Man of Harveys
Well-known member
I still can't quite believe that all smokers BURN babies in their prams. That's terrible.
Roy Castle Foundation adverts: Tasteless or Hard hitting
- Thread starter Bozza
- Start date
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
Dave the OAP
Well-known member
Roy castle went to the same school as my mum
FACT
Just thought I would share that with you.
FACT
Just thought I would share that with you.
Uncle Spielberg
Well-known member
I think the part where she lights up the fag from the flames is absolutely fecking bang out of order, I think it has gone too far this time.
I want an advert of a 3 year old kiddies tummy splitting open with lots of blood and guts and loads of McDonalds coming out with the mum looking on and laughing whilst scoffing a Big Mac and large fries.
I want an advert of a 3 year old kiddies tummy splitting open with lots of blood and guts and loads of McDonalds coming out with the mum looking on and laughing whilst scoffing a Big Mac and large fries.
coventrygull
the right one
Hard hitting no. Bloody funny yes 
Meade's Ball
Well-known member
US, how, may i adultly ask, is an advert trying to dramatically show the ghastly damage that smoking does and the obvious lack of care and decency anyone, even someone as loving as a mother is generally seen to be, shows by smoking, feeding you this elaborate poison?
They simply show the cost of addiction, don't they Speilberg? They do not imply that all mothers watch their children burn without a glimmer of remorse on their face.
JEEEZ.
You are right about Macca D's. I too would like to see that.
They simply show the cost of addiction, don't they Speilberg? They do not imply that all mothers watch their children burn without a glimmer of remorse on their face.
JEEEZ.
You are right about Macca D's. I too would like to see that.
Man of Harveys
Well-known member
Unfortunately, no television presenter, not even Vanessa Feltz, has yet died due to the effects of passive eating, so those GHOULS waiting for the equivalent McDo ads will just have to wait.
Uncle Spielberg
Well-known member
They simply show the cost of addiction, don't they Speilberg? They do not imply that all mothers watch their children burn without a glimmer of remorse on their face.Meade's_Ball said:
Well actually it does doesn't it
Uncle Spielberg
Well-known member
Man of Harveys said:
Feeding young kids shit is akin to passive smoking it is exactly the same
Man of Harveys
Well-known member
Oh no...US, did you forget how to quote during your flounceaway? I just KNEW that that would happen. And after all that effort UB and I went to to teach you how to quote before...Uncle Spielberg said:
Man of Harveys
Well-known member
Well, "exactly" is pushing it a bit I'd say but I agree with where you're coming from.Uncle Spielberg said:
crosbysleftear
New member
Was it wrong to laugh?
I think the clips demonstrate that the babies have no choice whether their health is harmed by cigarettes. OK, so mothers don't set fire to prams but many do smoke whilst pregnant and when babies and young children are strapped in the back seats of cars, etc. So no, I don't think the advert is tasteless.
Meade's Ball
Well-known member
Commander said:
Very nearly have two things again:
1 - my voice.
2 - partial sense.
Not from work or known struggle and pained intent. Just is. Brain ties facts together and offers some sentences the necessary structure and delivery that says what i think all rather simply.
Makes me want to cry, in places. Not because i am an operatic tenor covering a couple of Lisa Stansfield songs, but because a year, 1 month and 9 days thus far without myself as company has been extremely sad and painful. It's like meeting a likable brother you thought had died in war. Yes he's scarred, but he has a story to tell.
Now i know the sense is not illustrated here, but it almost make sense to me.
Last edited:
Commander said:
Yes, smokers pay considerably more in tax than they cost the NHS. I worked in the Health Education Authority press office once upon a time and I came across the relevant stats - I think it's about four or five times as much (or at least it was in 1993) - this is a rare instance where something I did at work is useful on NSC.
I'm all for the ads: as someone who is asthmatic and who spent a good part of his childhood off sick, thanks in part to living in a house full of smokers, I don't think that ads can be too hard-hitting where children are concerned. Personally, I would make it an offence to smoke in an enclosed space (eg a car) when children are present - it's a truly terrible habit.
Meade's_Ball said:Very nearly have two things again:
1 - my voice.
2 - partial sense.
Not from work or known struggle and pained intent. Just is. Brain ties facts together and offers some sentences the necessary structure and delivery that says what i think all rather simply.
Makes me want to cry, in places. Not because i am an operatic tenor covering a couple of Lisa Stansfield songs, but because a year, 1 month and 9 days thus far without myself as company has been extremely sad and painful. It's like meeting a likable brother you thought had died in war. Yes he's scarred, but he has a story to tell.
Now i know the sense is not illustrated here, but it almost make sense to me.
Good to hear mate, keep fighting
glasfryn
cleaning up cat sick
great adverts and if it stops just one inconsiderate tosspot injuring or killing one of their children with smoking then its done its job.
feck I have seen here in wales (and no doubt it happens elsewhere) a mother with 3 children in the back of the car (no seatbelts for anyone),smoking, talking on a mobile heading towards a treacherous bend at somewhere nearing 70mph
and if that had been my mother when old enough I would have divorced her silly bitch
feck I have seen here in wales (and no doubt it happens elsewhere) a mother with 3 children in the back of the car (no seatbelts for anyone),smoking, talking on a mobile heading towards a treacherous bend at somewhere nearing 70mph
and if that had been my mother when old enough I would have divorced her silly bitch
chip
Well-known member
Uncle Spielberg said:
The National Institute for Clinical Excellence agrees with you. Obessity and its attendent complications (CVD, hypertension, type II diabetes, liver fat, etc.) is now seen as the most serious threat to the future health of the nation.
There is no evidence that passive smoking harms children (or adults). The first analysis of the WHO long-term study actually demonstrated a benefit and it was re-written. There have been no validated epidemiological studies and recent papers in the BMJ (e.g., BMJ 2000;320:417-418 ( 12 February )) suggest that the figures reported in the general press are grossly overestimated and appear to be strongly influenced by genetic, environmental, economic and other confounders.
That said, I don't like smoking around children any more than excessive alcohol consumption, violence or swearing.
The Large One
Who's Next?
Only you could turn a serious subject into a totally f***ing irrelevant political one with such a banal comment as that.Uncle Spielberg said:
I preferred it when your flounces meant you left the board for a few weeks, rather than re-iterating the sensible points you are endeavouring to make with utter gibberish. You do have some relevant coherent points to make, and largely, having read your posts, I appreciate where you're coming from. But must you write as though you were Danny La Rue or Liberace?