Bitcoin Forum

 London's new mayor, Sadiq Khan, has announced that advertisements that portray "unhealthy or unrealistic body images" are to be banned from the city's public transport.

In a press release, the London mayor's office said that "from next month, Transport for London," or TfL, "will not allow ads which could reasonably be seen as likely to cause pressure to conform to an unrealistic or unhealthy body shape, or as likely to create body confidence issues, particularly among young people."

It adds that City Hall has asked TfL to create an "Advertising Steering Group" in conjunction with the advertising giants JCDecaux and Exterion to monitor output and reflect London's diversity.

The move follows a massive backlash against various poster campaigns on the transport network for so-called body shaming - most notably the "Beach Body Ready" images for a line of protein shakes that depicted a woman in a bikini last year.

Despite the negative reaction, Protein World - the company featured in the ads - reported made £1 million ($1.4 million) in four days after spending just a quarter of that on the marketing.

Khan said his daughters had helped prompt the decision:

As the father of two teenage girls, I am extremely concerned about this kind of advertising which can demean people, particularly women, and make them ashamed of their bodies. It is high time it came to an end.

Nobody should feel pressurised, while they travel on the Tube or bus, into unrealistic expectations surrounding their bodies and I want to send a clear message to the advertising industry about this.

Graeme Craig, the TfL commercial development director, added that the nature of public-transport advertising made it different from ones on TV or in magazines:

Our customers cannot simply switch off or turn a page if an advertisement offends or upsets them and we have a duty to ensure the copy we carry reflects that unique environment. We want to encourage great advertising that engages people and enhances the transport network.


http://www.businessinsider.com/london-mayor-sadiq-khan-bans-unrealistic-body-images-from-tfl-adverts-2016-6?r=UK&IR=T

That's just the beginning, be sure of that. Sad but true.

Seems perfectly reasonable to me. Public property shouldn't be displaying oversexualized and unrealistic body images, it hurts self esteem and promotes a "bikini body" culture that harms those who don't have perfect bodies (fat shaming). And even then, this is a response to massive popular backlash; I don't really see why it's a concern?

https://i.sli.mg/rxhYcD.jpg

What do you expect when you vote for a pro-ISIS guy as the mayor of London? Currently we are witnessing the Talibanization of London and the rest of England. Now they are banning certain images which offend them. Tomorrow they are going to ban the TV channels, as they are unislamic. The day after that they will ban music and alcohol.

WTF is this thread..?

First off, Wilikon, you link attention whore, you shouldn't link an article with your own photoshopped image to push some bullshit agenda. You should be ashamed of yourself.

And Bryant, since when is the mayor of London "pro-ISIS"??

The "Talibanization of London and the rest of England" LMFAO, OH NOES THE MUSLIMS R GUNNA BAN THE BBC, RADIO, BOOZE AND DISCOS!!!!!

Not sure if you are trolling, pumping your sig or just retarded...

First off, Can't help it. Krita is too much fun as a new tool.

Who made you the king of the internet? You do not have to click on any thread. You have free will.

What sig? I have a sig?

Life is too short to be sad.

Be happy.

 :)

You know what I'm talking about, don't act all innocent - you've spun this thread in a way that suits your agenda by adding your own picture masquerading as a picture from the source article. I don't know whether you just want to shit-stir/whore attention, or whether you are pushing the "Islam taking over" angle, either way you're like the Daily Mail of BCT and it disgusts me.

Of course I have free will, but the way you've presented the story is misleading to anyone clicking on the thread and not actually reading the source.

For the record, I don't like the idea of any religion, or authoritarian control of the people under any guise. I'm a sound believer in the separation of church and state and an atheist, but I object to the misleading way in which you've framed this story to be evidence of Islamic influence over British values, which is clearly spurious when you actually read the article.

If life is too short to be sad, why do the majority of the news stories you post always contain your signature negative spin, that encourages conflict?

Hypocrite.

And I was referring to Bryant's sig not yours.

Hate to break it to you, but the London Mayor is dodgy as fuck, he hasn't done anything quite as overt as Wilikon claims but it's obvious he has ulterior motives for doing the things he does, I don't think it's wrong to say he's doing a lot of what he does because of Islam.

http://newobserveronline.com/london-many-white-men/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BPqHMcNUuP0 - He was caught out in a past interview calling moderate muslims 'uncle toms' which is a racial slur against people who don't go along with what these kind of pricks say, he did apologise for it, but only when people called him out on it.

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/london-buses-to-carry-praise-allah-adverts-during-ramadan-a3243026.html

While I agree he hasn't done anything overtly Islamic yet, it's pretty obvious to me that as is always the case, Muslims and sex negative feminists are colluding with each other at the very least to start socially ostracising and pressuring people who dare to find women attractive and attack women who don't have problem dressing the way they want.

As far as I'm concerned, if you're really going to defend this kind of crap, you don't believe in free speech and expression at all and I find it disgusting that anyone would try to be an apologist for this kind of behaviour.

If that picture of the ad you showed is an unrealistic body image then I must have hit the lottery to be with my girlfriend because she's nicer than that. I would say that picture is the typical image of a hot girl so really what's wrong?

How many attacks are needed for Europe to get its shit together and fight for our culture, our nationality and freedom!?

Id say it wont ever happen.
Merkel the Destroyer, will never let Europe be free.
The import of radicals and useless beings from the middle east is so extreme that in just 5 years, out population in EU will rise several % and we will have dump people who cant read, and wont work because they can get money from governments.

Ban immigration or make a Green Card system.
Want to come to Europe?
Get a job, or have a good education so we know you wont sit at home and be a baby machine.

We also need the muslims who are born here to fuck off.
Being called racist because I want to preserve my country and culture makes me angry, and makes the hate grow even more.

The Muslims can stay, if they are willing to integrate with the general society. They should learn the official language, and stay away from fringe sects such as Wahhabis and Salafists. On the other hand, if they want their stone age Shakira Law, Female Genital Mutilation.etc, then they don't deserve their residential rights in any of the European nations.

Yep.

This long reply is proof I am not a hypocrite. My message was not hidden behind a burqa.

 :)

 This is the problem of having Muslims in Europe, I really do not understand these Muslims.

These Muslims mistreat women and has no right to criticize anyone, In my opinion this photo of this woman can help women to care more of their bodies.

Of course I'm not saying that women should make absurd diets to have a beautiful body.

Muslims.... the west pussifcation and these animals will bring and end to freedom... saddening.

You people are highly delusional if you think that is normal to have a 90-60-90 body with 50 kg.
( thats what models who earn $$ look like - i know that because i have some friends that do model and they have to do ridicilous stuff to get such a body )

Edit.

I think something similar was in discussion a decade ago in germany ( long before the muslim invasion). It was about children safety - little girls that stopped to eat to get such bodies.

At least the pussification will stop, right? Under the Islamic Caliphate of Eurabia, the radical feminists and the extreme-leftwing nutjobs will lose power. They will no longer be able to impose their political views on the general population. Better to live as a Dhimmi under Muslim rule, rather than living as an emasculated male under the radical feminist rule.

It is as if this whole social justice warrior movement was on a suicide mission because their members hate life.

I don't like ads in public space independently of what is advertised. I think it's visual pollution and I get enough ads from other sources but at least I can chose to be exposed. So thank you mr mayor a step in the right direction...

Truly appreciable and a good initiation to stop such useless advertising. Corporates with the name of advertising design things which has the ability to attract as well collapse peace. It needs to be started in every country.

Most of those ads are based on fictions, greed and jealousy. They promote materialism and consumerism, disturb the attention of the road users and don't bring direct revenues to the public but to selected individuals who benefits from polluting the visual and auditive public space. Do merchants use sound system to project their audio ads were you live?

Where does this 'pressure' come from? If you're willing to ravage your own body because of a bunch of shit fed to you by marketing pricks then my sympathy is limited. Develop some mental fortitude or slip on a smock and move to an uninhabited island somewhere. You'll probably lose some weight too.

Such keyboard warriors, much manliness.

Betting 5 bitcoins that you two internet gangsters are the first to run when something bad happens.

Pressure comes from the mass media? Like everywhere you are looking at?

When was the last time you went outside or watched tv?

The ideal female body for western society is 90-60-90 with 50 kg or less.

Anyone who says something else is just straight lying....

I agree with you and the poster above who said "why this is a concern". The less ads we see on the street the better, and yes they should be controlled more on what they are putting on those billboards.

This is ridiculous , offended people are getting out of control

I haven't watched TV in decades. I adblock everything. I live in the country and the nearest billboard is probably 30 miles away.

I am aware of what approaches the 'perfect' body. I'm sure one of my own might be attainable with months of starvation and running up hills. On the other hand I don't give enough of a fuck and I'm not going to pander to pathetic attempts to control my self image.

Yep. If more people would think like that a big part of the problem would instantly vanish but well... most people are like sheeps.... sad but true.

It's for the children!!! Banning ads on the public space is the morale things to do! I am very disturbed by ads on public mass transit system... It's unsupportable. You can't unlooked it's pervasive, it's indoctrination! Then when you add facial recognition software and personnalised ads based on location all the privacy issues...

I am ready to bet that if all billboards and screen ads were displaying lush green forest, violence in inner city would drop...

http://cdn.arn.com.au/media/18058/vagina-final.jpg?width=500&height=440.83333333333337

Oh no! It's a Vagina! Go fuck yourself.

Have you ever considered that it might actually be really immature of you to call for the government censorship of something just because you're personally offended by it? Oh wait, what am I saying, religious people usually don't.

It has nothing to do with censorship, quite the contrary. It's to clear the mind from useless consumerism to reach higher level of thinking.

One a more serious note why shall I be subject to continuous harassment from ads with no benefits for me and without any other options to opt out than to live in the wild?

I see nothing wrong with banning this kind of ads. there is no relation between the veil and the bikini so why the ads company put this photoshoped  photo that has nothing to do with reality !

All ads on the public space are visual harassment and pollution what ever the subject. However if the people are too ignorant to see how they are exploited better to have bikinis babes than fat land whale...

Typical ads from a land whale in America:

It has everything to do with censorship and you know it.

No it has everything to do with peace of mind and respect for public space. I wanted be able to walk without seeing perfect ass and steroid made pecs... I don't want to read or see even unconsciously ads made to depart me from my money and I don't want to have to be in constant resistance mindset to all the temptation out there... Those ads are a nuisance and I am not compensated properly! In your private space (newspapers, websites, apps or what ever ads like mad if you want I can opt out) in the street I can't!

Ps lighted ads or screen based consum electricity and as such pollute in co2 ;-)

Ps2 replace land whale by baby fat in my previous post! Less violent;)

If you're that easily upset by this type of thing, you need to see a professional psychiatrist.

And you a linguist.

There are many, many advertisements which have nothing to do with reality. Actually, that was the plan. Many ads are conceived with the express purpose of shocking the public, or at least to create emotion. I'm surprised the mayor has the power to cancel an advertising campaign. Wil the advertising company be refunded? Who will pay for that? Can it get damages?

From a judicial point of view, and .Khan shall know it the case would be difficult to handle in a court. And do you define "unhealthy or unrealistic body images"?

But the biggest question shall be: What's next?

Somebody gets it finally.

And so it begins english, The Muslim you just elected is already imposing his religious views on your country, You will reap what you sow.

Lately I have seen left wing nuts using very strange arguments to ban anything which they don't like. If you want to ban all the advertising which seems "unrealistic", then you will end up banning 99% of them. It is up to the public to decide which ads they would like to see, and we are supposed to have the freedom of expression. Anyway... what more to expect from a city which has just elected a pro-ISIS guy as the mayor?

I can answer you: everything single ads in the pubic space. The only form of ads legal is branding in front of the physical point of sell. So at least when you see the logo of a brand you will know that you can buy it straight away!

Because like at_newbie said the marketing people want to transform your brain, it's a form of psychological warfare. It can overwhelm most people in a subtile and unconscious way and ultimately raise the price of the product. Sooner or later deflation will suppress public ads because of the bad image it will generate for the brands doing it even if the owner of the owner of the display space for will make ads for their products saying how great it is.

For the sake of non-UK residents, Transport for London is a company owned by elected authority.  Its advertising slots are private property.  There are no free speech issues when the owners of private property make an editorial decision as to which ads he does and does not want to run on their property.

Body shaming huh? He's banning body shaming ads, or is he a muslim banning ads with scantily clad women in them?

I am curious to know how those advertising  spot private propriety were attributed... It's in the public space.

Hmm... Good question.

A political leader of my country said the same thing and then ordered the closing of a newspaper.

But you must be wondering what the newspaper has to do with it? all!

According to the political leader newspapers promote materialism and consumerism, disturb the attention of people with advertising, but it happens that the newspaper published many scandals of corruption involving news of this political.

The problem of someone not like something and want to impose most, it is very serious..

Just please don't associate concept like this with me. The newspaper is a perfect example of legitimate ads... You can chose to buy or receive it. You aren't force to see it. There is no way to not see an ad in the public domain, even with a burqa;-).

I love how everyone I talk to thinks this has NOTHING to do with religion.. ... ...

We all know the real answer.

The PC bitches however will try to convince the world of a different one.

Britain did this to itself.

What a sad time to live in... Great Britain has a paki mayor and he banned bikini girls. Clap clap clap.

Britains deserve this and even Brexit won't help you to get out of this hell. They are already in and unless there is a guy like the one appeared in Germany, you will be destroyed.

Good luck.

p.s.: I have no problems with Islam and its followers but they suck. Good day.

Thanks for info, but besides free speech, the should be an issue about terminating a ad campaign. The advertising company didn't get what it should have, so it may have legal right to ask for financial compensation for breach of contract, or something like that. They may also be very happy with this, as it creates extra media exposure.

I would re hire the same model but put her in a full burqa with the message: "Beach Body Ready!"

Good lord that you and the rest of your friends are just nobodys with an account on bitcointalk.org x)

Else we would see burqas everywhere right? :D

That's a legal matter - depends on the contract.  My clarification was that there is no free speech issue here.  The company can re-use the ad anywhere that is willing to take their money.  All that changed is that TfL is no longer a client and the new mayor PR's flunkies have got him some coverage. 

It has been established since many centuries ago that Islam is not compatible with the European civilization. As the proportion of Muslims increase (as a result of high birth rates, immigration and forced conversion), the non-Muslims will see more and more of their rights getting eroded. It is a very slow process and will not occur overnight. But in the end, the Muslims always win.

Muslim countries tend to be poor and therefore they have more kids.  Christian countries in Africa have similarly high birthrates.  Middle income Muslim countries are below replacement rate - Turkey and Iran for example face the same population cliff that Japan is going over.  Second generation Muslims in the UK have the same fertility rate as the rest of us - below replacement rate.

The future belongs to people too stupid to understand contraception or too religious to use it.  It appears the Amish will eventually rule the worlld as the rest of us dont' ahve enough kids to sustain our populations.

Let me address it part by part.


The richest country in the world (Qatar) is a Muslim country.

http://www.meforum.org/pics/large/1048.jpg

As you can see from the chart, the population has increased from 47,700 in 1970 to 241,680 in 2010. There were 7,733 births in 2010, accounting for a birth rate of 32.0 per 1,000. On the other hand, Moldova is one of the poorest countries in the earth. The birth rate there is 10.4 per 1,000.


Iran is having sub-replacement fertility rate. However, Turkey is having a TFR of 2.18, which is above replacement. In 2014, there were 1,345,286 births and 391,009 deaths there. The births outnumbered deaths by 344%.


False. According to the Pew Research Center.

http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/wp-content/uploads/sites/9/2013/06/14_pew.jpg

You are right about qatar :)

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=birthrate+turkey&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b&gfe_rd=cr&ei=oB9jV96LFerW8gf5vIGYDA

Turkey is below replacement rate which is 2.1 and the direction of travel is for even lower rates.

The graphs you show for each country show figures for immigrants as well as settled Muslims.  They still show that Muslims are below replacement rate in most countries and again the direction of travel is that as they get settled it gets even lower.

This is all good news.  Over the next century most pollution and economic problems will be solved by human population falling as we collectively choose to live comfortably.  The Amish are the exception - their family size is not falling so there is reason to expect them to be top dogs in the US one day.  By then you and I will be long dead so who really cares ?  :)

The Google link is showing the TFR for 2012. However, recently, there has been a spike in the birth rate there. In 2014, according to government stats, the TFR was 2.18. Not surprising, considering the president is making such statements:

http://time.com/4357867/turkey-women-children-incomplete-president-erdogan-islam/


Birth rate was always low for Muslims in Bosnia and Romania. The same can't be said about immigrants from Pakistan and Afghanistan. Unfortunately for countries such as the UK, the vast majority of the Muslims are from the non-European nations.

Turkey since 2012 has taken in millions of immigrants from Syria which pushes up the figure.  The native Turks are not reaching their own replacement rate.  That's why Erdogan is in such a funk about contraception - he doesn't fancy being the leader on whose watch the Turkish nation goes into permanent decline.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population

All the projections are for rich countries populations to fall over next century.  The broad picture shows that modern lifestyles with our nice cities, good medical care and vast entertainment industries cause people that would otherwise be having lots of kids to instead have a comfortable life with fewer kids.  Unless something terrible happens and our standard of living falls to the point where we think we need lots of kids to look after us in our old age, we don't need to worry about any race or religion out-breeding us.

Take a look at this article:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_dependent_territories_by_fertility_rate

There are at least 100 countries in this world, whose TFR is lower than that in Turkey. The Turkish population is very young. Even if the TFR is less than 1.00, the population would still grow, thanks to the age structure. The "permanent decline" may happen in 2060 or 2070, and not before that.

it is pretty obvious that  this act is very logical for me too because few people have got  a body like a super model. people dont have to have  skinny legs, tiny belly etc. as society , we want to see normal people in advertisments for sure. there is no wrong thing with this decision..

No WE don't want to see advertisement, what ever fatty or skinny! WE don't want to have OUR precious brain cycle parasited by stupid ads influencing OUR emotions and OUR MOOD.

WE the people want ads free public space! WE the people don't want OUR children influenced by others.

WE see that some people only write using WE, WE believe that they have been contaminated by the WEit.

WE understand the WEit as a form of mental illness linked to overexposure to ads creating a false sense of WEism.

WE are afraid of the WEists.

OUR gov must save US.

Time to declare the war on ads and WEism.

WE the Ipeople!