BoJo Annoys God Botherers

Mr_Fingerz

LE
Book Reviewer
#1
#4
Of course that may also offend what is probably the biggest block of voters in London, the 'religion of peace' (you know - the ones who'll kill you if you disagree). They are dead against mano a mano botty-bashing because their sky pixie says so (although that doesn't seem to stop some of them buggering small boys).
 
#5
Of course that may also offend what is probably the biggest block of voters in London, the 'religion of peace' (you know - the ones who'll kill you if you disagree). They are dead against mano a mano botty-bashing because their sky pixie says so (although that doesn't seem to stop some of them buggering small boys).
How many RoPers would have voted for BoJo over Red Ken anyway? And I can't imagine there's a significant bloc of previously pro-BoJo homophobes in cosmopolitan London. He hasn't lost much, not that it makes the advert any less moronic.
 
#6
A victory for common sense. Apparently the adverts claimed to offer a cure for homosexuality. If Big Bozza (as he is known to his mates) hadnt banned it, the trading standards would have had to prosecute them for false advertising anyway as we all know that being a homo is a lifestyle choice, not a sickness.
 

Bouillabaisse

LE
Book Reviewer
#7
Since this is the Int Cell I shall try an intelligent answer -

electioneering by Boris, but an infringement of free speech. If these people believe they can cure homosexuality they should be free to advertise. As Blokeonabike says, someone should be free to sue them under the Trades descriptions Act, or something similar, because they're wrong.

No one banned those anti-god botherers who put those "There's probably no god" adverts up.
 
#8
No brainer, no-lose posturing from the incumbent. Also probably got in before his opponent by dint of a bigger budget.

B
 
#9
I do think that the media is making homosexuality too 'trendy' ie if you watch a soap or show there has to be quite a number of camp gay persons or people struggling with sexuality etc. Used to be less, now more and more ..some cases out of proportion. I think in a few years all of Eastenders will be gay and so will most of other shows. Story lines will include people being beaten up for having a copy of Playboy.
Having loads of gay people on the telly doesn't bother me but do they have to act so camp? Admittedly I don't know that many gay blokes to compare them with but the couple I know well don't go round acting like swishy queens. Even worse than the fictional characters is the arts presenter on Channel 4 news. When I first saw him I honestly thought it was a pisstake he is that camp.

On thread, those posters were blatantly designed to controversial and offensive to gays. I wouldn't be surprised if they put this out as a stunt knowing it would get banned and so get more national attention than if they were just on a few London buses.
 
#10
Since this is the Int Cell I shall try an intelligent answer -

electioneering by Boris, but an infringement of free speech. If these people believe they can cure homosexuality they should be free to advertise. As Blokeonabike says, someone should be free to sue them under the Trades descriptions Act, or something similar, because they're wrong.

No one banned those anti-god botherers who put those "There's probably no god" adverts up.
It's isn't 'freedom' of speach though, if you're just going to be a cnut about it.
 
#11
Londoncentric, but hey he is the Mayor of That London Village and he may have just secured the "Pink Vote" if there is such a thing.
...
I thought heterosexuality had virtuality been stamped out in the capital, has Torchwood put some of the public schoolboys who run the place off each other?
 
#12
From the story in the press it seems these adverts passed all the relevant rules and regs so the banning is purely political and is yet another example of double standards when the pro homosexual lobby can run adverts of the same nature on exactly the same medium yet these ones get banned.

Personally I don't care about someones sexual habits but if you are allowed to go around putting up big posters saying how proud you are to be XYor Z then surely the opposite view should be equally allowed to be aired?
 

Wordsmith

LE
Book Reviewer
#13
"The adverts were booked on behalf of the Core Issues Trust whose leader, Mike Davidson, believes "homoerotic behaviour is sinful"."
Mike Davidson was being interviewed on LBC this morning telling a slightly different story to the Wail. He said that he wasn't trying to cure homosexuality, but to promote a heterosexual life style. His group attract mainly Christian gays and he was claiming that 1/3 of the people that sign up with him go back to a heterosexual lifestyle.

Based on what I heard in the interview he didn't seem like a gay-basher but someone who believed that people were happier as heterosexuals and provided a support mechanism for bisexuals wanting to go back to being purely hetero.

There seems to be a bit of a "politically correct" knee jerk reaction going on.

Wordsmith
 

Bouillabaisse

LE
Book Reviewer
#14
It's isn't 'freedom' of speach though, if you're just going to be a cnut about it.
There's either freedom of speech or there isn't. At the moment there isn't. And I don't like the restrictions because I don't like the people or the politics of those making them. Some people need to recognise that 1984 is a novel, not an instruction manual.
 
#15
There's either freedom of speech or there isn't. At the moment there isn't. And I don't like the restrictions because I don't like the people or the politics of those making them. Some people need to recognise that 1984 is a novel, not an instruction manual.
Public busses, public rules...

Adverts for the next Hollywood Block buster, fine. Stuff about religion and homosexuality, let's keep that outside the churches or other privately owned bill boards.
 
#16
Public busses, public rules...

Adverts for the next Hollywood Block buster, fine. Stuff about religion and homosexuality, let's keep that outside the churches or other privately owned bill boards.
So stonewall should have been banned from using the buses for their get over it campaign?
 

Mr_Fingerz

LE
Book Reviewer
#17
It strikes me that BoJo has the effective "owner" of TfL has simply exercised his right to say what can appear on "his" buses. As it happens it's an effective piece of electioneering that Ken and the other candidates cannot match because they don't "own" the buses.
 
#18

They have this in The States as well, you can Testify to The Lord, come out, say it's fixed, stand for Congress/become a Minister and before you know it be adopting wide stances in the Airport Jacks/fondling the blonder boys in the congregation.

I await the:
I found Jesus,
he put me off publicly confessing to buggery
[as a lifestyle, cheeky!]


T-Shirts.

I'd have let them run the ads but I suspect if they start parading the "fixed" homosexuals it will be a bunch of very fay chaps on the verge of falling out of the closet again.
 
#19
His group attract mainly Christian gays and he was claiming that 1/3 of the people that sign up with him go back to a heterosexual lifestyle.
I presume a heterosexual lifestyle means not hanging out of the back doors of someone wearing a leather chest harness and cap with Lemmy moustache in a sauna in Earls Court? What does he do, go round their house, mess up their scatter cushions, rip up their quiche recipe books & steal their Judy Garland albums?

I have a gay mate who isn't just gay he's a vicar. He's also so camp he makes Grahm Norton look like Jack Dee with a hangover.
 
#20
So stonewall should have been banned from using the buses for their get over it campaign?
I'm not going to keep repeating myself to cover every fcuking angle...

To clarify.

Public busses, so public rules.

Adverts for hollywood block busters and otehr non-consequential sh1t fine. Religions, homosexualties etc. Put it on your own house.
 

Similar threads

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top