OFCOM to be given wide ranging powers that would kill off the likes of ARRSE

Awol

LE
I'm saying that you have an agenda. Big difference between 5.655 and 40-50% isn't there?
If you want to call me a racist, at least have the balls to do so openly. You can search 15 years of my posts and you won't find a single instance of anything I've ever said that's racist, in fact, you'll probably find the opposite.

So, instead of taking the lazy way out by trying to close down debate by misusing the R word, perhaps you can tell me why you think BAME individuals are so prevalent on TV ads?

If you think only 5% of ads contain black people, your TV is very different to mine and the rest of those in Britain.
 
If you want to call me a racist, at least have the balls to do so openly. You can search 15 years of my posts and you won't find a single instance of anything I've ever said that's racist, in fact, you'll probably find the opposite.

So, instead of taking the lazy way out by trying to close down debate by misusing the R word, perhaps you can tell me why you think BAME individuals are so prevalent on TV ads?

If you think only 5% of ads contain black people, your TV is very different to mine and the rest of those in Britain.
I've said you have an agenda, what it is I don't know. I'm mightily tired of middle aged, white male self-labeling as victims on this site though.

I've given you a link to research carried out and you choose to ignore it completely, still sticking to your 40-50% figures and have provided diddly squat evidence to back up your assertions.

What am I supposed to think? "Oh yeah, he's got a point there as long as I ignore research"?
 
How do they propose to enforce this legislation on sites based entirely overseas?

It's only going to be effective against sites that are, say, racist AND are hosted in UK, so realistically it's only going to be effective against stupid racists.



:/
 

Awol

LE
I've said you have an agenda, what it is I don't know. I'm mightily tired of middle aged, white male self-labeling as victims on this site though.

I've given you a link to research carried out and you choose to ignore it completely, still sticking to your 40-50% figures and have provided diddly squat evidence to back up your assertions.

What am I supposed to think? "Oh yeah, he's got a point there as long as I ignore research"?
I didn't ignore you're research, I just noticed it's four years old. Even so, it supports my argument. Even taking those figures as accurate then, (and almost certainly conservative today), why are 3% of the population being represented as being '19%' of the population? It's a simple question and yet despite all the bluster, no one is able to answer it.

My 40% to 50% figure is based on what I see. Take any five minute run of adverts and you do the counting.

All I want is a reason why they are over represented.
 

Steamboat

War Hero
I didn't ignore you're research, I just noticed it's four years old. Even so, it supports my argument. Even taking those figures as accurate then, (and almost certainly conservative today), why are 3% of the population being represented as being '19%' of the population? It's a simple question and yet despite all the bluster, no one is able to answer it.

My 40% to 50% figure is based on what I see. Take any five minute run of adverts and you do the counting.

All I want is a reason why they are over represented.
Gotta make up for those decades of abuse you know. Modern day reparations are required in an “ inclusive” society.
 
I've said you have an agenda, what it is I don't know. I'm mightily tired of middle aged, white male self-labeling as victims on this site though.

I've given you a link to research carried out and you choose to ignore it completely, still sticking to your 40-50% figures and have provided diddly squat evidence to back up your assertions.

What am I supposed to think? "Oh yeah, he's got a point there as long as I ignore research"?
I'm still trying to find the law that apparently requires BAME to be in advertisements. Oh, that's right, it doesn't exist.

As I have said several times, marketing strategies are wanting to include that 15% of the population that have been previously unrepresented in advertising. And why not? I wonder why @Awol is so obsessed by skin colour of actors in ads. What does he fear? Next he'll claim it's compulsory to watch them!
 
I didn't ignore you're research, I just noticed it's four years old. Even so, it supports my argument. Even taking those figures as accurate then, (and almost certainly conservative today), why are 3% of the population being represented as being '19%' of the population? It's a simple question and yet despite all the bluster, no one is able to answer it.

My 40% to 50% figure is based on what I see. Take any five minute run of adverts and you do the counting.

All I want is a reason why they are over represented.
I told you it was from 2016 when I posted it. Go back and read it again, when you understand that the 19% is based on all minorities and the black percentage is 5.65% get back to me. I've already said all of this but you choose not to see it when I post it nor to read it in the link.

Again? What am I supposed to think?
 
Gotta make up for those decades of abuse you know. Modern day reparations are required in an “ inclusive” society.
At least we didn't go around dispensing summary capital punishment, as happened well within living memory in parts of the US. I wonder if their families received reparations for this monstrous treatment?
 
But if all black people in this country are living under the viscious whip and yoke of the whiteys, why are they appearing in unprecedented numbers in advertisments?

Any fule kno's that they can only spend their tokens in the company store, yassuh!
 

Awol

LE
I'm still trying to find the law that apparently requires BAME to be in advertisements. Oh, that's right, it doesn't exist.

As I have said several times, marketing strategies are wanting to include that 15% of the population that have been previously unrepresented in advertising. And why not? I wonder why @Awol is so obsessed by skin colour of actors in ads. What does he fear? Next he'll claim it's compulsory to watch them!
And I'm still waiting for that reason why.
 

Awol

LE
I told you it was from 2016 when I posted it. Go back and read it again, when you understand that the 19% is based on all minorities and the black percentage is 5.65% get back to me. I've already said all of this but you choose not to see it when I post it nor to read it in the link.

Again? What am I supposed to think?
Watch TV and draw your own conclusions.
 

Steamboat

War Hero
You said within living memory.
Link is broken.
The extrajudicial killings I remember all involved foreigners...minus two American citizens in Yemen in 2011 ish. But by default they gave up their citizenship and earned their fate.
 
On the plus side we can register with mumsnet, post something about tedious bints who think they are entitled to plonk their aircraft carrier sized sprog chariots whereever they like regardless of how inconvient it is for the rest of us while they talk about nappies with their vacuous mates.

Then just wait for the clawing inbound Cab Sauv fueled death threats and we can have ofcom shut the monstrostity down.
 

Steamboat

War Hero
On the plus side we can register with mumsnet, post something about tedious bints who think they are entitled to plonk their aircraft carrier sized sprog chariots whereever they like regardless of how inconvient it is for the rest of us while they talk about nappies with their vacuous mates.

Then just wait for the clawing inbound Cab Sauv fueled death threats and we can have ofcom shut the monstrostity down.
I assume you don’t have children?
 

Latest Threads

Top