|
|
Post by clifton on May 11, 2015 20:25:50 GMT 1
|
|
|
|
Post by driver6540 on May 11, 2015 21:50:20 GMT 1
Lack of humour in South Wales then. Cant see why Charlotte Church is complaining though, she had her own TV show which was full of bad language, mucky jokes and smutty innuendoes (Thats why i watched it). When would she ever catch a bus anyway? Hypocritical little Diva's probably got her own chauffeur driven helecopter.
|
|
|
|
Post by timelesstable on May 11, 2015 22:46:34 GMT 1
Not a patch.... on the Eric France scrap adverts on the rear of the Arriva step Spectras...........
|
|
ratty
Forum Member
Orange,Green and Cream Best livery ever
Posts: 636
|
Post by ratty on May 11, 2015 22:57:50 GMT 1
Thank God they have not been to Blackpool and seen the back of our Dart 658 then. No naked photos, but it starts 'SIX are you getting it enough?'. Ooo err missus.
|
|
|
|
Post by dwarfer1979 on May 12, 2015 8:25:33 GMT 1
Given there are both male & female versions in an identical style it is hardly sexist and given the wording is fairly tame you can only assume that it is the lack of clothing that is the issue (though no-one every seems to react to the male versions which in terms of lack of clothing in the promotions are just as common). You suspect that most of the people kicking up a fuss are simply reacting to something they have seen on-line, have no context and probably never consider buses at any other time but this is just a chance to complain about something. This sort of thing could catch any operator since many go for similar innuendo like puns in their marketing (normally with more clothes on the models), I suppose it depends on how widespread this complete loss of sense of humour has become (my female colleague in the office found it a bit tame really when she saw the story).
|
|
|
|
Post by stevieinselby on May 18, 2015 7:27:00 GMT 1
Lack of humour in South Wales then. Cant see why Charlotte Church is complaining though, she had her own TV show which was full of bad language, mucky jokes and smutty innuendoes (Thats why i watched it). When would she ever catch a bus anyway? Hypocritical little Diva's probably got her own chauffeur driven helecopter. Not taking sides one way or the other, but - it doesn't matter whether you travel by bus or not, you will still see the adverts, so just because someone doesn't travel by bus doesn't mean they can't be offended. - there's a big difference between a TV/radio show that uses smutty humour, particularly if it's on at a later time, which you have to knowingly tune in to, and a bus that can drive past you when you're walking down the street with your small children. Context is everything. |
|
|
|
Post by driver6540 on May 24, 2015 21:57:56 GMT 1
Lack of humour in South Wales then. Cant see why Charlotte Church is complaining though, she had her own TV show which was full of bad language, mucky jokes and smutty innuendoes (Thats why i watched it). When would she ever catch a bus anyway? Hypocritical little Diva's probably got her own chauffeur driven helecopter. Not taking sides one way or the other, but - it doesn't matter whether you travel by bus or not, you will still see the adverts, so just because someone doesn't travel by bus doesn't mean they can't be offended. - there's a big difference between a TV/radio show that uses smutty humour, particularly if it's on at a later time, which you have to knowingly tune in to, and a bus that can drive past you when you're walking down the street with your small children. Context is everything. How far do you want to go with this?, Not taking small children into a newsagent's, just in case they catch a glimpse of a top shelf porn mag?. I recall a couple of years back, seeing an advert on buses proclaiming "some people are gay, get over it" and thinking, even though homosexual's are in the minority, what would be the outcry if a counter advert read "most people are straight, get over that". |
|
|
|
Post by stevieinselby on May 25, 2015 9:34:12 GMT 1
How far do you want to go with this?, Not taking small children into a newsagent's, just in case they catch a glimpse of a top shelf porn mag?. I recall a couple of years back, seeing an advert on buses proclaiming "some people are gay, get over it" and thinking, even though homosexual's are in the minority, what would be the outcry if a counter advert read "most people are straight, get over that". The reason that top-shelf magazines are on the top shelf is precisely so that they are out of eye-line of children. If a significant minority of gay people were trying to deny straight people basic rights and were trying to legalise and legitimise bullying and discrimination against them, that advert might have been justified. As far as I'm aware, that isn't what's happening, which is why there is no need for that advert. The "Some people are gay" adverts did not feature anything that could reasonably be considered offensive, risqué or inappropriate for children to see, so there was nothing untoward in having them displayed publicly. That's where it's different from the "Ride me" adverts, which could very easily be argued to be inappropriate for public consumption. |
|
|
|
Post by driver6540 on May 29, 2015 22:21:11 GMT 1
How far do you want to go with this?, Not taking small children into a newsagent's, just in case they catch a glimpse of a top shelf porn mag?. I recall a couple of years back, seeing an advert on buses proclaiming "some people are gay, get over it" and thinking, even though homosexual's are in the minority, what would be the outcry if a counter advert read "most people are straight, get over that". The reason that top-shelf magazines are on the top shelf is precisely so that they are out of eye-line of children. If a significant minority of gay people were trying to deny straight people basic rights and were trying to legalise and legitimise bullying and discrimination against them, that advert might have been justified. As far as I'm aware, that isn't what's happening, which is why there is no need for that advert. The "Some people are gay" adverts did not feature anything that could reasonably be considered offensive, risqué or inappropriate for children to see, so there was nothing untoward in having them displayed publicly. That's where it's different from the "Ride me" adverts, which could very easily be argued to be inappropriate for public consumption. You're quite correct with your comment's, which you've worded in a way, far better than what i could. You seem a genuinely good guy and i hope you didn't feel i was being antagonistic towards gay people or others with, perhaps a different level of humour/tolerance than what i have. At the end of the day "It is what it is" and despite their good intention's to get people out of their cars and onto public transport, it would appear they've dropped one almighty bollock. Some people say, there's no such thing as bad publicity, I'd never heard of New Adventure Travel before this ad campaign became newsworthy. I have now. |
|
