Free Speech in the UK

[Aexodus]

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

[Alwyn]

I haven't asked them. I would be very surprised if they thought that the State should punish people for doing so. They believe in free expression and freedom of belief, they don't want to impose their views on anyone else - and this assumes that they see images of Mohammed as morally wrong, which might not be the case.

You may think they're unrepresentative. Of course, there will be Musiims who disagree. However, there's evidence that a new generation of Muslims in Britain have more liberal attitudes. A survey found that 72% of Muslims in Britain reject the idea that "Western liberal society is incompatible with Islam" and 93% agreed that "Muslims in Britain should always obey British laws" - and I imagine that British laws wouldn't allow punishing someone for drawing Mohammed.

As I understand it, Muslims vary in their beliefs on this. Many Muslims are against images of Mohammed because they see it as leading to idolatory (this reminds me of reading about Puritans taking religious art out of churches during the English Civil War because they saw it as idolatrous). However, such images are said to be permissible in the views of some Shia Muslims, as you can see here, where it says:

In certain reference works and books about Islam, we may come across the claim that even if the Prophet Muhammad was represented in pictorial form in earlier times, no pictorial representation of Him is permitted in our times. This reflects the state in Sunni areas, where images of the Prophet are rare. In Shia Islam, however, the situation is different, and pictures of the Prophet are quite common.

[Mithradates]

three males doing exciting stuff and the only woman doing nothing much in particular that breached the guidelines. Rookie error in today's world , but meh it's just an advert,

???? So raising a child isnt exciting? Its "nothing"?! Oh my gosh... TRIGGERED!!!!

"Rookie error"
Was it? Yeah, aha, why am I not surprised...

[mongrel]

The Conservative Party has done nothing to oppose the ASA's laughable expression policing as they have done virtually nothing to condemn any of social justice activism which has spread across the Atlantic from American universities.

That's because they can't be asked to nurse those snowflakes upset by ASA rulings.

???? So raising a child isnt exciting? Its "nothing"?! Oh my gosh... TRIGGERED!!!!

I don't know how you raise children, I never did so sat on a bench all bloody day.

"Rookie error"
Was it? Yeah, aha, why am I not surprised...

All they had to do was copy and paste one of those 'active' ladies from those feminine hygeine ads, Sorted, no snowflakes or edgelords whinging about a poorly constructed ad.

I recomnend that you light a cigar whilst playing this.




@ Alwyn

It is sad that one is still answering to such drivel in 2019. Writing walls of Islamophobic guff was seen as bonkers in 2011, when Breivik tried to justify his murder spree. Most racists have since moved on to talk about non-white in general rather than role play Fjordman

[Cope]

That's because they can't be asked to nurse those snowflakes upset by ASA rulings.

Ergo proving that the existence of a Conservative government hasn't prevented English institutions like the ASA from capitulating to social justice activism. Congratulations on making my point for me. Might I also add that anyone who finds the sight of a mother and pram distressing is in no position to accuse others of being a "snowflake".

[mongrel]

Ergo proving that the existence of a Conservative government hasn't prevented English institutions like the ASA from capitulating to social justice activism. Congratulations on making my point for me. Might I also add that anyone who finds the sight of a mother and pram distressing is in no position to accuse others of being a "snowflake".

Bollocks, they are just letting the body get on with their job. They have better things to be bothered about.

The ASA are not going to please everybody including you. I'm not going to get Kylie Minogue dancing naked in a Fairy Liquid ad. Not cut up about it at all.

It's just a bleeding advert. Unless you are part of the team that drew up the failed 30 seconds of footage I don't know what the beef is. It's like Mary Whitehouse all over again.

[Cope]

Bollocks, they are just letting the body get on with their job. They have better things to be bothered about.

Ergo proving that the existence of a Conservative government hasn't prevented English institutions like the ASA from capitulating to social justice activsm. Congratulations on proving my point for me...again.

The ASA are not going to please everybody including you. I'm not going to get Kylie Minogue dancing naked in a Fairy Liquid ad. Not cut up about it at all.

Bizarre.

It's just a bleeding advert. Unless you are part of the team that drew up the failed 30 seconds of footage I don't know what the beef is. It's like Mary Whitehouse all over again.

It's not about the "bleeding advert"; its about the way in which the ASA's decision reflects the extent to which English society has been poisoned by American progressive activism. You'd have to be a gaslighting victim to believe that an advertisement which shows a mother with a pram is "sexist".

[mongrel]

Ergo proving that the existence of a Conservative government hasn't prevented English institutions like the ASA from capitulating to social justice activsm. Congratulations on proving my point for me...again.

Why would they? It is not a political issue, it won't affect the economy nor the defence of the realm. It has nothing to do with Brexit. Some may weep, but nursing snowflakes in not a Tory manifesto committment.

Bizarre.

Maybe, but I'm not going to spam internet forums in the hope that the Government will intervene and grant me what I want. I'm level headed like that.

It's not about the "bleeding advert"; its about the way in which the ASA's decision reflects the extent to which English society has been poisoned by American progressive activism. You'd have to be a gaslighting victim to believe that an advertisement which shows a mother with a pram is "sexist".

It is more than just the pram, although that said it took me a couple of goes to get it, maybe I'm old and used to 1960s 1970s stuff. Tastes change. Not being a complete dinosaur, I can live with that.

I doubt English society is affected by this. It is more likely that some Amerikan or Russian would use this example to wind up incels or similar, who have barely left their prams.

[Cope]

Why would they? It is not a political issue, it won't affect the economy nor the defence of the realm. It has nothing to do with Brexit. Some may weep, but nursing snowflakes in not a Tory manifesto committment.

You're the one who raised the existence of a Conservative government as evidence that the English elite haven't become subservient to progressive activism; now you're repeatedly agreeing with me that said Conservative government has done nothing to prevent said activism. Yet again I congratulate you for proving my point.

Maybe, but I'm not going to spam internet forums in the hope that the Government will intervene and grant me what I want. I'm level headed like that.

I can't say that defending people who're traumatized by witnessing a mother and a pram strikes me as being particularly "level headed".

It is more than just the pram, although that said it took me a couple of goes to get it, maybe I'm old and used to 1960s 1970s stuff. Tastes change. Not being a complete dinosaur, I can live with that.

I doubt English society is affected by this. It is more likely that some Amerikan or Russian would use this example to wind up incels or similar, who have barely left their prams.

You're right that English society will not be affected by this particular decision; what it will (and is) affected by is the rationale which lead to this decision being made.

[Cope]

I haven't asked them. I would be very surprised if they thought that the State should punish people for doing so. They believe in free expression and freedom of belief, they don't want to impose their views on anyone else - and this assumes that they see images of Mohammed as morally wrong, which might not be the case.

You may think they're unrepresentative. Of course, there will be Musiims who disagree. However, there's evidence that a new generation of Muslims in Britain have more liberal attitudes. A survey found that 72% of Muslims in Britain reject the idea that "Western liberal society is incompatible with Islam" and 93% agreed that "Muslims in Britain should always obey British laws" - and I imagine that British laws wouldn't allow punishing someone for drawing Mohammed.

As I understand it, Muslims vary in their beliefs on this. Many Muslims are against images of Mohammed because they see it as leading to idolatory (this reminds me of reading about Puritans taking religious art out of churches during the English Civil War because they saw it as idolatrous). However, such images are said to be permissible in the views of some Shia Muslims, as you can see here, where it says:

From the study that your source referenced:

"Asked in 2010 about Sharia courts being introduced in Britain, one in six (17%) preferred to “Introduce Sharia law, that is traditional Islamic law, in all cases”, 19% to “Introduce Sharia law, but only if penalties do not contravene British law” and 20% chose “Do not introduce Sharia law”, but the biggest group were the 37% who said they didn’t know. An ICM poll for Channel 4 in 2015 found that 23% of Muslims would support there being areas of Britain where Sharia law is introduced instead of British law while 43% would oppose it; in this case 10% answered “don’t know” and 24% that they would neither support nor oppose it."

"Approaching half (45%) of Muslim men and a third (33%) of Muslim women agree that “Wives should always obey theirhusbands”. Agreement levels are much lower among the general public as a whole, indicating that a significant number ofMuslims have more traditional views on gender roles. Also, 38% of Muslim men and 23% of Muslim women say that it isacceptable for a British Muslim to keep more than one wife. These beliefs are most prevalent among the oldest groupsand among Muslims not born in Britain, but are nevertheless also widespread among young and British-born Muslims".

"A majority of Muslims disagree that homosexuality should be legal in Britain: 38% strongly disagree and 14% tend todisagree, whereas only 8% strongly agree and 10% tend to agree...Young Muslimsare significantly more likely to agree that homosexuality should be legal (28% of 18-24 year olds, 23% of 25-34 year olds),but even in these age groups there was a clear plurality against".

[mongrel]

You're the one who raised the existence of a Conservative government as evidence that the English elite haven't become subservient to progressive activism; now you're repeatedly agreeing with me that said Conservative government has done nothing to prevent said activism. Yet again I congratulate you for proving my point.

I don't do childish language such as 'English elite'. Such terms are for UKIP supporters. Anyway the commonly used term is 's'.

The ASA is not an political activist group. Its a dull collection of civil servants checking ads against a checklist. They don't even write the rules, which are written by teh Committees of Advertising Practice . The Committee members are drawn from the the television, cinema and advertising industries, that is professionals who know what they are doing, not politicians.

I can't say that defending people who're traumatized by witnessing a mother and a pram strikes me as being particularly "level headed".

Lies. I can't have defended anyone, because no-one has provided a scintilla of evidence that anyone was traumatised from watching the ad. It's more likely that a committee of people saw the add and suggested something needed tweaking.

You're right that English society will not be affected by this particular decision;

what it will (and is) affected by is the rationale which lead to this decision being made.

That rationale being written by professionals from the television, cinema and advertising industries, would you rather it be written by internetz edgelords. Nazi saluting dogs selling beauty products?

[Cope]

I don't do childish language such as 'English elite'. Such terms are for UKIP supporters.

You must be the first person on the left I've met who thinks that the elite are fictional. In the old days we had the aristocracy and the Church; these days we have international financiers, activist academics and corporate media.

The ASA is not an political activist group. Its a dull collection of civil servants checking ads against a checklist. They don't even write the rules, which are written by teh Committees of Advertising Practice . The Committee members are drawn from the the television, cinema and advertising industries, that is professionals who know what they are doing, not politicians.

Any organization which treats bland depictions of motherhood as "harmful stereotypes" is either activist or cowering in the face of activism. I happen to agree with you that the ASA is "a dull collection of" bureaucrats (I don't think that they're civil servants), but that hasn't prevented them from swallowing and regurgitating the nonsense politics of progressive zealots.

Lies. I can't have defended anyone, because no-one has provided a scintilla of evidence that anyone was traumatised from watching the ad. It's more likely that a committee of people saw the add and suggested something needed tweaking.

You're defending the ASA's decision - for what reason I don't know, but that's what you're doing.

That rationale being written by professionals from the television, cinema and advertising industries, would you rather it be written by internetz edgelords. Nazi saluting dogs selling beauty products?

I'd rather it was written by people who aren't subservient to the ideology of progressive activists; that doesn't mean I want it written by teenage "edgelords". There's a space in between the extremes where we neither panic over mums with prams or spam provocative jokes. That space is called common sense.

[mongrel]

You must be the first person on the left I've met who thinks that the elite are fictional. In the old days we had the aristocracy and the Church; these days we have international financiers, activist academics and corporate media.

The elite don't sit on the Commitees of Advertising Practice. They have better things to do, like running the country or making piles of money from their offshore tax haven.

YAny organization which treats bland depictions of motherhood as "harmful stereotypes" is either activist or cowering in the face of activism. I happen to agree with you that the ASA is "a dull collection of" bureaucrats (I don't think that they're civil servants), but that hasn't prevented them from swallowing and regurgitating the nonsense politics of progressive zealots.

The ASA are paid to follow the rules. Those rules are written by professional advertising and media executives. If the latter were lefty progressive zealots they would not be working in the advertising industry, would they?

You're defending the ASA's decision - for what reason I don't know, but that's what you're doing.

I have not defended anything not even Mafeking or Thermopylae, if you going to expand on the things I'm supposed to defend. I simply have no view on the decision. I'm pointing out who made the decision as there seems to be a determined effort to mislead the forum in that regard. It's just another job rubber stamped by pen pushers.

I'd rather it was written by people who aren't subservient to the ideology of progressive activists; that doesn't mean I want it written by teenage "edgelords". There's a space in between the extremes where we neither panic over mums with prams or spam provocative jokes. That space is called common sense.

The rules were wriiten by people in private industry, how the hell did you deduce that these people are 'activists'? They are most likely men in suits who have day jobs. No-one was harmed by the decision other than edgelords and reeeeeedom of speeeeeech zealots.

[Cope]

The elite don't sit on the Commitees of Advertising Practice. They have better things to do, like running the country or making piles of money from their offshore tax haven.

I've already acknowledged that the ASA is probably staffed by a "dull collection" of bureaucrats: that doesn't mean that the standards they adhere to aren't heavily influenced by the sort of social justice activism which is prevalent in elite circles in academia, politics and the press. Their decision is merely a regurgitation of the aforementioned social justice activism.

The ASA are paid to follow the rules. Those rules are written by professional advertising and media executives. If the latter were lefty progressive zealots they would not be working in the advertising industry, would they?

I'm not arguing that the ASA or their affiliates are unwashed hipsters who show up to Antifa rallies on weekends.

I have not defended anything not even Mafeking or Thermopylae, if you going to expand on the things I'm supposed to defend. I simply have no view on the decision. I'm pointing out who made the decision as there seems to be a determined effort to mislead the forum in that regard. It's just another job rubber stamped by pen pushers.

I've already acknowledged that the ASA is probably staffed by a "dull collection" of bureaucrats: that doesn't mean that the standards they adhere to aren't heavily influenced by the sort of social justice activism which is prevalent in elite circles in academia, politics and the press. Their decision is merely a regurgitation of the aforementioned social justice activism.

The rules were wriiten by people in private industry, how the hell did you deduce that these people are 'activists'? They are most likely men in suits who have day jobs. No-one was harmed by the decision other than edgelords and reeeeeedom of speeeeeech zealots.

I've already acknowledged that the ASA is probably staffed by a "dull collection" of bureaucrats: that doesn't mean that the standards they adhere to aren't heavily influenced by the sort of social justice activism which is prevalent in elite circles in academia, politics and the press. Their decision is merely a regurgitation of the aforementioned social justice activism.

[mongrel]

I've already acknowledged that the ASA is probably staffed by a "dull collection" of bureaucrats: that doesn't mean that the standards they adhere to aren't heavily influenced by the sort of social justice activism which is prevalent in elite circles in academia, politics and the press. Their decision is merely a regurgitation of the aforementioned social justice activism.

Then you have not read my post properly. Their rules were written by the Commitees of Advertising Practice, people who work in the advertising industry. Got nothing to do with 'academia and politics', indeed the body is independent of government. Linked to the press only to the extent of its advertisement expertise. I have provided the facts, please stop boring the forum with this obsession with the so-called elite.

I'm not arguing that the ASA or their affiliates are unwashed hipsters who show up to Antifa rallies on weekends..

They aren't anything else either. They are people paid to evaluate ads based on published criteria.

I've already acknowledged that the ASA is probably staffed by a "dull collection" of bureaucrats: that doesn't mean that the standards they adhere to aren't heavily influenced by the sort of social justice activism which is prevalent in elite circles in academia, politics and the press. Their decision is merely a regurgitation of the aforementioned social justice activism..

You have not presented a shred of evidence for that ludicrous assumption. Did I not say that they do not write the rules, professional advertising executives did, Utter bollocks.

I've already acknowledged that the ASA is probably staffed by a "dull collection" of bureaucrats: that doesn't mean that the standards they adhere to aren't heavily influenced by the sort of social justice activism which is prevalent in elite circles in academia, politics and the press. Their decision is merely a regurgitation of the aforementioned social justice activism.

As above, utter bollocks.


I've mentioned who complained about the video or who was harmed by it's failure to get approved. You have come up with nothing except vague (and as you well know) irrelevant reference to 'social justice activism' a phrase that is the hallmark of a pisspoor post.


You see those miserable people who used to play rock records backwards, claim that they made satanic noises and called for all rock records to be banned. They were a bit like you.

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

Are the Catholics you know happy with Ulster and Scottish Protestants singing the Famine Song?

[Cope]

Then you have not read my post properly. Their rules were written by the Commitees of Advertising Practice, people who work in the advertising industry. Got nothing to do with 'academia and politics', indeed the body is independent of government. Linked to the press only to the extent of its advertisement expertise. I have provided the facts, please stop boring the forum with this obsession with the so-called elite.

They aren't anything else either. They are people paid to evaluate ads based on published criteria.

You have not presented a shred of evidence for that ludicrous assumption. Did I not say that they do not write the rules, professional advertising executives did, Utter bollocks.

As above, utter bollocks.

I've mentioned who complained about the video or who was harmed by it's failure to get approved. You have come up with nothing except vague (and as you well know) irrelevant reference to 'social justice activism' a phrase that is the hallmark of a pisspoor post.

It's laughable that you aren't capable of recognizing the link between the progenitors of ethical standards and the application of said standards in wider society. The advertising industry doesn't "invent" the moral standards upon which its regulations are predicated: the latter is merely an expression of the former. You can scream and shot "utter bollocks" till the cows come home, but either you believe that the CAP developed the theory of gender stereotyping independently or you acknowledge the reality that its regulations are merely a regurgitation of the gender philosophies which have emanated out of progressive academia over the past two decades.

You see those miserable people who used to play rock records backwards, claim that they made satanic noises and called for all rock records to be banned. They were a bit like you.

I find it amusing that you're once again accusing me of wanting things to be "banned" in a thread where I'm explicitly opposing things - namely bland depictions of motherhood - being banned.

[Aexodus]

I’m honestly curious at who pushed for the new advertising laws. I’ll look up who sponsored the parliamentary bills in an hour or two if someone else hasn’t already.

[Cope]

I’m honestly curious at who pushed for the new advertising laws. I’ll look up who sponsored the parliamentary bills in an hour or two if someone else hasn’t already.

So far as I'm aware these new regulations were not a consequence of specific legislation. If you read the "guidance" which supports the Broadcasting Code regulation 4.14 concerning gender stereotypes, it becomes rapidly apparent that it's just a regurgitation of sort of the social justice activism which has been spilling out of universities for years; all the hallmarks of progressive moral fussing are there.

[mongrel]

It's laughable that you aren't capable of recognizing the link between the progenitors of ethical standards and the application of said standards in wider society. The advertising industry doesn't "invent" the moral standards upon which its regulations are predicated: the latter is merely an expression of the former. You can scream and shot "utter bollocks" till the cows come home, but either you believe that the CAP developed the theory of gender stereotyping independently or you acknowledge the reality that its regulations are merely a regurgitation of the gender philosophies which have emanated out of progressive academia over the past two decades.

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 find it amusing that you're once again accusing me of wanting things to be "banned" in a thread where I'm explicitly opposing things - namely bland depictions of motherhood - being banned.

It wasn't the depiction of motherhood that got it banned, after all, how does Mothercare advertise its goods? It was the way the advert was crafted as a whole.As I said it could easily have been fixed by adding one of those hyperactive ladies from a sanitary product ad.

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.

I’m honestly curious at who pushed for the new advertising laws. I’ll look up who sponsored the parliamentary bills in an hour or two if someone else hasn’t already.

Tories like light regulation and for industry to police its own wherever possible. That is the case here. You'd rather some Minister decide?

So far as I'm aware these new regulations were not a consequence of specific legislation. If you read the "guidance" which supports the Broadcasting Code regulation 4.14 concerning gender stereotypes, it becomes rapidly apparent that it's just a regurgitation of sort of the social justice activism which has been spilling out of universities for years; all the hallmarks of progressive moral fussing are there.

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.

[Aexodus]

So far as I'm aware these new regulations were not a consequence of specific legislation. If you read the "guidance" which supports the Broadcasting Code regulation 4.14 concerning gender stereotypes, it becomes rapidly apparent that it's just a regurgitation of sort of the social justice activism which has been spilling out of universities for years; all the hallmarks of progressive moral fussing are there.

I’ve no doubt that ads like this, or the below would be banned. What a bunch of emotionally undeveloped weaklings. You’re right to point out this stuff is coming from America, specifically activist filled American Universities given that first example with Mr T is from America in 2013.