FLYER Club Member
Thu Aug 15, 2019 2:47 pm
#1713038
Going back to that ASA spokesperson on BBC News recently. She gave a convoluted explanation for the ruling and mentioned that the potential to cause “harm” is now taken into account as well as the issue of “offence”.
Okay, so if potential (or, indeed, actual) “harm” is a consideration what about, for example, those numerous adverts for high interest pay day loan schemes and for gambling?
By comparison, statistics might suggest that the baby on the conveyor ad is utterly harmLESS.
Oh, and was the advert, perhaps, depicting a gay couple with an adopted, borrowed or kidnapped child or, similarly, two heterosexuals or one of each? And if gay, are they married, civil partners, or just good friends or have they only just met?
As it isn’t quite clear, I’m unable to decide whether I feel harmed or offended and whether or not I, too, should make a complaint.
Maybe I should ring the ASA for guidance?
Okay, so if potential (or, indeed, actual) “harm” is a consideration what about, for example, those numerous adverts for high interest pay day loan schemes and for gambling?
By comparison, statistics might suggest that the baby on the conveyor ad is utterly harmLESS.
Oh, and was the advert, perhaps, depicting a gay couple with an adopted, borrowed or kidnapped child or, similarly, two heterosexuals or one of each? And if gay, are they married, civil partners, or just good friends or have they only just met?
As it isn’t quite clear, I’m unable to decide whether I feel harmed or offended and whether or not I, too, should make a complaint.
Maybe I should ring the ASA for guidance?
I’m back to renting and inspiring, it ain’t. (There are other reasons too, but not for discussion here.)
