If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Cover your eyes
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
I wouldn't recommend clicking on the link if you're easily offended. How anyone could go on living after gazing on such an offensive image, I'll never know.
0
Comments
Still, gets their cattle trucks in the paper, so it's worked.
she's fit
haha
Am I sharing too much?:o
WHO CARES. ITS AN ADVERT.
It doesn't say "OMG GO SHAG YOUNG GIRLS NOW!" It's a play on words, its a joke, not a good one, but oh well.
People take things to literally today.
Sexism and objectification is still widespread in advertising... And tbh it won't change fast; realistically it's not something that can be fought with tough legislation... There's too many grey areas and hard and fast rules are too easily misinterpreted - fighting blatant objectification then can soon become censorship...
I think in your quest to become outraged at extreme reactions you've missed mine and Kermit's point. It's not appropriate to sexualise young girls in school dresses.
Not only that, but she was an actual school girl at the time, and the record was aimed at school girls. I doubt Ryanair were expecting many bookings from 14 year olds somehow. The ultimate irony of course, is that the adverts were placed in newspapers that are entirely unsuitable for young children anyway. I can just imagine it now. Turning the page after reading News In Briefs, only to be outraged at the image of a girl dressed in a school uniform.
Why not? By definition, teenage girls will sexualise themselves. Always have, always will.
Another thing how is the ad any worse than the St Trinians films which have been around for 50 years or so?
The Advertising Standards Authority - a useless quango, filled with unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats. Nobody knows who they are, and they are probably paid too much. Wouldn't surprise anyone if some of them were New Labour cronies. Has nothing better to do than banning good-humored adverts from airlines. Should be shut down at once and its members boiled alive.
BBC News - once a byword for news reporting. Now just wastes our time reporting on stupid stories like this.
ie News at Ten 'And finally...' section
Some days I prefer these to the real stories
I was working for the Beeb at the time the cat story broke and can say at the time they were practically under siege with 'faking' stories. The rest of the media organizations were smugly loving and would have had a field day if they hadn't made it a prominent story. No doubt critics would have been screaming cover up. Damned if you do...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7219499.stm
As for the other story, Sarozky is a humourless robot. Bring back Jacques Chirac - he may have been corrupt, but at least he had a sense of humour.
Aye, and that's even worse. Especially the lower-end papers, like the Star, who seem to revel in getting the youngest legal girls to take their kit off.
It's disgusting IMHO.
The Daily Mash's Take Made me laugh.
I don't think it's appropriate advertising and comparing it to Page Three is daft because I don't think that's appropriate either.
If thinking that this advert is inappropriate and exploitative makes me boring then hey, what can you do? Nudity and sexy images don't bother me; the ideas behind this particular advert do bother me.
As I said though, great publicity for the Irish cattle truck owners.
Julian Cook, of the Consumers Association, said: "Perhaps the next Ryanair advert could show a picture of a dilligent schoolboy trying to work out why the advert said a flight to Barcelona would cost £7.50, but he's actually been charged ten times that."
Interesting article on the British media and Iraq
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2007/dec/10/iraqandthemedia.iraq
Lawyer up dude. As you destroyed my innocent, tranquil nature with such a dirty and lewd picture this ends in a lawsuit for you...
And if they hadn't done that, no doubt you would've been criticising them for hiding their own cock ups at the end of the news. :rolleyes:
And the girl consents, the newspaper consents, and the reader consents, so what has it got to do with you or any other organisation?
If its output is highbrow, high quality and professional, certain people complain that it is not reaching out to the majority of this country and that its ratings are not good enough and what should we be paying the licence for something not many people enjoy and blah blah...
And then, when it becomes more populist (trouncing every other channel's ratings in the process), the very same people complain that the BBC is too populist and why should we be paying the licence for such rubbish and blah blah.
It really gets quite tiresome.
BBC Radio 4 is worth the licence fee alone. Radio 1 serves a purpose as far as i'm concerned - it provides a new medium for Heat-reading, avid fans of reality TV who want to experience new ways of rotting their mind.
If you left me in a room with Chris Moyles, Sara Cox and Jo (my top 50 favourite songs are the top 50, in order) Whiley, i couldn't swear that as many people would leave as went in.