London's mayor has banned 'unrealistic body images' from transport advertising

[zenitzz]

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.

[bryant.coleman]

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 !

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?

[Masha Sha]

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 !

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?

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.

[Hawker]

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.

[xht]

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

[Masha Sha]

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.

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

[Wilikon]

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

Hmm... Good question.

[Slow death]

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?

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..

[Masha Sha]

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?

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;-).

[spazzdla]

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

[spazzdla]

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

We all know the real answer.

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

[mindrust]

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.

[countryfree]

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.

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.

[Wilikon]

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.

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!"

[criptix]

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.

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?

[Hawker]

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.

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.

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. 

[bryant.coleman]

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.

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.

[Hawker]

..snip...

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.

[bryant.coleman]

Let me address it part by part.

Muslim countries tend to be poor and therefore they have more kids.

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



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.

Middle income Muslim countries are below replacement rate - Turkey and Iran for example face the same population cliff that Japan is going over.

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%.

Second generation Muslims in the UK have the same fertility rate as the rest of us - below replacement rate.

False. According to the Pew Research Center.

[Hawker]

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 ?