Free Speech in the UK

[Cope]

Still.. .. utter.....bollocks...... What is progressive about advertising ffs? If you are saying that advertising professionals are switched on to the sensibilities of customers, of course they are, that is their bleeding job, if an advert is deemed as boring or offensive, it doesn't sell goods. It is that simple. Now, do I need to summon a child with some paper and a crayon to explain why this approach benefits the industry and that the interests of edgelords and snowflakes are secondary to the motive of profit?

I see that you are in fact going to scream and shout "utter bollocks" until the cows come home; I've explained the point repeatedly, I suggest that you read those explanations.

The one thing I am annoyed about in adverts are indeed those sanitary product ads. Why do they use blue liquid rather than red? Still not going to spam the forum with my pet hate.

But then...

This is the kind of pap Great Replacement theorists generate. For some reason, there has to be an elitist conspiracy for everything. I wouldn't mind but I have provided hard evidence about who makes the decisions and why.

I wonder if you can shoehorn your obsession with whiteness into every single conversation on this board, irrespective of how irrelevant it is to the topic at hand.

[mongrel]

You have explained squat. I have told you , with hard evidence that the rules were written by professional industry leaders. You still insist on the puerile assertion that this is not the case, it's some imaginary SJW elite. It's an insult to the people involved, who I'm sure have great integrity and an insult to the forum.

Every single conversation (says the author of the Brexit thread)? The obsessive works on this thread are your own, so wedded to the tired phrases 'sjws and elites' rather than understanding what went on and with your flaming flaming, when you can't deal with plain facts.

[Cope]

You have explained squat. I have told you , with hard evidence that the rules were written by professional industry leaders. You still insist on the puerile assertion that this is not the case, it's some imaginary SJW elite. It's an insult to the people involved, who I'm sure have great integrity and an insult to the forum.

False. My claim was that the rationale for the regulations - and the ASA's interpretation of them - was derived from the gender based theories which have been cultivated by progressive activists in higher learning institutions for decades. The fact that the only way you're able to comprehend this point is to construct a "puerile" image of "SJW" commissars hijacking the offices of the CAP/ASA is not my problem.

Every single conversation (says the author of the Brexit thread)?

Oh look, here is you and Basil II infecting the Brexit thread with your obsession over "whiteness".

The obsessive works on this thread are your own, so wedded to the tired phrases 'sjws and elites' rather than understanding what went on and with your flaming flaming, when you can't deal with plain facts.

Yet, outside of this post, I haven't once used the phrase "SJW" in this thread. What a delusional comment.

[mongrel]

False. My claim was that the rationale for the regulations - and the ASA's interpretation of them - was derived from the gender based theories which have been cultivated by progressive activists in higher learning institutions for decades. The fact that the only way you're able to comprehend this point is to construct a "puerile" image of "SJW" commissars hijacking the offices of the CAP/ASA is not my problem.

And told you that was bollocks supported by no evidence whatsoever. We know who actually writes the code, and why. It's on the website , no further interpretation of your nonsense required.


The ASA is a non-statutory organisation and so cannot interpret or enforce legislation. The people behind the Volkswagen agreed to pull the ad, because, like most other players in the industry, they respect the code of practice and the ASA's recommendations. It is not because of what imaginary 'academic' said years ago.

Oh look, here is you and Basil II infecting the Brexit thread with your obsession over "whiteness".

You spent time on this? That's creepy. Not very good at flaming aren't you, it is clear that I told the Replacement Theory spammer that his obsession had no part in the discussion.Try harder next time.

Yet, outside of this post, I haven't once used the phrase "SJW" in this thread. What a delusional comment.

' Progressive activists '- same thing. You 'll be saying you haven't used the word 'bollocks' yet, even though I have consistently and rightfully described your explanation of how the advert codes were written as exactly that.

[Cope]

And told you that was bollocks supported by no evidence whatsoever. We know who actually writes the code, and why. It's on the website , no further interpretation of your nonsense required.

And as I will repeat, you can whine "bollocks" till kingdom come but it won't change the reality that the CAP and ASA did not invent the gender stereotyping theories upon which their regulations are predicated.

The ASA is a non-statutory organisation and so cannot interpret or enforce legislation. The people behind the Volkswagen agreed to pull the ad, because, like most other players in the industry, they respect the code of practice and the ASA's recommendations. It is not because of what imaginary 'academic' said years ago.

Irrelevant. I didn't claim that the regulation was legally binding.

You spent time on this? That's creepy. Not very good at flaming aren't you, it is clear that I told the Replacement Theory spammer that his obsession had no part in the discussion.Try harder next time.

I searched the word "genocide" using the "Search Thread" feature; it took me less than ten seconds. Inevitably, the first hit was you arguing with Basil II about "whiteness" rather than either ignoring him or letting the moderators clean up the thread.

Progressive activists '- same thing. You 'll be saying you haven't used the word 'bollocks' yet, even though I have consistently and rightfully described your explanation of how the advert codes were written as exactly that.

Firstly, the vast majority of progressive activists are not "SJWs". The assumption that they are as nonsensical as arguing that all conservative activists are alt-right militants. Second, your misunderstanding of the phrase "progressive activist" doesn't somehow imply that I will now begin denying that you've been crying "bollocks" whenever you've had nothing to contribute to the discussion beyond blind obstinance. The rationale you used to come to such a conclusion is as bizarre as it is incoherent and irrelevant.

[mongrel]

And as I will repeat, you can whine "bollocks" till kingdom come but it won't change the reality that the CAP and ASA did not invent the gender stereotyping theories upon which their regulations are predicated. .

You have not presented a shred of evidence that these people attended gender study courses or are influenced by what I suppose whiners call 'wokeness'. Not one scintilla, not one iota, not one Cornetto.

Why would they? They are businessmen, the regulators are tick-boxing officials who follow the rules scripted by businessmen. Turn bollocks into gold by providing the evidence to back up your ludicrous excuse for a post. Show us your sources, if you have any.

Irrelevant. I didn't claim that the regulation was legally binding.

I thought you gave the impression these elite people forced wokeness on us. Are you now going to admit that there isn't a secret cabal forcing professionals to act like SJWs?

AI searched the word "genocide" using the "Search Thread" feature; it took me less than ten seconds. Inevitably, the first hit was you arguing with Basil II about "whiteness" rather than either ignoring him or letting the moderators clean up the thread.

I told Basil to defenestrate his irrelevant racist theory . And the problem with that is what exactly? As I said , obsessive and creepy. I don't see you stalking Basil's posts in a similar manner.

Firstly, the vast majority of progressive activists are not "SJWs". The assumption that they are as nonsensical as arguing that all conservative activists are alt-right militants. Second, your misunderstanding of the phrase "progressive activist" doesn't somehow imply that I will now begin denying that you've been crying "bollocks" whenever you've had nothing to contribute to the discussion beyond blind obstinance. The rationale you used to come to such a conclusion is as bizarre as it is incoherent and irrelevant.

Now going into off-topic pendantry. My contribution to the discussion was to provide the facts, who were really responsible for the decision and who wrote the rules ( clue: it wasn't 'the elite'. ).

If I could embody your posting history , this would be it right now.

[Cope]

You have not presented a shred of evidence that these people attended gender study courses or are influenced by what I suppose whiners call 'wokeness'. Not one scintilla, not one iota, not one Cornetto.

Why would they? They are businessmen, the regulators are tick-boxing officials who follow the rules scripted by businessmen. Turn bollocks into gold by providing the evidence to back up your ludicrous excuse for a post. Show us your sources, if you have any.

The evidence is both in the guidance and the regulation itself - both of which have already linked. The rationale they're using is predicated on progressive interpretations of gender stereotyping which have been developed at higher learning institutions. Since you seem ignorant of this (and apparently believe that the CAP and ASA invented gender role constructionist theory) allow me to point you to some very basic introductory reading.

https://web.archive.org/web/20150924...0132448300.pdf

I thought you gave the impression these elite people forced wokeness on us. Are you now going to admit that there isn't a secret cabal forcing professionals to act like SJWs?

I'm not going to "admit" something which I never claimed in the first place; it's obvious what you "think" I'm arguing is a ridiculous caricature of what I'm actually arguing.

I told Basil to defenestrate his irrelevant racist theory . And the problem with that is what exactly? As I said , obsessive and creepy. I don't see you stalking Basil is a similar manner.

So after having insinuated that I was spamming the board with me "pet hate[s]" you're now crying because I exposed you for spamming the board with your "pet hate[s]". In future, don't dish it out if you can't take it.

Now going into off-topic pendantry. My contribution to the discussion was to provide the facts, who were really responsible for the decision and who wrote the rules ( clue: it wasn't 'the elite'. ).

If I could embody your posting history , this would be it right now.

So you explicitly state that the term SJW is synonymous with the phrase progressive activist, but when I explain to you that it isn't (and in so doing expose the extent of your misrepresentations) you respond by throwing a little tantrum wherein you accuse me of making "off topic" posts simply for contradicting your nonsense claims. You then follow this up with a childish suicide joke. Truly desperate stuff. Honestly, if you're going to rely on distraction techniques to derail the thread, you really ought to make them more subtle.

[Swiss Army Cheese]

Do the Muslims you know support the right to draw the prophet?

Personally I'm curious about how do muslims react to depictions of Mohamed's voice. Ever since I read Invading Iceland with No Clothes On (by Andy Olsen) I've always wanted to do a movie adaption of it that dances around the issue of having the prophet Mohammed as a character by having him be convieniantly off-screen in every scene he's in.

[mongrel]

The evidence is both in the guidance and the regulation itself - both of which have already linked. The rationale they're using is predicated on progressive interpretations of gender stereotyping which have been developed at higher learning institutions. Since you seem ignorant of this (and apparently believe that the CAP and ASA invented gender role constructionist theory) allow me to point you to some very basic introductory reading.

https://web.archive.org/web/20150924...0132448300.pdf

Self indulgent bollocks. It was I who provided the source material for the ASA and the CAP.

Here are the people responsible for the running of the CAP.

https://www.asa.org.uk/about-asa-and...tees.html#BCAP

Can't see any feminist academics or faceless elites. Tim Duffy the chair went to University in the early eighties (see linked in) So how would he have been infuenced by the document you posted , which makes reference to something posted in 2008? Does Saatchi and Saatchi have a time machine now?


Did you actually read the rules btw? For example 4.2 'Advertisements must not cause serious or widespread offence against generally accepted moral, social or cultural standards'.

That is the standards generally accepted by the whole population, not a restricted number of people with restricted or unique views. In the unlikely event for example, we returned to 1970s levels of stereotyping, panels would have to give due regard to that. That being the case, I'm calling BS on your continued defence of the indefensible.

I'm not going to "admit" something which I never claimed in the first place; it's obvious what you "think" I'm arguing is a ridiculous caricature of what I'm actually arguing.

Did a feminist elite write the code, yes or no?

ISo after having insinuated that I was spamming the board with me "pet hate[s]" you're now crying because I exposed you for spamming the board with your "pet hate[s]". In future, don't dish it out if you can't take it.

One flaw in your failed argument.Basil was the spammer , I told him to cease spamming. You should be bothering him.

So you explicitly state that the term SJW is synonymous with the phrase progressive activist, but when I explain to you that it isn't (and in so doing expose the extent of your misrepresentations) you respond by throwing a little tantrum wherein you accuse me of making "off topic" posts simply for contradicting your nonsense claims. You then follow this up with a childish suicide joke. Truly desperate stuff. Honestly, if you're going to rely on distraction techniques to derail the thread, you really ought to make them more subtle.

Reeeeee eeeeleeete. Lets face it , you tried to play the political correctness gone mad card and stumbled because you didn't expect anyone to prove that the issue was a bog-standard one done by , and I hope Mr Duffy forgives me for saying so, bog standard people.

Personally I'm curious about how do muslims react to depictions of Mohamed's voice. Ever since I read Invading Iceland with No Clothes On (by Andy Olsen) I've always wanted to do a movie adaption of it that dances around the issue of having the prophet Mohammed as a character by having him be convieniantly off-screen in every scene he's in.

I think you will find that Mohammed movies are already available.

[Cope]

Self indulgent bollocks. It was I who provided the source material for the ASA and the CAP.

1. I did not claim that I had linked the source material, only that it had in fact been linked. Your accusation of self-indulgent bollocks can therefore itself be dismissed as self indulgent bollocks.

2. I did, nevertheless, in fact link the guidance here.

Here are the people responsible for the running of the CAP.

https://www.asa.org.uk/about-asa-and...tees.html#BCAP

Can't see any feminist academics or faceless elites. Tim Duffy the chair went to University in the early eighties (see linked in) So how would he have been infuenced by the document you posted , which makes reference to something posted in 2008? Does Saatchi and Saatchi have a time machine now?

Because as we know, the only people who ever read or are influenced by academic studies in any capacity are people who are currently university students.

Did you actually read the rules btw? For example 4.2 'Advertisements must not cause serious or widespread offence against generally accepted moral, social or cultural standards'.

That is the standards generally accepted by the whole population, not a restricted number of people with restricted or unique views.I'm calling BS on your continued defence of the indefensible.

The only people who think that depictions of mothers with prams cause "widespread offence against generally accepted moral, social or cultural standards" are activists or people subservient to activist rationale. "I'm calling BS" on your pretense that you found the advert even remotely offensive (as is at least partially evidenced by your admission that you had to watch the advert on multiple occasions before you twigged what the controversy even was).

Did a feminist elite write the code, yes or no?

Irrelevant question. I did not claim that a "feminist elite" wrote the code.

One flaw in your failed argument.Basil was the spammer , I told him to cease spamming. You should be bothering him.

Basil isn't the one who hypocritically accused me of spamming my "pet hate[s]", that was you.

Reeeeee eeeeleeete.

Huh?

What the Lets face it , you tried to play the political correctness gone mad card and stumbled because you didn't expect anyone to prove that the issue was a bog-standard one done by , and I hope Mr Duffy forgives me for saying so, bog standard people.

Because as we know, ordinary people can never be the subjects of political influence or manipulation, nor can they behave in a manner which belies common sense

[mongrel]

1. I did not claim that I had linked the source material, only that it had in fact been linked. Your accusation of self-indulgent bollocks can therefore itself be dismissed as self indulgent bollocks. [/URL]2. I did, nevertheless, in fact link the guidance here.

Well if you admit that I provided the source, then I should get the credit, not you. I doubt you even knew who these people were before I mentioned them, being so hung up with the 'eleeeete.

Because as we know, the only people who ever read or are influenced by academic studies in any capacity are people who are currently university students.

Any evidence that these very busy people would have read the obscure paper you posted , let alone heard of it? The answer I expect is no. I like my evidence to be hard, not flaccid. In any event, the code is quite elastic and is clearly set to a generic view of the world, not a partisan one.

The only people who think that depictions of mothers with prams cause "widespread offence against generally accepted moral, social or cultural standards" are activists or people subservient to activist rationale. "I'm calling BS" on your pretense that you found the advert even remotely offensive (as is at least partially evidenced by your admission that you had to watch the advert on multiple occasions before you twigged what the controversy even was).

It's not about the one frame it's about the entire ad. Have you actually read the ruling? This issue was showing men engaged in adventurous activities in contrast to a woman in a care-giving role. A massive total three people had complained. The key line of the ruling was: 'By juxtaposing images of men in extraordinary environments and carrying out adventurous activities with women who appeared passive or engaged in a stereotypical care-giving role, we considered that the ad directly contrasted stereotypical male and female roles and characteristics in a manner that gave the impression that they were exclusively associated with one gender.'


https://www.asa.org.uk/rulings/volks...9-1023922.html'

https://www.campaignlive.co.uk/artic...ad-ban/1593712

Btw, just to hammer home the point, here is another ruling where a panel rejected a complaint of stereotyping. Clearly these elites of yours aren't getting the message through.


We acknowledged that ballet was stereotypically seen as an activity for girls and women, while drumming and sports, such as rowing, were more stereotypically associated with boys and men. However, we considered that viewers would understand that the ad was less focussed on the specific occupations of each character, and more focussed on their characteristics - namely equal levels of drive and talent which had allowed them to excel. We also noted that each skill depicted - ballet, drumming and rowing - was shown to be equally difficult and demanding. Therefore we did not consider that the ad perpetuated harmful gender stereotypes and we concluded that it did not breach the Code.

https://www.asa.org.uk/rulings/nestl-uk-ltd.html

The ruling fatally undermines your assertion that showing a person in a stereotypical role is sufficient to reject an ad ( and please the eleeets/SJWs)

Irrelevant question. I did not claim that a "feminist elite" wrote the code.

Then why post some obsure feminist academic document and swear by the very gods that it was relevant to the code, which it isn't.

Basil isn't the one who hypocritically accused me of spamming my "pet hate[s]", that was you.

You may have lost track of this pointless argument. In any event, I had clearly counter-spammed, not spammed.

Because as we know, ordinary people can never be the subjects of political influence or manipulation, nor can they behave in a manner which belies common sense

That's right because most people, they are paid to do their damned job. Normal people cannot be bothered to feign outrage in some fake culture war. Its that simple.

Summary so far.............

[Cope]

Well if you admit that I provided the source, then I should get the credit, not you. I doubt you even knew who these people were before I mentioned them, being so hung up with the 'eleeeete.

I made no comment on who had provided which parts of the evidence (because its absolutely irrelevant) until you falsely accused me engaging in "self-indulgent bollocks". At that point I highlighted that the BCAP guidance had been provided in one of my posts - a statement which, of course, you ignored.

Any evidence that these very busy people would have read the obscure paper you posted , let alone heard of it? The answer I expect is no. I like my evidence to be hard, not flaccid. In any event, the code is quite elastic and is clearly set to a generic view of the world, not a partisan one.

Irrelevant. The claim was that the CAP/ASA did not invent the gender stereotype theories upon which the regulations were based. I sourced a document which indicates that the intellectual origin of said theories was western academic institutions, not as you bizarrely seem to believe, the advertising regulators themselves. If you really can't understand how "generally accepted social, moral and/or cultural standards" are transmitted from higher learning institutions (in the past it tended to be through the clergy/theologians) through to the rest of society then I can't help you.

It's not about the one frame it's about the entire ad. Have you actually read the ruling? This issue was showing men engaged in adventurous activities in contrast to a woman in a care-giving role. A massive total three people had complained. The key line of the ruling was: 'By juxtaposing images of men in extraordinary environments and carrying out adventurous activities with women who appeared passive or engaged in a stereotypical care-giving role, we considered that the ad directly contrasted stereotypical male and female roles and characteristics in a manner that gave the impression that they were exclusively associated with one gender.'

A woman in a care-giving role?! Oh no! How dare an advertisement make a statistically probable depiction?! And look, a whole THREE people complained! Three! That's clearly an indication of the "widespread offence" and/or "harm" caused by this dangerous advert! Ban it immediately!

Btw, just to hammer home the point, here is another ruling where a panel rejected a complaint of stereotyping. Clearly these elites of yours aren't getting the message through.

Well I don't believe I claimed that they were engaged in abject lunacy all of the time.

Then why post some obsure feminist academic document and swear by the very gods that it was relevant to the code, which it isn't

The claim was that the CAP/ASA did not invent the gender stereotype theories upon which the regulations were based. I sourced a document which indicates that the intellectual origin of said theories was western academic institutions, not as you bizarrely seem to believe, the advertising regulators themselves. If you really can't understand how "generally accepted social, moral and/or cultural standards" are transmitted from higher learning institutions (in the past it tended to be through the clergy/theologians) through to the rest of society then I can't help you.

You may have lost track of this pointless argument. In any event, I had clearly counter-spammed, not spammed.

Thank you for conceding that an argument you started is pointless. Next time you're going to try and troll, don't break down whining when people expose your hypocrisies.

That's right because most people, they are paid to do their damned job. Normal people cannot be bothered to feign outrage in some fake culture war. Its that simple.

Who said anything about a "culture war"? You know if you're incapable of viewing any debate outside of the limited scope of the alt-right vs. SJWs you'd probably find 4chan a more suitable environment.

Summary so far.............

Well at least you've got a modicum of awareness of the hopelessness of your own "arguments"

[mongrel]

Reee mongrel:

That's what this is about really.

No effort to look at who made the decision and why and when prodded to provide evidence pulls out some obscure feminist tract that no-one could possible have any interest in outside some long forgotten library shelf 12 years ago. ( If pulled from waybackmachine, where was the source that brught this to your attention? Yes, I'm a details man.) You are suggesting that society is influenced only by these eleeeetist feminist academics. What about the Murdoch press? The HR profession. Management schools? Women themselves, do they need to be told by some feminist academic that they should be treated with respect? Why do they need their permission. Pretending that the UK is in the grip of a lefty eleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeet when the populace has voted for a disaster of a Tory government three times in a row (and voted for Brexit) is just laughable.

[Cope]

That's what this is about really.

No effort to look at who made the decision and why and when prodded to provide evidence pulls out some obscure feminist tract that no-one could possible have any interest in outside some long forgotten library shelf 12 years ago. ( If pulled from waybackmachine, where was the source that brught this to your attention? Yes, I'm a details man.)

You didn't actually read the rationale or the sources provided by the CAP/ASA did you? Since you seem convinced that no one would have any interest in "some obscure feminist tract...pulled from [the] 'waybackmachine'" I suggest you study the citations provided by the report. I'm sure you'll find the reading list riveting since you are, as you say, "a details man".

These are some of the sources included: The Sociology of Gender: An Introduction to Theory and Research (Oxford, Blackwells Publishers,2005). "Gender Identification Moderate Stereotype Threat Effects on Womens Math Performance‘, Journal or Experimental Psychology, Issue 38 (2002); Delusions of Gender (New York, W. W. Norton, 2010) and; Gender Identification Moderate Stereotype Threat Effects on Womens Math Performance‘, Journal or Experimental Psychology, Issue 38 (2002).

Now we could have a discussion about the ways in which many of the conclusions drawn by the CAP/ASA relating to gender politics are clearly predicated on progressive axioms and we could also discuss the source material in depth. For instance, at least one of the sources was noted by a writer belonging to the the British Psychological Society as being motivated by a "barely veiled agenda" which suffered from its "mistaken blurring of science with politics". However, before any such discussion can occur, you'll first have to concede that the regulator's findings and rulings were/are in fact influenced by academia and that the ASA/CAP didn't simply invent the sociological theories relating to gender roles. I won't be holding my breath for you to do so.

You are suggesting that society is influenced only by these eleeeetist feminist academics. What about the Murdoch press? The HR profession. Management schools? Women themselves, do they need to be told by some feminist academic that they should be treated with respect? Why do they need their permission. Pretending that the UK is in the grip of a lefty eleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeet when the populace has voted for a disaster of a Tory government three times in a row (and voted for Brexit) is just laughable.

You're lying. At no point did I argue, despite your repetitive childish screeching, that society was influenced exclusively by feminist academics; such a claim is your own phantom. That said I like how you shot yourself in the foot by raising Brexit - an phenomenon which clearly exposed the differences between large swathes of the political/academic class and the electorate - as evidence that English institutions represent the views of the country at large proportionately.

[mongrel]

Reeeeeeeeeeeeeeee Gender studies

Any reason why you omitted most of the input which informed the review of the rules. That being:

- Current legislation and Government policy on human rights, equality and communications
- Advertising industry management initiatives
- Comparison with international standards
- Consultation with industry and the public
- Public opinion research ( this is what the public said 'Gender roles and characteristics portrayed in advertising were generally perceived to be dated and not reflective of modern society. Portrayals did not always reflect real-life experiences or lacked diversity and because of this were perceived to potentially limit future aspirations. Women and teen girls, in particular, expressed concern at the potential future impact of advertising in terms of perpetuating stereotypical messages over time.'


Now, why the omission? As the details man mentioned, the rules were influenced by multiple sources, particularly from industry and importantly, the view of women themselves. yet you persist that the only influence is related to gender-related studies. I sense a lack of empathy for women here. You must regret that your male genocide friend isn't here to be your wingman.

Looking at the consultation the questions asked were these:

Do you agree with CAP & BCAP’s proposal to introduce a new rule and supporting
guidance into the Advertising Codes? Please include relevant evidence to support your view, whether you agree or disagree with the proposals.
2. Do you agree with the wording of the proposed new CAP and BCAP rules? If not please include suggestions for how the proposed rules could be improved to achieve the aims set out in this consultation.
3. Do you consider the draft guidance to be clear and practicable? If not please include suggestions for how it could be improved to achieve the aims set out in this consultation.

If the answer to any of the three questions was 'bollocks' then the policy would be barely viable.

Here's the responses.

https://www.asa.org.uk/resource/resp...ereotypes.html

I'm going to quote from the response from the IPA, the advertising industry's body

The IPA fully appreciates that gender stereotyping – by which we mean a widely held but fixed and oversimplified image or idea of a particular type of person that can be negative -is an important societal issue and needs to be addressed. However, even with an issue of this sensitivity, it is important to find a balance between the rights of people not to be subjected to offensive stereotypical depictions and the rights of businesses to advertise their products and services. To the extent that they feature in advertising, gender
stereotypes are typically used as scene-setting shortcuts – for example, a mother cooking a meal for her children. Such portrayals are unlikely to be damaging or otherwise detrimental to society.The executive summary to the consultation explains that CAP and BCAP consider that the ASA report “Depictions, Perceptions and Harm” makes an evidence-based case for regulatory change. It notes that the ASA already applies CAP and BCAP rules on offence and social irresponsibility to ban ads that include gender stereotypes on various grounds and that although advertising is not the only influence that can reinforce gender stereotypes, it does play a role. Hence, CAP/BCAP’s recommendation is for a new rule and guidance intended as a “proportionate” response to the potential harm that can arise through the depiction of gender stereotypes in advertising.

Reading the consultation response, it would seem that industry and the general public didn't object to the rules that much, if at all.


So why omit this wealth of detail and insist that eleeeeete academics are more or less entirely responsible for a change which was welcomed, with minor qualifications, by industry and the public. Coz it's not about 'free speech, it about the forum's singular free dumb of speeech sceptic, Mongrel.

Now that it is established beyond doubt that multiple sources informed the rule change (experience suggests to me that the consultation was the key element) you are free to drop this obsession of yours.
-

[Cope]

Any reason why you omitted most of the input which informed the review of the rules. That being:

- Current legislation and Government policy on human rights, equality and communications
- Advertising industry management initiatives
- Comparison with international standards
- Consultation with industry and the public
- Public opinion research ( this is what the public said 'Gender roles and characteristics portrayed in advertising were generally perceived to be dated and not reflective of modern society. Portrayals did not always reflect real-life experiences or lacked diversity and because of this were perceived to potentially limit future aspirations. Women and teen girls, in particular, expressed concern at the potential future impact of advertising in terms of perpetuating stereotypical messages over time.'

Now, why the omission? As the details man mentioned, the rules were influenced by multiple sources, particularly from industry and importantly, the view of women themselves. yet you persist that the only influence is related to gender-related studies. I sense a lack of empathy for women here.

1. I can't have "omitted" information which was plainly included in a source that I provided. Your assertion otherwise - which was already nonsensical - was made utterly farcical when you cited back to me the very material which you claimed I'd omitted in the very sentence that you claimed I'd omitted it. I suppose I could congratulate you on having a sense of humour, but I get the impression that your comedy is very much unintentional.

2. The claim that I had ever suggested that academia was the only influencing factor over the regulator's findings/rulings is not only an abject lie, but a lie which has been rebuked on multiple occasions. Almost all of your above "criticisms" (which are actually just attempts to deflect) are predicated on that lie.

3. The reason that academia was the focus of the discussion is because of your continuous - and frankly risible - insistence that it was unrelated to the regulator's rationale. You've spent the last two pages whining about the irrelevance of scholarship to the research process, going so far as to make the ludicrous (and patently contradictory) arguments that not only could the regulators not have been influenced by recent studies because they went to university in the 80's but that they also wouldn't have been interested in "long forgotten" material which predates 2008.

4. Now that you've been exposed for lying about the relevance of academia to the regulator's findings, you're making a transparent attempt to shift the goal posts by posts by fallaciously claiming that I'd argued that academia was the "only influence" whilst simultaneously pretending that you'd accepted that academia was an influential factor previously. On the plus side, you have in fact finally conceded (albeit tacitly) that academia is in fact an influential institutional force.

So why omit this wealth of detail and insist that eleeeeete academics are more or less entirely responsible for a change which was welcomed, with minor qualifications, by industry and the public. Coz it's not about 'free speech, it about the forum's singular free dumb of speeech sceptic, Mongrel.

More banal prattling. No one cares about your irrelevant infatuation with the "culture wars" or your asinine wailing about speech legislation. You aren't a teenager, this isn't 2013 and we aren't debating the 1A.

Now that it is established beyond doubt that multiple sources informed the rule change (experience suggests to me that the consultation was the key element) you are free to drop this obsession of yours.

I love how you constantly preempt your own projections by accident; here you accuse me (fallaciously of course) of "obsessing", but then...

You must regret that your male genocide friend isn't here to be your wingman.

you immediately refer to your own obsession with genocide.

[mongrel]

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

I had provided the primary source material, or have you forgotten? I told you that that the ASA etc would refer to industry and the general public as a benchmark ( in the UK virtually all policy change is subject to public consultation) . You said and I quote:

The rationale they're using is predicated on progressive interpretations of gender stereotyping which have been developed at higher learning institutions.

It wasn't. The CAP initiated the review. They built on existing codes, they compared UK codes with those abroad, they consulted a wide range of interested parties. They, not academics, developed their own findings which were made available for public scrutiny and comment.

Who had the say in the consultation? Industry, bodies with an interest in the welfare of those affected by stereotypic and joe public. But all you can say is reeeee ellleeet feminazis we must discuss gender studies.

Why not discuss HR practice, why not industry standards, why not the opinions of ordinary men and women, you saying their views don't count? No, the only reason is for trolling purposes, whereas I have stated the obvious, the decision, wasn't extraordinary, wasn't influenced by imaginary feminists but rather by rules written by an independent body sourced from not only the public, and a handful of relevant academics, but also scores of people who actually know what the hell they are doing.

In any event, I've demonstrated that there are not any freeedom of speeech issues, it's a routine decision affecting one advertiser which wasn't smart enough to to string a narrative together.

Basil is gone, so you need not be concerned by people tearing his cult to pieces.

[Heathen Hammer]

I'm still quite amused by the irony of self-proclaimed leftist defenders of working class and their desperate battle to defend the good name of authoritarian pedo elites in the Western countries.

[PointOfViewGun]

I'm still quite amused by the irony of self-proclaimed leftist defenders of working class and their desperate battle to defend the good name of authoritarian pedo elites in the Western countries.

Who defended who in what post? Give two names and one quote.

[Cope]

I had provided the primary source material, or have you forgotten. I told you that that the ASA etc would refer to industry and the general public as a benchmark ( in the UK virtually all policy change is subject to public consultation).

You said and I quote

It wasn't. The CAP initiated the review. They built on existing codes, they compared UK codes with those abroad, they consulted a wide range of interested parties. Their findings were made available for public scrutiny and comment.

Who had the say in the consultation? Industry, bodies with an interest in the welfare of those affected by stereotypic and joe public. But all you can say is reeeee ellleeet feminazis we must discuss gender studies.

Why not discuss HR practice, why not industry standards, why not the opinions of ordinary men and women, you saying their views don't count? No, the only reason is for trolling purposes, to pretend that there was a conversation about some culture war, wheeas I have stated the obvious, the decision, wasn't extraordinary, wasn't influenced by imaginary feminists but rather by rules written by an independent body sourced from not only the public, and a handful of relevant academics, but also scores of people who actually know what the hell they are doing.

Basil is gone, so you need not be concerned by people tearing his cult to pieces.

For a self-proclaimed "details man" you sure are uniquely incapable of addressing any of the arguments made against you. At this point, you've become so afraid of confronting my comments that you've been forced into childishly vandalizing my remarks in a vapid attempt to cover up the extent of your misrepresentations. All you're doing (and have been doing for some time) is ignoring the content of the argument and mindlessly restating your position against a backdrop of poorly constructed straw man arguments.

Nothing you say here disproves the notion that "the rationale they're using is predicated on progressive interpretations of gender stereotyping which have been developed at higher learning institutions". Your problem, as I've previously mentioned, is that you're evidently incapable of comprehending anything outside of highly limited context of the the alt-right/SJW dichotomy.