Reply With QuoteThought it was a post about our possible new midfielder, Tolgay Arslan. The good looking bastard.
| + Visit Cardiff FC for Latest News, Transfer Gossip, Fixtures and Match Results |
The Ratners of Bath bombs.
Dreadful campaign hope they go bankrupt
Thought it was a post about our possible new midfielder, Tolgay Arslan. The good looking bastard.
I suspect they'll do fine out of it, most of the gammon that are getting upset about it probably aren't their target marketOriginally Posted by Armitage Shanks
My 26 year old daughter used the brand regularly until this advertising campaign. She thinks its disgusting.
Much of the criticism seems to end on reminding people that if those who designed this campaign that if they needed the police the police would still be there. I'll admit to not knowing much about this but isn't that statement disingenuous? Lush seem to be questioning undercover police work, which can destroy innocent peoples lives (doesn't take more than a quick Google to find examples in UK news), rather than the police or the vast majority of police work.
The campaign relates to a small number of officers who were involved in infiltrating animal rights organisations and who against all rules and protocols began intimate relationships with some of the women involved. These incidents took place before many of the current police officers were even born, and certainly before they began their service. The offending officers were working under cover, so would not have used the police helmet or the incident tapes used in the advert - articles used by patrolling officers conducting the vast majority of police work. What the campaign has done, is tar the whole of the police for the immoral and illegal acts of one or two undercover officers.
On a daily basis, there are undercover officers currently infiltrating organised crime groups and terrorist groups, risking death or serious injury for no more money than an ordinary beat bobby is paid. These officers do this role to protect the wider community from terrorist attacks, kidnapping, robberies and contract killings. They do so without recourse to the malpractice of the one or two officers mentioned above. They carry the stress of being discovered all through the operations and usually end up having psychiatric monitoring for the remainder of their service.
Going back to the pictures used by Lush - as I said, it is the duty helmet of the patrolling officer and the incident scene tape that is being used to highlight the misdemeanors of the few. What will the public see? They'll see a campaign that implies the whole of the police are paid to lie.
Fair comment. I don't quite know enough to comment as deeply as you have on what Lush were trying to do but I completely agree that the campaign was, shall we be kind?, "Sloppy".
They didn't need to do it and if they were going to do it they should have been more careful to clearly focus on the small element of police work they wanted to question.
Lush attempt to gain market share by associating their brand with ethical causes, such virtue signalling works fine with a simple clear message like save the whale or something.
The aims of this campaign are no doubt well-intentioned but the message is a bit more complex and all the general public are going to perceive walking past their shop windows is Lush bashing the bobby on the beat.
I think they should have put their hands up and admitted they messed up but they appear to be entrenching themselves in their position. Maybe their corporate culture is so obsessed with what they perceive to be their moral superiority that no-one feels they can speak out. At the end of the day someone needs to remember they exist to flog bars of soap.
I thought this was going to a thread about ladies.
Or a certain message board drunk.
I find it disturbing how the police 'community' has sought to deliberately misrepresent the campaign, which is specifically on the issue of the shocking abuses of the spycops case, as a campaign against the police in general.
It begs the question, why didn't they just the name few officers they're referring to? Likelihood of a law suit perhaps?
Sadly, this "ethical" company has deleted hundreds of comments which are critical of them from their on line review page, stifling freedom of speech.
I refer you to earlier comments, outlining what the public perception is. If they want to bash the corrupt officers who broke all the rules and acted disgracefully, then put their pictures on the posters and name them.
It’s not though is it? The main campaign picture shows a patrol officer wearing a custodial helmet with the word lie emblazoned quite clearly.
That's not what freedom of speech is.
Why do people never actually know what freedom of speech means? I mean it’s an amazing thing we have, you’d think the people who keep going on about it would try and understand it.
I've deleted your comment.
But still haven’t learned what free speech means I see
My productive text keeps going w4ong, it's an infringent of my freedom of speak.
Try spoking proper England, youll be fined.
Posting Permissions