back to article 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 …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. Anomynous Coward

    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.

  2. Sir Runcible Spoon

    Sir

    That's an awful font they're using. Still, twice...shiny :)

    1. Sir Runcible Spoon

      Re: Sir

      20 upvotes to the winner of the 'name that font' competition.

      1. Lester Haines (Written by Reg staff) Gold badge

        Re: Re: Sir

        It's "Cumdribble Bold Caps", isn't it?

        1. Sir Runcible Spoon

          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.

        2. Anomalous Cowturd
          Happy

          Lester, you made me cry...

          You cunt! (In a matey way).

          Fuck, my head hurts from this childish grinning and giggling...

      2. Geoff May

        'name that font'

        Friday Dirty Extended

        1. Inventor of the Marmite Laser Silver badge

          Re: 'name that font'

          Nearly. Try:

          Friday Dirty Expended

      3. Dave 126 Silver badge

        Re: Sir

        Semen Sans Heavy?

      4. Code Monkey
        Coat

        'name that font'

        CUMic Sans?

        Mine's the one with the crusty socks in the pocket.

      5. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Sir

        Condensed Urban Mono

      6. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Sir

        Comic hand relief

        1. Lester Haines (Written by Reg staff) Gold badge

          Re: Re: Sir

          Good effort.

    2. VinceH

      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.

      1. teebie

        Re: Sir

        FF Gonzo Blobs?

    3. LinkOfHyrule
      Paris Hilton

      Re: Sir

      Heljizzetca Congealed

  3. The Axe
    FAIL

    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.

    1. Aaron Em

      Thanks for the link

      That's one for the morning paper.

    2. johnnytruant

      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)

    3. Greg J Preece

      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...?

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        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 ;-)

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          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)

          1. sabroni Silver badge

            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.

            1. AdamWill
              FAIL

              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.

              1. LinkOfHyrule
                FAIL

                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!

              2. sabroni Silver badge

                @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.

                1. AdamWill

                  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. ;)

                2. Alan 6

                  @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

            2. P. Lee

              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.

          2. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            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)

        2. Jonathan Richards 1
          Boffin

          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.

  4. tmTM

    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.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: What about

      There are ads on Facebook? I've never seen any

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: What about

        WTF is Facebook?

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: What about

          WTF is WTF?

          1. FartingHippo
            Boffin

            Re: What about

            "WTF is WTF?"

            Well, yes. Clearly a = a.

            1. Uncle Slacky Silver badge

              Re: What about

              And A is sometimes F. (ref:"I Was a Teenage Objectivist")

              1. Someone Else Silver badge
                Coat

                Re: What about

                And E = F flat (The Musician's Theory of Relativity)

          2. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: What about

            William Tare Fox is a politician notorious for ill-judged statements about matters of no concern.

  5. Dave 126 Silver badge
    Pint

    Let them run the advert. It doesn't look like it would attract women (and thus men) to the club, so it will prove to be its own penalty.

    Still, nice to see that they have taken a more responsible approach to the traditional BOGOF drinks promotion... I would have thought that ASA could have given them credit for that.

    1. JDX Gold badge

      responsible?!

      I'm not sure how "binge as much as you can and we'll let you do it again for free" is more responsible. At least BOGOF means you have to have both at the same time, this way you fill your body as full as it will go to 'earn' the same chance next week.

      1. Dave 126 Silver badge

        Re: responsible?!

        Its more responsible than having people walk away from the bar with a drink in each hand. Since it takes time for alcohol to be absorbed into your system, downing two drinks in quick succession is more likely to make people stupidly drunk than taking a ten minute break between bevvies.

      2. Jonathan Richards 1
        Windows

        Re: responsible?!

        Also doubtfully legal. Section 141 of the Licensing Act 2003 makes it an offence to sell alcohol to anyone who is drunk. Ho ho, one of the most abused legislative provisions ever, methinks, but statute law, nonetheless.

        Hmm. Unless *giving* alcohol to drunks is legal, of course. Cue clever lawyers.

        1. Nick Ryan Silver badge

          Re: responsible?!

          IRRC it's been prohibited for a very long time to serve anybody who is obviously drunk in a licensed establishment. It only became a criminal offence recently due to Blair and his lawyer cronies making pretty much everything into a criminal offence (i.e. more work for lawyers)

  6. Chris Miller

    "One of the worst clubs in Stoke"

    and, as you can imagine, that's up against some pretty stiff competition (© Blackadder).

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: "One of the worst clubs in Stoke"

      Yes. "Worst club in Stoke" is a pretty low bar by anyone's standards. Had some good nights at The Void back in the day, and slightly before my time, Shelley's had quite the reputation (some young chap calling himself 'Sasha' was resident DJ...) but apart from that..

      'scuse me, I think my age is showing. Mine's the one with the glowsticks and anonymous white tablets in the pocket.

  7. disgruntled yank

    misread

    And here I was wondering what the ASA had to do with an organization of New York City lawyers.

  8. Anonymous Coward
    Happy

    "I'll have what she's having"

    © some film or another, cba to google it

  9. jungle_jim
    Pint

    Looks good

    Looks like it could be a right laugh.

    Anyone fancy going? I could do with a cheap drink!

  10. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Bonfire of the Quangos?

    Pity this one didn't get burnt. I see someone has already flagged their pathetic bullying attempt on the Archbishop Cranmer blog - worth reading if you want a laugh at the ASA getting told to p**s off. They are a nasty piece of work IMHO.

  11. Pete the not so great
    Go

    Guerilla marketing a its best

    The hoh-hah generates more media attention than the ad.

  12. Glyn 2
    Pint

    Indeed

    As someone who occasionally frequents Hanley on a night out, I can inform the ASA that the advert is the least offensive thing about Manhatten that I've ever seen.

    Besides everyone knows you get a better night out in Castle ;)

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: As someone who occasionally frequents Hanley...

      you are in our thoughts

    2. Shades

      Re: Indeed

      Is the you Mr F?

      1. Shades

        Re: Indeed

        *that

  13. johnwerneken
    Facepalm

    Prolly obscene, but offensive? Is silliness offensive? Do people not interested in alcohol, an allegedly adult concern, typically end up on a tavern facebook page? I find the idea of such being regulated offensive, whom do I complain to? ROTFFLMFAO

  14. toadwarrior

    I don't see what the problem is. What's obscene and offensive is Stoke itself. We should set cleanse the area with fire and start over.

    1. Glyn 2
      Trollface

      hmm

      Stoke's the finest place to live in this country, it's got everything you need shop wise (just the same as every other town/city in the country) it's in the middle of the country so everywhere is nearby, it's surrounded by pretty countryside, living there you've got access to jobs across the whole middle of the country from Wales to Nottingham, from Manchester to Brum.

      Where do you live?

  15. TheProf
    Megaphone

    Lowering of standards

    Aggghhhh! Another advert featuring a young person with it's 'gob' wide open.

    Sorry. 'Gob open' adverts really are despicable.

  16. Sam 15

    "occasionally frequents"

    Isn't that an Oxy moron?

  17. Annihilator
    Coat

    More ASA complaints

    It also says "dress to impress". There is a gallery on the club's website to show that's blatant false advertising..

  18. Michael Dunn
    Headmaster

    @Someone Else Re:And E = F flat (The Musician's Theory of Relativity)

    But only since equal temperament was adopted!

    I am surprised at how many people glibly put forward Einstein's Mass/energy equivalence equation as the basis of his theory of relativity. IIRC from my reading of 65 years ago, the basis of his theory of relativity was his take on gravitation:

    Gσ,τ = 0

    1. Michael Chester
      Boffin

      Re: @Someone Else Re:And E = F flat (The Musician's Theory of Relativity)

      That would be general relativity. E=mc^2 comes from special relativity, for which the positulates are:

      - The laws of physics are the same in all inertial reference frames

      - The speed of light is constant in all inertial reference frames (or equivalently, Maxwell's Equations)

  19. b166er
    Coat

    How appropriate for a night out in Stroke Content

    I bet she's hoping some lads and lasses from nearby ClitHero turn up too

  20. zanto
    Coat

    let me be the 70th commentard here

    Somehow seeing 69 comments at the bottom of the article was just plain wrong.

  21. This post has been deleted by its author

This topic is closed for new posts.