Exhibit A: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=US0lfBSXs2E
Exhibit B: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EMC0n-dK0rE
Exhibit B: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EMC0n-dK0rE
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
Roy Castle Foundation adverts: Tasteless or Hard hitting
- Thread starter Bozza
- Start date
Normal Rob
Well-known member
hard hitting - but I think that the lady lighting her next fag from the flames of her babys burning pram is a bit OTT.
Franks Wild Years
New member
I f***ing hate seeing people in their cars, with their kids in the back, puffing away on fags. (The adults that is )
ARE YOU f***ing STUPID ?
So good adverts IMO
ARE YOU f***ing STUPID ?
So good adverts IMO
magoo
New member
lol they're like comedy sketches you'd see off Little Britain or Catherin Tate. Hard hitting, no. Funny, yes!
Meade's Ball
Well-known member
I can't imagine an advert of this nature being OTT. Getting a message across, and making me smile and hungry too. Perfect.
People remember joviality best.
The only way i have given up smoking is by injury and forgetting who i am, including my addictions. I wouldn't recommend that, if there's any Meade_Ball braindead wannabes out there.
People remember joviality best.
The only way i have given up smoking is by injury and forgetting who i am, including my addictions. I wouldn't recommend that, if there's any Meade_Ball braindead wannabes out there.
magoo
New member
How many people have ever given up smoking because they saw a shocking advert?
Seeing your own chest x-ray, dark patches included makes you think twice.
Seeing your own chest x-ray, dark patches included makes you think twice.
Man of Harveys
Well-known member
It's OK but...most smokers don't actually set babies on fire, so if they want to show something shocking, why not just show the reality i.e. diseased lungs and premature funerals, rather than make some clever analogy? I thought those ads with people dying were a better idea.
Last edited:
Uncle Spielberg
Well-known member
Complete and utter bollocks, pathetic , tasteless and would not get anyone to give up. Basically the mother lighting her 2nd fag is akin to someone who deliberately set alight to her baby and watched without giving a shit whilst it is dying and being burned alive.
Hey, I know, lets round up all the smokers and stone them until death or stop of they promise to give up.
The WHOLE worlds problems are down to smokers aren't they , global warming , Iraq, Afghanistan, blame the smokers
Where's the adverts of mums feeding their children to death with junk food, likely to cause 100 fold more premature deaths in the future than so called passive smoking is ever likely to do.
This anti smoking thing is totally out of hand now , look just ban the feckign things, if the gov'n think they are that bad , they have a duty to ban them, hang on they would miss billions of pounds of tax revenues, think again,
Labour hypocritical scum
Hey, I know, lets round up all the smokers and stone them until death or stop of they promise to give up.
The WHOLE worlds problems are down to smokers aren't they , global warming , Iraq, Afghanistan, blame the smokers
Where's the adverts of mums feeding their children to death with junk food, likely to cause 100 fold more premature deaths in the future than so called passive smoking is ever likely to do.
This anti smoking thing is totally out of hand now , look just ban the feckign things, if the gov'n think they are that bad , they have a duty to ban them, hang on they would miss billions of pounds of tax revenues, think again,
Labour hypocritical scum
Uncle Buck
Ghost Writer
- Jul 7, 2003
- 28,075
Uncle Spielberg said:
and of course if the Tories or any other party got into power they would ban caggies and give up that tax revenue. Governments have been running anti smoking ads for as long as I can remember, but they all happlily take the tax.
Skint Gull
New member
For me the drink drive advert where the girl in the pub gets run over is about as hard hitting as adverts should get. It's got a good message but these 2 are tasteless imo. 
Uncle Spielberg
Well-known member
is the correct answer, I just find this campaign against smokers tiresome and frankly ludicrous now Piers
Uncle Buck
Ghost Writer
- Jul 7, 2003
- 28,075
Uncle Spielberg said:
As a non smoker I can see why they are doing them and I think if the was no proactive campaign to deter people from smoking there would be more outcry.
Uncle Spielberg
Well-known member
Piers, they are banging on about passive smoking and invented so figure about 80 babies dying and what do they do ban smoking in pubs etc where people can get out and have a fag and a drink , now what will they do ?, smoke at home, much more passive smoking, resulting in more babies being burned alive by their mums in the cots,
look if something is legal why spend every day all day haranging and intimidating people who chose to do it.
If it is that bad ban the fecking things, you can;t have it both fecking ways
look if something is legal why spend every day all day haranging and intimidating people who chose to do it.
If it is that bad ban the fecking things, you can;t have it both fecking ways
Man of Harveys
Well-known member
...because, in between banning something and legalising something, you can get people to make an informed choice about it. Weird, I know. But true. Plus smokers with attendant diseases take vast amount from the exchequer in terms of NHS treatment.
Uncle Spielberg
Well-known member
This is not an informed choice and anyway they put in more than they take out, seeing an advert of a callous bitch lighting up a fag whilst he baby is burning alive says to me " we think all smokers are evil scumbags who are no better than child murders ", the whole thing has got totally out of hand now.
Uncle Spielberg
Well-known member
the main reason why Roy Castle got passive smoking is that he spent years in incredibly smoky northern night clubs whilst playing a trumpet and inhaling massive amount of air to do so, hardly the same as a woman having a fag in the open air with her kid a few feet away covered up in a cot, I think this has tarnised the Roy Castle charity, cheap, tacky and totally over the top imho
magoo
New member
Commander said:
lol that byline should be put on just about everybody's posts.
Shockingly I agree in part with GARTH!!! 
1) Smokers are not baby burners in general and certainly not that callous. Most are hopelessly addicted and many want to give up. I tried 3 times unsuccessfully only managing to give up at home when my wife got pregnant. Even then I have been known to have the odd mini cigar or 10 in the pub (though never at home, not callous y'see and don't want my baby exposed to smoke) and frankly I enjoy them.
2) If the government really thought that banning smoking in pubs would make people stop or cut down they would be absolutely shitting themselves trying to find a way to leverage yet another flat tax on the population to make up the shortfall. Ergo more smoking at home is inevitable as frankly even the most ardent labour voter has started to notice the stealth taxes.
However (here's where I do disagree with US) - the ads aren't actually BY the govt are they - they're by the Roy Castle foundation who, some would say, have a bit of an agenda. A fag smokin', drag tokin', baby killin' record breaker of an agenda in fact.
1) Smokers are not baby burners in general and certainly not that callous. Most are hopelessly addicted and many want to give up. I tried 3 times unsuccessfully only managing to give up at home when my wife got pregnant. Even then I have been known to have the odd mini cigar or 10 in the pub (though never at home, not callous y'see and don't want my baby exposed to smoke) and frankly I enjoy them.
2) If the government really thought that banning smoking in pubs would make people stop or cut down they would be absolutely shitting themselves trying to find a way to leverage yet another flat tax on the population to make up the shortfall. Ergo more smoking at home is inevitable as frankly even the most ardent labour voter has started to notice the stealth taxes.
However (here's where I do disagree with US) - the ads aren't actually BY the govt are they - they're by the Roy Castle foundation who, some would say, have a bit of an agenda. A fag smokin', drag tokin', baby killin' record breaker of an agenda in fact.