billboards defaced

[Sebastian]

I agree with what you're saying that it's not right because it's illegal & also that more consideration should have been put into deciding where these adverts go.

Although, not to embroil you in a dispute that has nothing to with you but, seeing as you mentioned Muslims there (just as the original post did) I'm thinking that you also think that religion is a factor here, no?
Just asking to see if I'm being stupid when I think that ken has overlooked a major factor here.

of course religion is a, or better the factor.

and ken, sorry but like i said before u cant just decide it on your own and rip them down. see the company did nothing wrong... yes, what they did was not that smart. but they followed the law and everything. and its not like its about pretending your nephew from something life-threatening (a bit exaggerating here).

 

[not really ken]

British women may not like it (& there are some who are vocal about this), but I think you'll find the majority accept it & that's that.

Civil disobedience is something which the british find difficult to do. They accept it as they can't change it, but given the chance to change they would definately be for it.

As for 'inequality', where the fuck do you live, of course it's going to scream inequality that's because inequality between men & women still exists.

So is it sensible to keep enforcing these equalities

I

know for a British citizen it isn't compulsary to like seeing scantily clad women but as this incident took place in Britain I though I would refer to British culture which, btw, doesn't have a problem with this.

Mnay people in Britain have problems with this kind of advertising, apathy simply dictates that they continue as if nothing happened. People in rat race societies are very passive. Lewdness is not British culture. Rather they have a relaxed attitude towards sex. but thats still not excuse for having lewd advertsing in public.

'This has nothing to do with culture or religion', wtf? Am I not right in saying the reason Muslims are doing this shit is because they don't belief in women bearing all that flesh? Is that not something that they've used in their lives in Britain which is actually a belief held in certain foreign cultures? And British culture has everything to do with it also because it is that culture that determines what is acceptable in Britain.

no you said, that if you defaced spiritual or religious paraphenalia, you would be arrested. I replied saying that these billboards have nothing religious about them. They are simply lewd and have other overtly lustful overtones. People are defacing them not because of the message but because of the shamlessness and exposure to children, and people out with their pareents/ sisters. It cause embarrassment.
People who dont mind these billboards can goto a bar to see a scantily dressed women. Leave the rest of us to have 'freedom' from having these distasteful billboards in our society

Also, big business are commiting no crime portraying women in the way they do(note I didn't say 'sex objects' because that's open to interpretation), the people who are doing this shit however, are commiting a crime.[/

Civil disobedience is not always an unhealthy thing in society. Many incidents spring to mind throughout history, the recent petrol blockades being one. Big business are however breaking laws in many cases governing the advertising sector.

According to the British Code of Advertising, Sales Promotion and Direct Marketing, advertisements should not contain anything that is likely to cause serious or widespread offence.

This above quote is from the ASA, somekind of regulator of advertising in Britain

 

[not really ken]

of course religion is a, or better the factor.

and ken, sorry but like i said before u cant just decide it on your own and rip them down. see the company did nothing wrong... yes, what they did was not that smart. but they followed the law and everything. and its not like its about pretending your nephew from something life-threatening (a bit exaggerating here).

According to the British Code of Advertising, Sales Promotion and Direct Marketing, advertisements should not contain anything that is likely to cause serious or widespread offence

Whether religion is a factor or not is irrelevant. If one non-religious person votes yes in the poll then it religion is clearly not a sole motivation in the defacing of the posters. Although in this case it was, in other cases religion may not be the motivation.
Company did do something wrong according to the rules of the advertising regulator, and thats not even taking into account the moral implications of their approach.
My nephews life wasn't threatened, but dignity is much more important than life. Thats just my stand. Or if you diagree with that notion, then simply put, I don't like my youngsters being exposed to that kind of objectification of women. What kind of a message is it sending out to youngsters.

And in regards to 'vandalism'. Although illegal yes. I have stated that civil disobedience is nto always an unhealthy thing. The intention was noble.
Remeber the miners, the liverpool dockyard workers, the trukers who blockaded the petrol places etc etc

 

[Sebastian]

oh, i missed the part you quoted about the code of advertising. then i have a question:
is this code something like a law so u can be punished for not following this code?

 

[CalcuoCuchicheo]

Are you British? Well I am so don't try to school me on our culture, what's acceptable here & how people here don't really care what happens.

'Is it sensible to keep enforcing these equalities?'
That depends on your stance on this subject & I can't speak for the advertising company or the Government(although I'm pretty sure their official line would be no) but I can say that personally I don't think these inequalities should be enforced.
But I'm not sure if these posters enforce these inequalities. And I'm pretty sure the women in these posters were not forced to do this & like I said you referenced this as using women as 'sex objects' but that is open to interpretation & I don't agree with that interpretation.

Once again, if you see this is 'lewdness' then that's your opinion, fair nough. But the majority do not which is why it is accepted & not illegal.

When I mentioned 'if I defaced a spiritual building' I was making the point that just because you don't believe in something doesn't mean you have the right to vandalise it. As for them being 'lewd' & having 'overtly lustful overtones' - that is also open to interpretation.

Civil disobedience is not an unhealthy thing as long it's expressed in the correct fashion. This does not make what these people did any less of a crime. It's also worthwhile to note that, civil disobedience which goes against the majority's beliefs, is usually not a good thing.

As for your quote, they may have caused serious offence but they don't cause widespread offence. Actually, they probably cause a tiny number of people serious offence & cause some people mild offence. If they were illegal they would have been taken down by the proper authorities who, as you say, have been informed of the matter.

 

[CalcuoCuchicheo]

Whether religion is a factor or not is irrelevant. If one non-religious person votes yes in the poll then it religion is clearly not a sole motivation in the defacing of the posters. Although in this case it was, in other cases religion may not be the motivation.
I don't like my youngsters being exposed to that kind of objectification of women. What kind of a message is it sending out to youngsters.

Neither myself nor beReal said religion was the sole factor.

As for sending out a message, what kind of message is it sending out to youngsters when adults are breaking the law?

 

[Illuminattile]

Hmm, I'm torn here.

On the one hand, that particular YSL poster is pretty explicit, and civil disobedience is, in some cases, a valid form of protest.

However, I don't think you should be able to vandalise property just because you personally find it offensive. If enough people had complained about it, I'm sure it would have been taken down. How often do we read those "political correctness gone mad" stories about a handful of complaints leading to posters being taken down or TV commercials being taken off air? If indeed there were lots of complaints, to both local government and the companies involved, AND people had waited for a response yet not received one, then a protest was justified. BUT, they could have protested without breaking the law.

 

[CalcuoCuchicheo]

On the one hand, that particular YSL poster is pretty explicit, and civil disobedience is, in some cases, a valid form of protest.

However, I don't think you should be able to vandalise property just because you personally find it offensive. If enough people had complained about it, I'm sure it would have been taken down. How often do we read those "political correctness gone mad" stories about a handful of complaints leading to posters being taken down or TV commercials being taken off air? If indeed there were lots of complaints, to both local government and the companies involved, AND people had waited for a response yet not received one, then a protest was justified. BUT, they could have protested without breaking the law.

Quite simply, yeah I agree.

 

[chaos]

I've actually taken part in ripping these posters down, a couple of years ago, but the interesting thing is that me and my mates helped the local councillor who is also muslim to rip them down. Our MP who is also Muslim also has helped by taking the issue up with the council and since then there have been no such posters put up in my neighbourhood.

I think people should excerise their democratic rights and complain to their local authorities about in this case direct action has helped bring about change almost immediately.

I also dont think that religion is the only factor involved here as people of all faiths will be disgusted by the amount of nudity that some ads portray. Ken is right in saying that there is no choice in these billboards as anyone who walks by has to see them where as in the house on TV u can decide to switch the other channel.

On a side note the posters that we ripped down wernt showing scantily clad women they were depicting naked men in a shower.

 

[CalcuoCuchicheo]

I think people should excerise their democratic rights and complain to their local authorities about in this case direct action has helped bring about change almost immediately.

I also dont think that religion is the only factor involved here as people of all faiths will be disgusted by the amount of nudity that some ads portray.

Your first point I agree with. Exercise your democratic rights by all means but breaking the law ain't one of them.

As for your second point, regardless if whether that was aimed at myself or beReal, the way ken posted you would think that we'd said that religion was the only factor - well we didn't. If you read the posts ken denied that religion was a factor & that was something I disputed.

 

[not really ken]

^^ I said religion wasn't a sole motivator. I meant to say that, I may have not expressed it correctly, I can't be bothered to go back and look.

Alot of the argument calcuo between me and you is based on personal opinion and bit of 'personal outlook on life'.

The law breaking thing and the message it is sending out???

Well, literally looking at it, it is breaking the law. However it would be foolish to interpret fallible laws literally in every situation, man is fallible by nature so his laws will follow the same pattern of being 'prone to error' . Humans have emotional intelligence, we can use it!

Morals > laws?
laws> morals?

The laws of UK have a great deal of general morality built into them to begin with. But this is a clear violation of basic morals of many people in their right minds.

I suppose what im saying is if someone sexually harrassed your sister/mother, would you not take the law into your own hands. Dangerous! I know, but to live literally by laws is also dangerous, from day to day life and for the courts. YOu have to find a balance.

 

[CalcuoCuchicheo]

I suppose what im saying is if someone sexually harrassed your sister/mother, would you not take the law into your own hands.

I know what you're trying to say here, but really, the sexual harassing of one's family member is a different situation & is a another argument.

I'm pretty sure you agree that regardless of how passionate you, or the people who commited these offences, feel, these two situations are leagues apart.

 

[AnarchistFunk]

If the companies don't bother to ask the citizens hey would a naked woman offend your kids before they put it up, why should the people bother going out of their way to complain to the companys

 

[not really ken]

I know what you're trying to say here, but really, the sexual harassing of one's family member is a different situation & is a another argument.

I'm pretty sure you agree that regardless of how passionate you, or the people who commited these offences, feel, these two situations are leagues apart.

Leagues apart they are!! But it was simply an analogy of how passion can outweigh the penalties imposed by laws

 

[CalcuoCuchicheo]

I said religion wasn't a sole motivator. I meant to say that, I may have not expressed it correctly

This has got nothing to do with culture or religion

You may have meant to say that but, as you can, in no way did you say that.

Alot of the argument calcuo between me and you is based on personal opinion and bit of 'personal outlook on life'.

Yeah, I agree with this but, I did have, & still do, have a problem with your view of British culture which isn't solely to do with my personal opinion of British culture but due to the fact that I know what is acceptable in my country because I live here & I am part of this culture & society whereas you are not & so cannot be expected to know this stuff better than me or any other British resident.

Morals > laws?
laws> morals?

The laws of UK have a great deal of general morality built into them to begin with. But this is a clear violation of basic morals of many people in their right minds.

Oh morales over law definetely but the question here is whose morales? While you say that this is a violation of many's morales I dispute that & would say it violates the moral codes of the few & that a sizeable nimber of these 'few' would object due to the influence of foreign culture which, although it is healthy to have widespread influences, cannot override national culture.

If the companies don't bother to ask the citizens hey would a naked woman offend your kids before they put it up, why should the people bother going out of their way to complain to the companys

Well, because of the law that's why. It's like me & ken have been debating, it's personal opinion & personal interpretation.

 

[CalcuoCuchicheo]

Leagues apart they are!! But it was simply an analogy of how passion can outweigh the penalties imposed by laws

An analogy which, being so exagerrated, I don't find to be applicable in this debate.

 

[Illuminattile]

The problem is, if this billboard was depicting two fully clothed men holding hands, some people would still find it offensive and some people would still want to rip it down. In that case, I would object to people defacing it. Why is that different? Some people find nudity offensive, some don't. Some people find homosexuality offensive, some don't. Where do you draw the line?

 

[CalcuoCuchicheo]

The problem is, if this billboard was depicting two fully clothed men holding hands, some people would still find it offensive and some people would still want to rip it down. In that case, I would object to people defacing it. Why is that different? Some people find nudity offensive, some don't. Some people find homosexuality offensive, some don't. Where do you draw the line?

In this case my opinion is still the same. If you find it offensive go through the proper channels & let your opinion be known, but keep it legal.

Personal opinion is just that - personal. Nobody has to agree or disagree with you & no-one is compelled to act on what you believe, as long as you are courtaeously listened to, that is all you can ask for.

& although British culture may like mocking homosexuality, I don't think Illuminattile's example would have too many people upset. Although groups of discrimination like teh BNP would probably want to rip it down, they have no right to.

 

[Duke]

They have a point, but they're approaching it from a very wrong angle. If they went to the authorities and suggested the removal of the offensive ads, okay.

But right now they're being criminals. Vandals. No matter how you look at it.


If i'm a deeply religious person and i have a strong dislike for, let's say, birch trees. And there are a whole host of birch trees in the area where i live. Is it justified for me to go out and chop all the damn trees? Of course not. Is it justified for 90% of the birch-tree hating community to chop the trees? Of course not.

It's still a democracy. No one has the right to destroy something that is not their property simply because they might find it offensive.

 

[Rock]

they have no right to tear them down, its not their property.