When the petty, spiteful, intellectual pygmies of the left-leaning establishment come across something of which they disapprove, they have only one tool in their toolbox. A hammer. A great big hammer, with “BAN” stamped upon the pein.
Advertising aimed at children of primary school age and younger should be banned, a group of authors, journalists and academics has said.
Sigh…
Every bloody time, every single time, these control freaks come out with the same tired refrain, the same weary tune. Ban it, down upon our heads, ban it, ban it, until they are sure liberty is dead.
Yes, I’m sure that advertising is a nuisance for parents who are subjected to the inevitable pester power. I recall it being so for my parents as I and my siblings were the first generation to be subjected to television adverts broadcast during children’s hour aimed at us – the pesterers. Yes, and did we pester. Did we get what we demanded? No, we did not. Parents in the sixties had a word in their lexicon designed to deal with such menaces. It was a simple monosyllabic word that stopped the pestering in its tracks. They used it regularly and so effectively that eventually we realised that asking was a waste of time – the reply was always the same and it was “no”. Sometimes this was justified with an explanation that they couldn’t afford it, which was true enough and we were sufficiently astute to realise that. Sometimes they pointed out that the piece of expensive plastic tat was a waste of money and they had no intention of buying it. However, if we wanted to save our pocket money and waste that, well, that was our choice. And, yes, I did spend weeks saving up the 14/6d necessary to buy a plastic Thunderbird Two that broke within weeks of the purchase. I learned a valuable lesson on that occasion.
“No” It’s a useful word and one that can be used very effectively. If that doesn’t stop the pestering, then switch off the television and refuse to switch it on again until the demands cease. And parents like Jonathan Kent who have lost control of their television remote to their children are beyond pathetic; they really shouldn’t breed for the sake of the species.
However, the authors, journalists and academics (was there ever a greater collection of Satan’s spawn?) should mind their own business. It is not their place to make such demands and the state should take note of those parents from the sixties and borrow from their lexicon. Because, you see, it’s none of the state’s business, either.
The campaign group has learned from other similar control freaks, though…
“The tobacco industry managed to argue for years that cigarettes don’t cause harm. Proving causality is difficult, especially when it’s in an area as complex and nebulous as psychology,” he said.
Well, fuck me sideways, you didn’t see that one coming, did you? Advertising aimed at children is the new tobacco smoke. Next it’ll be passive advertising, just you see if it isn’t. Slippery slope, much, eh?
Just blogged on that myself. These people should be very careful about what they wish for as it usually comes around to bite them on the arse one day.
It must irk the hell out of all those loyal anti-smoking campaigners that these days, in order to get their own way, the new “pressure movements” as well as wheeling out the predictable “ban it!” demand, always follow it up with some feeble attempt to link their own disliked product or activity to tobacco. As if that’s some kind of trump card which is going to make everyone say: “Crumbs! As bad as tobacco? Well, we’ve got to ban it, then, haven’t we?”
It seems that “like tobacco” in any way, shape or form is the new “for the sake of the children,” i.e. it’s become the statement that gets regularly wheeled out every time some protester against something or another knows that they are on shaky ground and is desperate to win people over to his or her “side” before the weakness of his true reasons for wanting to ban this, that or the other becomes too obvious.
For Tobacco Control, though, having got as far as they have done largely by insisting that tobacco is a “unique product” and that because of this there would be no “slippery slope” or “domino effect” or “dangerous precedent,” all these other new kids on the block are now threatening to let the cat out of the bag completely in a highly selfish attempt to push their own insignificant, meaningless little ban demands – because, of course, according to dyed-in-the-wool anti-smokers, tobacco is the Only Evil Thing In The World.
Aw, widdums! If Tobacco Control wasn’t populated by such a vile bunch of anti-social, self-righteous, tight-lipped-and-sensitive control freaks I’d almost feel sorry for them …
Careful there, I almost detected a wobbly lower lip.
For Tobacco Control, though, having got as far as they have done largely by insisting that tobacco is a “unique product” and that because of this there would be no “slippery slope” or “domino effect” or “dangerous precedent,” all these other new kids on the block are now threatening to let the cat out of the bag completely in a highly selfish attempt to push their own insignificant, meaningless little ban demands – because, of course, according to dyed-in-the-wool anti-smokers, tobacco is the Only Evil Thing In The World
It may come as a surprise to you, but I really could not care less if you smoke or not. All I cared about was that I could go to enclosed public spaces without having to breathe someone else’s smoke. And by the way, I think cannabis users would be very happy to swap their own legal position with that of tobacco smokers and “Tobacco Control”.
Aw, widdums! If Tobacco Control wasn’t populated by such a vile bunch of anti-social, self-righteous, tight-lipped-and-sensitive control freaks I’d almost feel sorry for them
Don’t feel sorry for me. I am completely content with the current law on smoking.
“All I cared about was that I could go to enclosed public spaces without having to breathe someone else’s smoke.”
So we can presume you would oppose any moves to ban smoking in unenclosed public spaces, such as parks. Can we assume also that you were opposed to the smoking ban in private premises such as pubs and clubs ?
I posted this on Quiet Man’s blog where he was discussing the same thing:
It must be about ten years ago that there was a discussion on BBC Radio 4 about TV advertising that was aimed at children. The bansturbator was totally trounced. Other countries that had tried it, with various disasterous unintended consequences, were cited. There was also a junior vox-pops that showed that kids, rather than being helpless victims of the advertising industry, had developed a healthy scepticism with regard to the advertiser’s claims, in contrast to the kids from the countries where such bans had been imposed, who tended toward extreme gullibility.
Christopher Snowdon summed it up with the tweet “Plain packaging for teddy bears!”