# 'Sure Girl' advertisements



## truthseeker (3 Apr 2008)

Ok - Im normally quite liberal about the ads that I see on the tv and Ive never felt the need to complain before but this morning I saw an advertisement that just took my breath away with its irresponsibility.

The ad is for Sure Girl (a spray deodorant), and the scene takes place in a moving vehicle, 3 young girls (perhaps 14 years old or so) are in the back seat with a front seat passenger recording action on a camcorder - music blasts through the car and the 3 young girls in the back are bouncing around and dancing in their seats to the music of 'Dont you wish your girlfriend was hot like me', arms flying about and one girl hangs out the window at one point. The product is revealed only at the end of the ad.

Why am I annoyed? Because not one of them is wearing a seatbelt, they are throwing themselves around the back of a moving car, the person with the camcorder is giggling and encouraging them on - I honestly thought it was a Road Safety ad and that we would suddenly see all 3 being thrown into the camera and bashed to bits to illustrate how unsafe they were.

I was flabbergasted when I realised it was a deodorant ad - I just dont think it presents a very responsible attitude to Road Safety in this day and age.

Im going to make a complaint about it to the Advertising Standards Authority.

Has anyone else seen it and what do they think?


----------



## redstar (3 Apr 2008)

I haven't seen the ad yet but if its as you described then its totally irresponsible. Deffo a candidate for a complaint to the Advertising Authority.


----------



## Trent (3 Apr 2008)

redstar said:


> I haven't seen the ad yet but if its as you described then its totally irresponsible. Deffo a candidate for a complaint to the Advertising Authority.


 
I agree. I haven't seen it either, but from the way you describe it there's no way it should be aired.


----------



## rmelly (3 Apr 2008)

Trent said:


> I agree. I haven't seen it either, but from the way you describe it there's no way it should be aired.


 
Why not hold off judgment until you've seen it...


----------



## Sunny (3 Apr 2008)

rmelly said:


> Why not hold off judgment until you've seen it...


 

he said 'from the way you describe it'. Therefore he is making a judgement based on how the OP described the ad which he is perfectly entitled to do.


----------



## rmelly (3 Apr 2008)

I am aware of that but it is still ridiculous - "Down with this sort of thing" - why don't we all jump on the bandwagon of something we know nothing about.


----------



## z106 (3 Apr 2008)

rmelly said:


> I am aware of that but it is still ridiculous - "Down with this sort of thing" - why don't we all jump on the bandwagon of something we know nothing about.


 
Well - the bottom line is they didn't have seat belts and were all jumping around at the back of the car.

LIke - it is pretty black and white to most people.
Either it did happen - or it didn't happen.

Unless the OP was compeletly imagining things then I'm sure that is pretty much what happened.

I think someone is more than entitled to give a fleeting response on some web forum without having actually having seen the ad. 
It's not a court of law here.

ANd in fairness, teh poster did also state  "...by the way you describe it..."


----------



## rmelly (3 Apr 2008)

qwertyuiop said:


> I think someone is more than entitled to give a fleeting response on some web forum without having actually having seen the ad.
> It's not a court of law here.


 
Fair enough - I think the advert is brilliant.


----------



## stir crazy (3 Apr 2008)

This is the sort of thing which will have people rushing to find the advert on youtube etc even if it gets banned...which I suspect is  a coup for the advertiser.
Although this may very well contravene advertising guidelines/codes etc.. another view is .... that
On TV and films people do all sorts of things which defy reality. Does that make the viewer any less responsible ? Should all creativity through media be clamped down upon because of the risk that someone stupid might view it ? And isnt there far worse available on the internet anyway?  I'd be interested in some sincere views about this.


----------



## truthseeker (3 Apr 2008)

rmelly said:


> Fair enough - I think the advert is brilliant.


 
Oh - someone who has seen it - what exactly do you think is brilliant about it?


----------



## Sunny (3 Apr 2008)

truthseeker said:


> Oh - someone who has seen it - what exactly do you think is brilliant about it?


 
I don't think he has seen it. I think he is being sarcastic because people were judging it before seeing it for themselves


----------



## MrMan (3 Apr 2008)

Did it make you more likely to go out and buy 'sure girl' or to dance in the back of a car with no seat belt on? I think its safe to assume that adults won't take safety tips from deodorant ads so a complaint isn't necessary in my opinion.


----------



## truthseeker (3 Apr 2008)

It made me highly concerned that young girls might think it was a good idea to dance round the backs of cars with no seatbelts on. These girls were around 14 years old - its an impressionable age.


----------



## stir crazy (3 Apr 2008)

truthseeker said:


> It made me highly concerned that young girls might think it was a good idea to dance round the backs of cars with no seatbelts on. These girls were around 14 years old - its an impressionable age.



But I then have to ask the obvious question. Who is driving the alleged car ? An adult perhaps ?


----------



## ney001 (3 Apr 2008)

MrMan said:


> Did it make you more likely to go out and buy 'sure girl' or to dance in the back of a car with no seat belt on? I think its safe to assume that adults won't take safety tips from deodorant ads so a complaint isn't necessary in my opinion.



I agree, I would like to think that people/teenagers can differentiate between adverts on tv and reality.  If you're really worried, a quick explanation to your children about car safety might be in order, otherwise I don't think adverts should be heavily policed unless they cause serious offence to a particular group!


----------



## truthseeker (3 Apr 2008)

stir crazy said:


> But I then have to ask the obvious question. Who is driving the alleged car ? An adult perhaps ?


 
Im not sure if you see the driver at all - I only started to take note a few seconds in when I realised there were no seatbelts.


----------



## truthseeker (3 Apr 2008)

ney001 said:


> I agree, I would like to think that people/teenagers can differentiate between adverts on tv and reality. If you're really worried, a quick explanation to your children about car safety might be in order, otherwise I don't think adverts should be heavily policed unless they cause serious offence to a particular group!


 
Totally disagree with this - glorifying something unsafe is not a good idea for any advertisements.


----------



## Sunny (3 Apr 2008)

ney001 said:


> I agree, I would like to think that people/teenagers can differentiate between adverts on tv and reality. If you're really worried, a quick explanation to your children about car safety might be in order, otherwise I don't think adverts should be heavily policed unless they cause serious offence to a particular group!


 

I agree but then why are we trying to ban tobacco sponsorship and alcohol advertising. If the 14 year old girls had been smoking, there would be outrage so in this climate it probably is irresponsible advertising to show young people not wearing a seat belt.


----------



## ClubMan (3 Apr 2008)

truthseeker said:


> Im going to make a complaint about it to the Advertising Standards Authority.
> 
> Has anyone else seen it and what do they think?


I think you're wasting your time based on my own past experience. They are an advertising industry self regulatory body with no statutory powers. If they do eventually make a ruling in favour of your complaints then it will probably come long after the advertising campaign has run its course. If I had a problem with a specific advertisement then I would probably sooner complain directly to the company in question rather than bother with the _ASAI_. Maybe you could ring _Joe _about this?


----------



## ney001 (3 Apr 2008)

Sunny said:


> I agree but then why are we trying to ban tobacco sponsorship and alcohol advertising. If the 14 year old girls had been smoking, there would be outrage so in this climate it probably is irresponsible advertising to show young people not wearing a seat belt.



I don't think that alcohol advertising should be banned either!.  I think of my 12 year old sister, from the time she was a toddler she was putting on her seat belt and it was drummed in to her that her seatbelt should always always be worn no matter how short the journey.  I know for a fact that just watching an advert were people don't wear a seatbelt would not in anyway discourage her from wearing a seatbelt and would not undo ten years of nagging from adults to wear a seatbelt.  She is just not that impressionable and I credit her (even at 12) to know the difference between an advert and the reality of traveling by car.  The fact is there are a lot of ads and programmes on TV which although not setting a great example, have to be taken for what they are - fiction not reality!.


----------



## truthseeker (3 Apr 2008)

ClubMan said:


> I think you're wasting your time based on my own past experience. They are an advertising industry self regulatory body with no statutory powers. If they do eventually make a ruling in favour of your complaints then it will probably come long after the advertising campaign has run its course.


 
Yes - you could well be right. I did make a complaint. I noticed you can browse their site and read details of past complaints - both those that were upheld and those that werent. I suppose it depends on how many people complain, on what grounds etc...


----------



## MrMan (3 Apr 2008)

> These girls were around 14 years old - its an impressionable age.



Therefore they would be under the supervision of an adult .ie. driver and it's their responsibility to make them wear seat belts. A little artistic licence should be allowed for.


----------



## ClubMan (3 Apr 2008)

truthseeker said:


> I suppose it depends on how many people complain, on what grounds etc...


You suppose what depends on this? How quickly they act? I'm not aware of this being the case but then their processes and procedures are not exactly very transparent so we can't really judge. Good to know that there are such unilaterally appointed non statutory arbiters of what is deemed to be acceptable protecting us from ourselves though.


----------



## Sunny (3 Apr 2008)

I agree with all the arguments about artistic license and personal repsonsibility but look at the all the money spent (taxpayers??) that is spent on road safety adverts showing the effects of not wearing a seat belt. Why bother if another advert advertising deoderant can come along and show young people having a party in a moving car. It is irrepsonsible as it is in no way necessary to do this way to promote the product and at the same time is giving off dangerous messages. Would an ad showing a driver having a can of beer be allowed?


----------



## MrMan (3 Apr 2008)

Would the target market actually be scanning the ad for flaws or just be taken in by the colours , music, fun vibe etc. Would anyone actually link having fun with not wearing their seat belt? I think not.


----------



## truthseeker (3 Apr 2008)

MrMan said:


> Would the target market actually be scanning the ad for flaws or just be taken in by the colours , music, fun vibe etc. Would anyone actually link having fun with not wearing their seat belt? I think not.


 
Considering I thought it was a Road Safety Authority ad until the very last minute because it was SO obvious how dangerous it was (or perhaps Im conditioned by the RSA ads to be on alert to young people in cars), Id imagine itd be obvious to anyone.


----------



## shanegl (3 Apr 2008)

truthseeker said:


> It made me highly concerned that young girls might think it was a good idea to dance round the backs of cars with no seatbelts on. These girls were around 14 years old - its an impressionable age.


 
The driver in the car is legally responsible for ensuring that any children are wearing their seatbelts.


----------



## truthseeker (3 Apr 2008)

shanegl said:


> The driver in the car is legally responsible for ensuring that any children are wearing their seatbelts.


 
yes - but it is surely better practice in advertising to show any occupants in a car wearing seat belts so as not to promote irresponsibility.


----------



## Staples (3 Apr 2008)

Personally, I prefer the old "Sure" ads some obviously naked young ladies sprayed the deoderant onto their torsos through a "tick" shaped hole in a big leaf, thus demonstrating the effectiveness of the spray on the treated area relative to every other part of their bodies.

Amazing what you remember from your teenage years!


----------



## redstar (3 Apr 2008)

Staples said:


> Personally, I prefer the old "Sure" ads some obviously naked young ladies sprayed the deoderant onto their torsos through a "tick" shaped hole in a big leaf, thus demonstrating the effectiveness of the spray on the treated area relative to every other part of their bodies.
> 
> Amazing what you remember from your teenage years!



See, just proves that ads _do_ have an impression on teenagers


----------



## ClubMan (3 Apr 2008)

Staples said:


> Personally, I prefer the old "Sure" ads some obviously naked young ladies sprayed the deoderant onto their torsos through a "tick" shaped hole in a big leaf, thus demonstrating the effectiveness of the spray on the treated area relative to every other part of their bodies.


Didn't they then go on to climb a cliff or tree or something to work up a sweat? That was very dangerous behaviour. Surely it should have been banned?


----------



## MrMan (3 Apr 2008)

While your at it you could ban the latest lynx ad as it shows girls leaning out of a car (no seat belts) to grab a mans chocolate arm!. I'm sure there are more examples.


----------



## Sunny (3 Apr 2008)

ClubMan said:


> Didn't they then go on to climb a cliff or tree or something to work up a sweat? That was very dangerous behaviour. Surely it should have been banned?


 
You are not exactly comparing like with like are you? Its not against the law to climb a cliff or tree. It is against the law not to wear a seatbelt. I don't think any ad should be banned unless it is really offensive but the OP is entitled to ask how an ad like this is allowed while at the same time having RSA ads shows the dangers of not wearing seat belts. Gay Byrne needs to get on the case!!


----------



## truthseeker (3 Apr 2008)

alright guys - thanks for the replies, if i see the ad again this evening ill scrutinise it carefully to see if im equally as affronted as i was this morning.

one funny thought occured to me - it WAS 8am this morning, i WAS a bit sleepy - so i hope i dont see it again and notice theyre all strapped in and perfectly safe after me giving out about it here


----------



## Sunny (3 Apr 2008)

MrMan said:


> While your at it you could ban the latest lynx ad as it shows girls leaning out of a car (no seat belts) to grab a mans chocolate arm!. I'm sure there are more examples.


 

I am sure there are more examples. Doesn't make it right though. Ads showing drink driving wouldn't be allowed so why should ads showing the breaking of one of other road safety laws be acceptable?


----------



## MrMan (3 Apr 2008)

I'm sure it was just an oversight on the behalf of the commercial director or whoever was in charge, unless they were actually hoping for controversy.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (3 Apr 2008)

MrMan said:


> While your at it you could ban the latest lynx ad as it shows girls leaning out of a car (no seat belts) to grab a mans chocolate arm!. I'm sure there are more examples.


This ad is racist, sexist and gratuitously violent.


----------



## z106 (3 Apr 2008)

Harchibald said:


> This ad is racist, sexist and gratuitously violent.


 
In what way?


----------



## rmelly (3 Apr 2008)

qwertyuiop said:


> In what way?


 
should have been white chocolate?


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (3 Apr 2008)

qwertyuiop said:


> In what way?


 
Racist - as _rmelly_ says why was this guy not made of white chocolate?

Sexist - imagine the uproar if it was guys taking bites out of a woman.

Gratuitously violent - girls biting lumps of his a** on the bus, what example is this giving to Finglas denizens?


----------



## z103 (3 Apr 2008)

> The driver in the car is legally responsible for ensuring that any children are wearing their seatbelts.



Did someone bust the law making this advert then? - The driver in this case should have the Wrath of the Law cast upon them. We have the evidence.


----------



## S.L.F (3 Apr 2008)

Harchibald said:


> Racist - as _rmelly_ says why was this guy not made of white chocolate?
> 
> Sexist - imagine the uproar if it was guys taking bites out of a woman.
> 
> Gratuitously violent - girls biting lumps of his a** on the bus, what example is this giving to Finglas denizens?




It reminds me of an ad I saw for budweiser. 

A young man is standing in a hotel hall way in his dressing gown, it gets caught in his door, he spots a 4 pack of bud goes over to it and at the same moment a middle aged woman opens the door looks at him naked says, "happy birthday to me", and drags him in to the room

If it had been reversed where a young woman had been dragged into the room by an older man there would have been uproar

S.L.F


----------



## diarmuidc (3 Apr 2008)

Harchibald said:


> what example is this giving to Finglas denizens?


pot, meet kettle


----------



## Blueberry08 (4 Apr 2008)

Staples said:


> Personally, I prefer the old "Sure" ads some obviously naked young ladies sprayed the deoderant onto their torsos through a "tick" shaped hole in a big leaf, thus demonstrating the effectiveness of the spray on the treated area relative to every other part of their bodies.



I remember wondering at the time _why_ would you cut a tick shaped hole in a leaf and then spray deodorant through it on to your armpits? 

What if you were in a rush in the morning? How could you possibly have the time to (a) find a leaf, (b) cut a tick shaped hole in it and (c) be accurate enough, having only just woken up, to shoot the deodorant through the hole and hit the right spot. It could end up in your ear. Or eye. Or mouth. 

I just thought it was mad. And I always assumed drugs might have been taken by those who came up with the idea.


----------



## stir crazy (4 Apr 2008)

I saw the sure advert earlier and I think the main point of it is stinky arm pits. They were filmed in a van with no apparent seatbelts at the back seats. maybe some vans dont have seatbelts at the back seats. I couldnt tell from seeing the add only once if the van was moving or not. 





Blueberry08 said:


> I remember wondering at the time _why_ would you cut a tick shaped hole in a leaf and then spray deodorant through it on to your armpits?
> 
> What if you were in a rush in the morning? How could you possibly have the time to (a) find a leaf, (b) cut a tick shaped hole in it and (c) be accurate enough, having only just woken up, to shoot the deodorant through the hole and hit the right spot. It could end up in your ear. Or eye. Or mouth.
> 
> I just thought it was mad. And I always assumed drugs might have been taken by those who came up with the idea.



lol that analysis of a tv ad appears to be the thought process of someone whos just taken acid.......


----------



## wavejumper (4 Apr 2008)

i saw this last night and remembered this thread.  Looks like it was shot inside an old VW van. It doesn't even look like there's seat belts built into the thing.  

I really don't share the OP concern about road safety and seat belts use in releation to this ad.  Speeding. Acohol abuse. Poor roads conditions.  Driving without a license.  Thats's how people get hurt not because of some silly ad.

Intersting that no one complains about using teenagers or children in tv ads.  I find that very worrying and I believe is a practice banned in Germany for example.


----------



## ClubMan (4 Apr 2008)

wavejumper said:


> i saw this last night and remembered this thread.  Looks like it was shot inside an old VW van. It doesn't even look like there's seat belts built into the thing.
> 
> I really don't share the OP concern about road safety and seat belts use in releation to this ad.  Speeding. Acohol abuse. Poor roads conditions.  Driving without a license.  Thats's how people get hurt not because of some silly ad.
> 
> Intersting that no one complains about using teenagers or children in tv ads.  I find that very worrying and I believe is a practice banned in Germany for example.


Is that the same _Germany _where there is no speed limit on the _Autobahn_s?


----------



## rmelly (4 Apr 2008)

ClubMan said:


> Is that the same _Germany _where there is no speed limit on the _Autobahn_s?


 
Is there more than one Germany still or again?


----------



## elefantfresh (4 Apr 2008)

You people are crazy - you're all just bickering amongst yourselves.
Sigh....


----------



## shnaek (4 Apr 2008)

Will somebody please think of the children?!


----------



## diarmuidc (4 Apr 2008)

ClubMan said:


> Is that the same _Germany _where there is no speed limit on the _Autobahn_s?


Yes the same, quite safe (relative to other European motorways) Autobahns


----------



## stir crazy (4 Apr 2008)

wavejumper said:


> Intersting that no one complains about using teenagers or children in tv ads.  I find that very worrying and I believe is a practice banned in Germany for example.




So the _Kinder Surprise_ ads and the _Werthers' Original_ advert about the guy and his grandfather lied to me 
I always thought they were heavily dubbed imported adverts from Germany


----------



## Caveat (4 Apr 2008)

The Germans do have a relatively strict advertising code e.g. unqualified superlatives have been effectively banned for a few decades now I think:

e.g. "The better washing powder..." better than what?

As for the children aspect, the _Kinder_ adverts as Stir Crazy said, would suggest otherwise.
Unless maybe adverts for kids products - as opposed to any products -  are exempt.


----------



## Complainer (6 Apr 2008)

ClubMan said:


> I think you're wasting your time based on my own past experience. They are an advertising industry self regulatory body with no statutory powers. If they do eventually make a ruling in favour of your complaints then it will probably come long after the advertising campaign has run its course. If I had a problem with a specific advertisement then I would probably sooner complain directly to the company in question rather than bother with the _ASAI_. Maybe you could ring _Joe _about this?




Clubman is right about the ASAI, but the [broken link removed] has some teeth.


----------



## MOB (7 Apr 2008)

The advertising industry is riddled from stem to stern with inappropriate content.  Cigarette and Alcohol companies want your children to start drinking and smoking as soon as possible.  The Garment Industry want your children to be inappropriately sexualised at an early age.  The Food Industry wants them to eat ever more processed foodstuffs and fewer raw and unprocessed foods, despite the wealth of evidence that this is deleterious to their health.  The Cosmetics industry wants them to start powdering, spraying, exfoliating etc. from their early teens.

I don't dispute that the Sure advertisement is inappropriate.  My question is, I suppose, whether there is anybody out there selling product to our children and not using inappropriate advertising if and when and for so often as it suits them?

The Sure advertisement is by no means the worst tv ad content.  Has anybody looked closely at the advertisement - which ran during children's television time - for a drink called Sprite Zero.   A Nubile young woman goes to a vending machine; She buys Sprite; She becomes aroused. She pulls off her slinky top and throws it at a camera, which is being monitored by a voyeuristic security man.   I am not sure what the message is, but I know it is not one which I want a 10 year old girl (or boy for that matter) to see.

I hate the 'live in fear' mentality, but there are just so many threats to childrens' innocence, that it is sometimes hard to avoid the feeling of being under siege.


----------



## truthseeker (7 Apr 2008)

MOB said:


> Has anybody looked closely at the advertisement - which ran during children's television time - for a drink called Sprite Zero. A Nubile young woman goes to a vending machine; She buys Sprite; She becomes aroused. She pulls off her slinky top and throws it at a camera, which is being monitored by a voyeuristic security man. I am not sure what the message is, but I know it is not one which I want a 10 year old girl (or boy for that matter) to see.


 
I always thought that the woman became too hot and threw off her top to cool off - then showing her extreme skinniness - which was supposed to represent the idea that Sprite Zero wouldnt make you put on weight?
I could be wrong.


----------



## MrMan (7 Apr 2008)

No, I think that sprite zero ad comes under the 'esx sells' bracket.


----------



## Purple (7 Apr 2008)

MOB said:


> Has anybody looked closely at the advertisement - which ran during children's television time - for a drink called Sprite Zero.   A Nubile young woman goes to a vending machine; She buys Sprite; She becomes aroused. She pulls off her slinky top and throws it at a camera, which is being monitored by a voyeuristic security man.   I am not sure what the message is, but I know it is not one which I want a 10 year old girl (or boy for that matter) to see.



A also found that ad annoying; she was a fine thing and ye could see nothin'!


----------



## Jock04 (7 Apr 2008)

Back on deodorants, I was surprised to find it wasn't an Irish product

"Sure, it won't let you down"


----------



## gipimann (8 Apr 2008)

Going back to the original poster's advert....

I finally saw the advert and I couldn't see any evidence that the vehicle was actually moving as the girls danced and jumped about - we didn't see a car (just an interior), didn't see a driver, didn't see passing scenery......so maybe the girls had jumped into a parked limo and did their thing?


----------



## Welfarite (8 Apr 2008)

....And what about the credit card ad with the groom-to-be satrting off naked running through the countryside? Puts me right off my dinner seeing that bare ass wobbling! Now if it were a woman .... .... but that would cause uproar, wouldn't it????!


----------



## Happy Girl (14 Apr 2008)

*Sure Deodorant Ad*

Anybody seen this ad with the three teenage girls sitting in back of car dancing to "don't you wish your girlfriend was hot like me". Was convinced it was an ad for seatbelt safety first time I saw it and was waiting for horrific accident scene as the girls were dancing in back of car and not a seatbelt on any of them. Surely this is irresponsible and certainly doesn't help the car safety ads campaign. What are other peoples opinions on this or am I over reacting?


----------



## Caveat (14 Apr 2008)

*Re: Sure Deodorant Ad*

Already under discussion Happy Girl - see page 2 of LOS.


----------



## truthseeker (14 Apr 2008)

*Re: Sure Deodorant Ad*

I opened the other thread Happy Girl - and you will see I had exactly the same reaction as you - I was waiting for a crash to happen.


----------



## Godfather (14 Apr 2008)

*After all the good and valuable ads on safe driving*

Hi guys, after all the ads on the importance of wearing a seat belt what's happening now? I was watching TV yesterday and suddendly I felt disgusted by an ad on deodorants in which teenagers were having a laugh and a dance in a car WITHOUT the seatbelts...

I don't know who hires such idiots for their ads...

I'm not mentioning the name of the brand of course but if you see one with girls having fun in a car have a look if they are wearing seatbelts...

Shocking!


----------



## Happy Girl (14 Apr 2008)

*Re: Sure Deodorant Ad*

Sorry Folks haven't been on L.O.S. in a while and only glimpsed first page of posts before I posted my own. Obviously there are plenty of like minded people who are disgusted by this ad.


----------



## DavyJones (15 Apr 2008)

I think ye need to lighten up. Firstly there is no evidence to suggest the van is moving, secondly even if it was, so what? We are not a nation of mindless muppets. If the ad gets pulled, what next? all action/war movies banned. Talk about wanting a nanny state. People, even very young people can tell the differance between real and fiction.


----------



## truthseeker (16 Apr 2008)

DavyJones said:


> I think ye need to lighten up. Firstly there is no evidence to suggest the van is moving, secondly even if it was, so what? We are not a nation of mindless muppets. If the ad gets pulled, what next? all action/war movies banned. Talk about wanting a nanny state. People, even very young people can tell the differance between real and fiction.


 
Have to disagree with that, most movies (or ads) that present non real world situations have a number of indicators to allow the audience to participate in 'suspension of belief'. This particular ad is quite deliberately presented as though shot through a hand held camera to make it appear more 'real'. 
I gained the impression the vehicle is moving, there is a suggestion of movement in the shakes of the handheld.


----------



## DavyJones (16 Apr 2008)

truthseeker said:


> Have to disagree with that, most movies (or ads) that present non real world situations have a number of indicators to allow the audience to participate in 'suspension of belief'. This particular ad is quite deliberately presented as though shot through a hand held camera to make it appear more 'real'.
> I gained the impression the vehicle is moving, there is a suggestion of movement in the shakes of the handheld.


 
Have to disagree with that also.  Would you ban the blair witch project? Give the people of Ireland credit. We can't wrap ourselves in cottonwool. Do you really belive that somebody will take motor saftey tips from a sure ad, or RSA ads for that matter. People who drive without seat belts don't do it cos they saw it on the TV, would you agree? As for the movement of the van, saw no movement in camera until she touched it, also check out the light streaming through the windows, no shadows or change in light = no movement.


----------



## Godfather (17 Apr 2008)

I don't understand... How can "sure" be able to advertise such an offence to the common sense??? Lots of people are dying on the road because they aren't wearing a seatbelt...


----------



## Godfather (17 Apr 2008)

Hi, I've just sent them a feedback through the contact us webpage of the producer:
[broken link removed]

Text:
"Hi there, I'm disgusted by your ad showing 3 young girls (product "Sure Girl") in a car and not wearing a seatbelt. After all the ads on the importance of wearing a seatbelt you should be ashamed of such ad! Shame on you! I hope you'll be able to replace the ad currently being shown with a wiser one!"

I kindly ask you to send as many feedbacks as prossible so that we can be able to do a change that can save lives of teenagers that sometimes can use an ad as a role-model.


----------



## truthseeker (17 Apr 2008)

I complained through here:
http://www.asai.ie/

They sent me a letter in the post that said they would investigate my complaint.


----------



## Godfather (17 Apr 2008)

Hi truthseeker, great! ...but won't that have effects only on the irish TV-channels?? Or could that impact the UK TV-channels (that are broadcasted a lot here as well)??


----------



## truthseeker (17 Apr 2008)

I dont know Godfather - I am also going to complain on the link you posted.


----------



## bullbars (17 Apr 2008)

DavyJones said:


> Have to disagree with that also. Would you ban the blair witch project? Give the people of Ireland credit. We can't wrap ourselves in cottonwool. Do you really belive that somebody will take motor saftey tips from a sure ad, or RSA ads for that matter. People who drive without seat belts don't do it cos they saw it on the TV, would you agree? As for the movement of the van, saw no movement in camera until she touched it, also check out the light streaming through the windows, no shadows or change in light = no movement.


 
I agree, how much of a nanny state do we want to create. I saw the ad and the ad after for listerine showed a guy on a boat with no life jacket. How many complained about that? A toyota ad a few years back showed a farmer pulling a stuck cow out with a jeep which ended in the cow being injured due to the great powere of this jeep, how many complained about animal cruelty in that instance? The miller ad shows a person cycling to the shop with no helmet on, yet no complaints?? American ads shown here might show drivers on the opposite side of the  road, should I stick in a complaint because someone might be confused after watching that ad and start driving on the right???


----------



## truthseeker (17 Apr 2008)

bullbars said:


> I agree, how much of a nanny state do we want to create. I saw the ad and the ad after for listerine showed a guy on a boat with no life jacket. How many complained about that? A toyota ad a few years back showed a farmer pulling a stuck cow out with a jeep which ended in the cow being injured due to the great powere of this jeep, how many complained about animal cruelty in that instance? The miller ad shows a person cycling to the shop with no helmet on, yet no complaints?? American ads shown here might show drivers on the opposite side of the road, should I stick in a complaint because someone might be confused after watching that ad and start driving on the right???


 
Theres a fundamental point being missed here - the Sure Girl ad is being aimed at minors and is presented 'documentary style'. The other ads you mention are aimed at adults and are not presented in a documentary style.


----------



## Teabag (17 Apr 2008)

truthseeker said:


> Totally disagree with this - glorifying something unsafe is not a good idea for any advertisements.



I am amazed at the reaction to this advert but I think we need to give young people some credit here...I dont think they will look at this advert and think its cool to sit in the back seat unbelted waving their arms in the air. 

I think we should be more concerned with that advert where the golfer doesn't wear any deoderant and all the little squirrels die.


----------



## wavejumper (17 Apr 2008)

Teabag said:


> I think we should be more concerned with that advert where the golfer doesn't wear any deoderant and all the little squirrels die.



cue big hilarity in wavejumper's house whenever that comes up 

can't belive the fuss about this ad.  Kids behave irresponsibly because of poor parenting skills, get over yourselves, stop blaming the telly.


----------



## Sunny (17 Apr 2008)

Teabag said:


> I am amazed at the reaction to this advert but I think we need to give young people some credit here...I dont think they will look at this advert and think its cool to sit in the back seat unbelted waving their arms in the air.


 
I agree but then maybe we should get onto the RSA and tell them to stop wasting money on road safety adverts about the affects of not wearing seat belts because nobody pays any attention to them or people already know it is stupid not to wear them.
I don't think the ad should be banned but I people are right to question why ads like this are allowed to be shown if it in anyway competes (not saying it does) with the message that the RSA is trying to get out. An advertiser wouldn't show someone someone drinking a can of beer or having a mobile phone to the ear while driving. Even car manufacturers have stopped using speed as a selling point in the majority of adverts to sell cars.


----------



## Teabag (17 Apr 2008)

Sunny said:


> I agree but then maybe we should get onto the RSA and tell them to stop wasting money on road safety adverts about the affects of not wearing seat belts because nobody pays any attention to them or people already know it is stupid not to wear them.



Again Sunny, I can kinda see what you are getting at...but give kids/parents some credit. 
I am sure they can differentiate the messages.


----------



## truthseeker (3 May 2008)

Got a letter back from the Advertising Standards Authority for Ireland telling me that they have taken the ad off the air from April 27th.


----------



## MrMan (6 May 2008)

Thank heavens for that, look at all the lives you've saved.


----------



## Teabag (6 May 2008)

truthseeker said:


> Got a letter back from the Advertising Standards Authority for Ireland telling me that they have taken the ad off the air from April 27th.



Fantastic news. So what's your next crusade ? I hope it's as worthwhile as this one.


----------



## rmelly (6 May 2008)

Teabag said:


> Fantastic news. So what's your next crusade ? I hope it's as worthwhile as this one.


 
What about this: http://www.askaboutmoney.com/showthread.php?t=81104


----------



## Purple (6 May 2008)

MrMan said:


> Thank heavens for that, look at all the lives you've saved.





Teabag said:


> Fantastic news. So what's your next crusade ? I hope it's as worthwhile as this one.




Sarcasm; don't ya just love it.


----------



## truthseeker (6 May 2008)

Clearly Im not the only one who complained - I hardly imagine they take ads off the air for one complaint.


----------



## Welfarite (6 May 2008)

truthseeker said:


> Clearly Im not the only one who complained - I hardly imagine they take ads off the air for one complaint.


 

Given your username, not even for you......?!?


----------



## Purple (6 May 2008)

truthseeker said:


> Clearly Im not the only one who complained - I hardly imagine they take ads off the air for one complaint.



You don't mind them; I think you're great.
Now can you do something about all the female hygiene products (tampon) ads on TV? I find them distasteful.


----------



## truthseeker (6 May 2008)

Purple said:


> You don't mind them; I think you're great.
> Now can you do something about all the female hygiene products (tampon) ads on TV? I find them distasteful.


 
lol - thanks Purple 

now that Im on a roll perhaps people could list their pet hate advertisements, reasons why and Ill start tackling them.

Sure Girl is not over yet - they said they will write back to me after an investigation and let me know the results.


----------



## Purple (6 May 2008)

truthseeker said:


> Sure Girl is not over yet - they said they will write back to me after an investigation and let me know the results.


Don't sweat over it...


----------



## DavyJones (6 May 2008)

There was an ad years ago, where a beautiful women is wearing a  blue lycra body suit and she is skating, was too young to know what the ads were for (tampons, i think) but old enough to know she was hot. My point being there is always room for beautiful women on tv no matter what they are trying to sell.


----------



## truthseeker (6 May 2008)

DavyJones said:


> There was an ad years ago, where a beautiful women is wearing a blue lycra body suit and she is skating, was too young to know what the ads were for (tampons, i think) but old enough to know she was hot. My point being there is always room for beautiful women on tv no matter what they are trying to sell.


 
Ah sure Sally O Brien and the way she might look at you........


----------



## Welfarite (6 May 2008)

The latest ad to annot me is the one for Mastercard (I think) featuring young kids "firing" and "sacking" parents for not pampering to their needs ...until one dad gets "hired" because he uses his card to buy his son's affection with a 5 day sailing trip....Yuckkk! Drives me nuts! What was that Beatle's song again about money not buying love????


----------



## DavyJones (6 May 2008)

truthseeker said:


> Ah sure Sally O Brien and the way she might look at you........


 
Amen to that . Reminds me of my elderly grandmother who when watching tv would mutter "gametes" any time a steamy ad appeared, again it took me a few years to understand what she was on about, (sex cells).


----------



## Teabag (6 May 2008)

truthseeker said:


> lol - thanks Purple
> now that Im on a roll perhaps people could list their pet hate advertisements, reasons why and Ill start tackling them.



I dont want to preach truthseeker but maybe you could channel some of your energy towards more important issues among young people. We all should.

http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Poverty/death/


----------



## rmelly (6 May 2008)

Teabag said:


> I dont want to preach truthseeker but maybe you could channel some of your energy towards more important issues among young people.


 
you mean like the heavy schoolbags they have to carry around with them?


----------



## Complainer (6 May 2008)

truthseeker said:


> Clearly Im not the only one who complained - I hardly imagine they take ads off the air for one complaint.


Don't mind the oul slaggers. It's the oul Irish tradition of sitting in the pub whinging about everything, and whinging loudly at those who get up off the backsides and try to fix anything.

I don't that ASAI decisions are driven by the number of complaints they recieve.


----------



## MrMan (7 May 2008)

> Don't mind the oul slaggers. It's the oul Irish tradition of sitting in the pub whinging about everything, and whinging loudly at those who get up off the backsides and try to fix anything.



Or is this a case of new Irish thinking where we feel we must complain about everything? Could it be an inflated sense of self importance that makes people complain about ads because they don't feel that others are capable of making up their own minds, do you really feel that 3 girls dancing in the back of a car ( that doesn't look like its moving) wearing no seat belts is going to undo all of the work of the road safety ads?


----------



## truthseeker (7 May 2008)

MrMan said:


> Or is this a case of new Irish thinking where we feel we must complain about everything? Could it be an inflated sense of self importance that makes people complain about ads because they don't feel that others are capable of making up their own minds, do you really feel that 3 girls dancing in the back of a car ( that doesn't look like its moving) wearing no seat belts is going to undo all of the work of the road safety ads?


 
I dont see what self importance has to do with it?
As far as Im concerned I found the ad to be sending out the wrong messages which offended me so I complained.


----------



## MrMan (7 May 2008)

> As far as Im concerned I found the ad to be sending out the wrong messages which offended me so I complained.



Will it not be seen as a job well done only when its taken off the air?


----------



## truthseeker (7 May 2008)

MrMan said:


> Will it not be seen as a job well done only when its taken off the air?


 
I only expressed MY opinion to the Advertising Standards Authority, it would take many opinions the same as mine to remove something from the air. I dont really see it as a job one way or the other - more that I availed of the opportunity of expressing myself through the proper channels.


----------



## GarBow (7 May 2008)

Truthseeker,

Would you deem it wrong for makers of childrens' cartoons to depict the characters not wearing seatbelts in cars? Just wondering as i noticed, whilst watching Peppa Pig with my 18 month old that the whole family were not wearing seatbelts, including Mummy and Daddy pig. I probably wouldn't have noticed had it not been for this discussion.


----------



## MrMan (7 May 2008)

> I only expressed MY opinion to the Advertising Standards Authority, it would take many opinions the same as mine to remove something from the air. I dont really see it as a job one way or the other - more that I availed of the opportunity of expressing myself through the proper channels.



Yes, but by expressing YOUR opinion to the complaints board, I take it that its with a view to remove the 'offending' piece from the public domain.


----------



## truthseeker (7 May 2008)

GarBow - no I wouldnt. The Sure ad is filmed 'documentary style' with a handheld camera so conveys a sense of realism, cartoons are just animated drawings. Mind you I still think they should probably show them wearing seatbelts, but its the realism of the Sure ad that caught my attention.

MrMan - if the Sure ad people were to include something in the ad that showed that the car definitely wasnt moving, or add something to it to give it a sense of 'unrealism' thatd be fine - but in its current format I dont think it conveys a safe message and shouldnt be shown - but I wouldnt have viewed that as my 'job' to ensure it isnt. I complained, a number of other people complained, they are having an investigation, the ad is off the air, all good as far as Im concerned but if they hadnt done any of the above I wouldnt have persued it to insist it was removed, I was simply expressing my own views on it.


----------



## Sylvester3 (7 May 2008)

Did anyone see that advert with the airport service vehicles drag-racing? A more disgraceful sight I never did see! What if airport workers copied them and started racing along the runway? My flight would never be ready on time! And don't get me started on the condition the luggage would be in!


----------



## Purple (7 May 2008)

Sylvester3 said:


> Did anyone see that advert with the airport service vehicles drag-racing? A more disgraceful sight I never did see! What if airport workers copied them and started racing along the runway? My flight would never be ready on time! And don't get me started on the condition the luggage would be in!



As for the car ad where it is driven along the roofs of buildings.


----------



## FredBloggs (7 May 2008)

GarBow said:


> Truthseeker,
> 
> i noticed, whilst watching Peppa Pig with my 18 month old that the whole family were not wearing seatbelts, including Mummy and Daddy pig. I probably wouldn't have noticed had it not been for this discussion.


 

Cartoon or not I think this is disgraceful as it is a very bad example.  I was behind a lorry load of pigs being brought to the slaughter house yesterday and not one of them was wearing a safety belt.   Personally, I blame Peppa Pig.


----------



## Purple (7 May 2008)

FredBloggs said:


> Personally, I blame Peppa Pig.



That's stupid; Peppa pig is just a child. You should blame her parents Mr. and Mrs. Pig. If you are going to blame Peppa you may as well blame her little brother George. 

(Don't ya just love watching TV with the kids!)


----------



## FredBloggs (7 May 2008)

Purple said:


> That's stupid; Peppa pig is just a child. You should blame her parents Mr. and Mrs. Pig. If you are going to blame Peppa you may as well blame her little brother George.
> 
> (Don't ya just love watching TV with the kids!)


 
No Peppa is definitely to blame.
George is too young to be of any consquence. Take it from me Peppa is evil.

ps Peppa Pig is not a child ...she is a PIG!!!!


----------



## Purple (7 May 2008)

FredBloggs said:


> ps Peppa Pig is not a child ...she is a PIG!!!!




She's a child pig (pigs don't just appear fully grown you know ).


----------



## jmayo (7 May 2008)

I sense some discrimination against pigs, cartoon pigs and even worse elderly aged pigs 

Someone should have phoned Liveline about the Sure ad.
Joe would have just loved to have said the immortal word. "Sure"


----------



## FredBloggs (7 May 2008)

jmayo said:


> Someone should have phoned Liveline about the Sure ad.
> Joe would have just loved to have said the immortal word. "Sure"


 




jmayo said:


> I sense some discrimination against pigs, cartoon pigs and even worse elderly aged pigs


 
Not true.  I won't have a word said against Grandpa Pig.


----------



## redstar (18 Jul 2008)

Ha !, the Sure girl ad has been withdrawn following complaints to the ASAI, which were upheld.

[broken link removed]



> The ASAI received 39 objections to the television advertisement, with complainants arguing that it gave the message that not wearing seatbelts was acceptable.
> 
> They stated that this ran contrary to the law and the policies of the Road Safety Authority (RSA).
> 
> ...


----------



## Vanilla (18 Jul 2008)

Purple said:


> She's a child pig (pigs don't just appear fully grown you know ).


 
Tsk! Townies! A 'child pig' is a piglet or bonham. ( Even in franglais that makes sense...)


----------



## MrMan (18 Jul 2008)

> Ha !, the Sure girl ad has been withdrawn following complaints to the ASAI, which were upheld.



The roads will be safer as a result.


----------



## GarBow (21 Apr 2010)

Finally Peppa has been repremanded..

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8460753.stm


----------



## Purple (21 Apr 2010)

Great news GarBow, and thanks for keeping an eye on this for the last two years.


----------



## GarBow (21 Apr 2010)

Keeping an eye on it? I was out campaigning for it!

(saw it on 'Have I got news for you' and just brought back memories)


----------



## Vanilla (21 Apr 2010)

purple said:


> great news garbow, and thanks for keeping an eye on this for the last two years.


 
lol.


----------



## thedaras (21 Apr 2010)

Rte did a piece about a year ago,where the reporter was being filmed in a car which was moving ,and she had no seatbelt on.

I complained ,but they gave some excuse ,like we were compliant with health and safety blah blah the car was going very slow blah blah..
Must see if I still have their email and post it...


----------



## MrMan (22 Apr 2010)

thedaras said:


> Rte did a piece about a year ago,where the reporter was being filmed in a car which was moving ,and she had no seatbelt on.
> 
> I complained ,but they gave some excuse ,like we were compliant with health and safety blah blah the car was going very slow blah blah..
> Must see if I still have their email and post it...


 
Did you seriously complain? Is that not just a case of wasting yours and their time.


----------



## Complainer (23 Apr 2010)

MrMan said:


> Did you seriously complain? Is that not just a case of wasting yours and their time.


Not if it helps them to focus on the safety of their staff in the future.


----------



## MrMan (24 Apr 2010)

Complainer said:


> Not if it helps them to focus on the safety of their staff in the future.



Do you think an email of complaint would have that affect?


----------



## Complainer (24 Apr 2010)

MrMan said:


> Do you think an email of complaint would have that affect?


Maybe - depends on how it was phrased, who it was emailed to, what kind of follow up their was, etc etc.

The one thing you can be absolutely certain about is that NOT sending a complaint will definitely NOT have any effect.


----------



## MrMan (24 Apr 2010)

Complainer said:


> Maybe - depends on how it was phrased, who it was emailed to, what kind of follow up their was, etc etc.
> 
> The one thing you can be absolutely certain about is that NOT sending a complaint will definitely NOT have any effect.



I guess my point being that being a busy body can have an effect, just not necessarily a good one i.e you could affect someones day by wasting their time with nit picky emails and likewise wasting your own time by writing them.


----------



## Sue Ellen (24 Apr 2010)

MrMan said:


> I guess my point being that being a busy body can have an effect, just not necessarily a good one i.e you could affect someones day by wasting their time with nit picky emails and likewise wasting your own time by writing them.



But on the other hand if the model was injured in the making of the ad and everyone says if only we had though of this or somebody had brought it to our attention we might have done something about it.  A young person watching the ad might think its cool to drive a car without a seat belt.  I've heard friends say one of the reasons they took up smoking years ago because they thought people looked 'cool' when smoking


----------



## MrMan (24 Apr 2010)

Sue Ellen said:


> But on the other hand if the model was injured in the making of the ad and everyone says if only we had though of this or somebody had brought it to our attention we might have done something about it.  A young person watching the ad might think its cool to drive a car without a seat belt.  I've heard friends say one of the reasons they took up smoking years ago because they thought people looked 'cool' when smoking



Whilst pulling my hair out i feel the need to yell 'CAN PEOPLE NOT JUST GROW UP' but luckily i saw an advertisment that showed that yelling is impolite so I will tailor my lifestyle accordingly.


----------



## Purple (24 Apr 2010)

Sue Ellen said:


> I've heard friends say one of the reasons they took up smoking years ago because they thought people looked 'cool' when smoking



Do you think we are raising a generation of kids who will drop safes onto cats from high buildings from watching Itchy & Scratchy?


----------



## Complainer (24 Apr 2010)

MrMan said:


> I guess my point being that being a busy body can have an effect, just not necessarily a good one i.e you could affect someones day by wasting their time with nit picky emails and likewise wasting your own time by writing them.


I guess it all depends on whether you consider highlighting a life-threatening safety issue to be 'busy body' and 'nit picky'. I don't.

We all get defensive when we get negative feedback. It is a natural reaction. If we want to be professional, we need to put this defensiveness aside and see how things can be improved for the future.


----------



## Teatime (25 Apr 2010)

Complainer said:


> I guess it all depends on whether you consider highlighting a life-threatening safety issue to be 'busy body' and 'nit picky'. I don't.


 
Life is life-threatening.


----------



## MrMan (26 Apr 2010)

Complainer said:


> I guess it all depends on whether you consider highlighting a life-threatening safety issue to be 'busy body' and 'nit picky'. I don't.
> 
> We all get defensive when we get negative feedback. It is a natural reaction. If we want to be professional, we need to put this defensiveness aside and see how things can be improved for the future.



By all means highlight life-threatening issues, this hardly constitutes one. Surely people have the ability to assess the situation from their own point of view, ie the production team, health & safety etc and they can make an informed decision without the need for an email from somebody watching the final edit on their TV screen?
Some people enjoy picking holes in others work and complaining about it, but it is not a quality that really adds to society, it just drives most reasonable people mad.


----------



## Complainer (26 Apr 2010)

MrMan said:


> Some people enjoy picking holes in others work and complaining about it, but it is not a quality that really adds to society, it just drives most reasonable people mad.


I guess we're not going to agree on this, so we should probably just agree to differ. Many Irish people have stayed quiet for too long about a lot of things, including bad service and bad safety. If you think that wearing a seat belt isn't life threatening, go ask Diana and Dodi about it.


----------



## MrMan (26 Apr 2010)

Complainer said:


> I guess we're not going to agree on this, so we should probably just agree to differ. Many Irish people have stayed quiet for too long about a lot of things, including bad service and bad safety. If you think that wearing a seat belt isn't life threatening, go ask Diana and Dodi about it.



I guess your right (on the not agreeing part). My problem is when people can't differentiate between a slow driving piece for Tv and a mad dash through a tunnel at speed whilst in pursuit by paparazzi. If you think the two represent the same probable outcome then thats up to you.


----------



## Complainer (26 Apr 2010)

MrMan said:


> My problem is when people can't differentiate between a slow driving piece for Tv and a mad dash through a tunnel at speed whilst in pursuit by paparazzi. If you think the two represent the same probable outcome then thats up to you.


The law doesn't differentiate between these two scenarios (in terms of obligation to wear seat belts).


----------



## MrMan (27 Apr 2010)

Complainer said:


> The law doesn't differentiate between these two scenarios (in terms of obligation to wear seat belts).



We are talking about common sense not the law. We are also talking about why people feel the need to interfere and complain.


----------



## Complainer (27 Apr 2010)

MrMan said:


> We are talking about common sense not the law.


Since when do you get to decide what 'we' are talking about? I'm talking about the national broadcaster showing one of their staff breaking the law. This is not for dramatic effect. The programme would have been just as effective if the interviewee was belted up. 



MrMan said:


> We are also talking about why people feel the need to interfere and complain.


Because it makes the world a better place, i.e. reduces the risk of other reporters making the same stupid mistake in future.


----------



## MrMan (27 Apr 2010)

Complainer said:


> Since when do you get to decide what 'we' are talking about? I'm talking about the national broadcaster showing one of their staff breaking the law. This is not for dramatic effect. The programme would have been just as effective if the interviewee was belted up.
> 
> 
> Because it makes the world a better place, i.e. reduces the risk of other reporters making the same stupid mistake in future.



'Allegedly' breaking the law, you don't know what permission they had when running the program. 

If you consider the reporter to be stupid, be inference you regard yourself as a smarter person and that kind of brings us back to my original thought, that people who nit pick and complain about such minor incidents are simply busybodies.


----------



## Complainer (27 Apr 2010)

MrMan said:


> 'Allegedly' breaking the law, you don't know what permission they had when running the program.


There is no provision within the Road Traffic Acts to get 'permission' to break the law (unless they are a member of the Gardai on duty). I'd have thought it was a fairly safe bet to assume that the RTE reporter is not a serving member of the Gardai.



MrMan said:


> If you consider the reporter to be stupid, be inference you regard yourself as a smarter person and that kind of brings us back to my original thought, that people who nit pick and complain about such minor incidents are simply busybodies.


I didn't say the reporter was stupid. I said the mistake was stupid. There is a big difference between labelling an action and labelling a person (you might like to give some consideration this distinction). I've no idea whether I'm 'smarter' than the reporter or not, and I don't really care. This is not about being smart.


----------



## MrMan (27 Apr 2010)

Complainer said:


> There is no provision within the Road Traffic Acts to get 'permission' to break the law (unless they are a member of the Gardai on duty). I'd have thought it was a fairly safe bet to assume that the RTE reporter is not a serving member of the Gardai.
> 
> 
> I didn't say the reporter was stupid. I said the mistake was stupid. There is a big difference between labelling an action and labelling a person (you might like to give some consideration this distinction). I've no idea whether I'm 'smarter' than the reporter or not, and I don't really care. This is not about being smart.



To the best of my knowledge there are instances when one does not have to wear a safety belt i.e medical reasons. The crux of the matter to me is that I don't believe that picking on such an item will save any lives or make the world a better place, you seem to believe otherwise.

Regarding the distinctions of stupidity, their mistake meant that they were stupid in that instance in your eyes, does that sound right?
We have gone over this once to often I feel and as you said earlier we all get defensive when we get negative feedback, so seeing as we both believe we are right, I will agree to disagree.


----------

