gay, however, now means two blokes or two women, so that's not marriage, unless we redefine what the word means (legally and by common usage). And then we'd need a new word to mean what marriage now does.
Also, I don't find I'm afraid of my gay nephew, nor my lesbian niece, nor my neighbor's lesbian sister - nice people all - so probably I'm not homophobic. It's just that they ain't going to get married to their respective partners, though they can go for a civil partnership if they wish, and good for them if they do.
(I do so dislike the nastiness of some of these "gay marriage" activists)
Re: ASA powerless
"but a civil partnership is a marriage in all extents except the word used, isn't it?"
Then clearly, someone cares very strongly about the word being used, or there'd have been no need to bother inventing the concept of 'civil partnership' when we already had a perfectly good one called 'marriage' lying around, right?
Either they're the same so you don't mind if gay people call it marriage, or they're separate and therefore clearly unequal (pace apartheid). You really can't have it both ways, I'm afraid.
FAILophobia
LOL at anyone who says I can't be homophobic cos I'm not scared of my gay family member/friend/dog etc
Dude, I hate fast food joints but I don't soil myself whenever I walk past a McDonalds! The word homophobia dose not just mean an irrational fear - its also used to as a word for ignorant and often closeted people who can't come to terms with their own cuntishness!
Fucking most epic fail I have seen on this forum in a long time - turning a conversation about a spunk based font into a 'I think gay people should not have the same misfortune to get married' rant!
@AdamWill
I don't care if marriage is redefined to include same sex couples. Currently that's not what the word means. Stop getting so arsey with me, I'm not trying to oppress you. I just think that words have definitions that should be adhered to. That's why I hate it when people say "leverage" instead of "use", it's incorrect use of language that reduces clarity and meaning.
My point was really that civil partnerships give gay couples the same legal status as different sex married couples. That seems to me to be much more significant that whether "marriage" is redefined to include same sex couples.
Re: @AdamWill
Well words are tricky, aren't they? Cos we're both allegedly speaking the same language, but I live in Canada and have been perfectly legally married to someone of the same sex for a year. So I'm afraid that for me, marriage really _does_ mean that.
Definitions, never as easy as they look. ;)
Re: ASA powerless
The gay marriage thing isn't about rights, those are already equalised between hetro and homo.
It appears to me to be about taking a word commonly associated with "wedding" and understood as "one man, one woman, promising an exclusive relationship with each other til death, before god and the community," (at least as an ideal) and redefining it as an exercise in social engineering.
By redefining the word to include homosexual unions, you divorce the meaning from its historical religious heterosexual meaning. I don't mean just Christian-religious either. It may exist, but I don't know of any traditional culture where homosexual relationships are considered to be "marriages." I also can't think of a culture where marriage is traditionally a secular institution.
That makes me wonder why people who are mostly non- or anti-religious want to redefine a mostly religious term. It seems a bit churlish. "Partnership" seems to describe most homosexual unions quite adequately. That leads me to conclude that this is a political exercise to marginalise religion by legally redefining its vocabulary to void its meaning.
You can agree or disagree with the strategy, but I don't think this is about equal rights.
OT: re newspeak re-definition of the language
Gay Marriage is an oxymoron, for certain meanings of those two words in times past. Gay, before being appropriated as a non-offensive substitute for the adjectives then in use, which I decline to list here, had the connotation of promiscuous. See OED meaning 2a here, with an attestation date of 1637, as against the modern meaning, dating from 1935.
I guess my point is that "newspeak" is also a mutable concept.
@sabroni
Civil Partnerships are different to marriages in one very important respect in the UK.
With a marriage you get automatic inheritance rights, this is not the case with a Civil Partnership. This means in a civil partnership you are less likely to be murdered by your spouse
What about
All the other rubbish ads on facebook.
Like the one that pops up constantly telling me my missus is 'using Netflix' and therefore I should too.
Last time I check LoveFilm was not Netflix.
Re: What about
There are ads on Facebook? I've never seen any
This topic is closed for new posts.
