ASDA Costume apology.

i do hate this sort of slippery slope

its pretty worrying where this is all heading, the illusion of freedom will soon even be gone!
lmao at the jimmy saville costume :D

for the record im AGAINST the BAN quite strongly. everything offends someone, heck, even doing nothing offends people!
 
al4x said:
i do hate this sort of slippery slope

its pretty worrying where this is all heading, the illusion of freedom will soon even be gone!
lmao at the jimmy saville costume :D

for the record im AGAINST the BAN quite strongly. everything offends someone, heck, even doing nothing offends people!
Click to expand...
Nothing was banned, it was voluntarily removed due to complaints regarding it's insensitive nature.

Nobody's hand was forced & the law wasn't used to club anybody's freedoms.
 
elmarko said:
Nothing was banned, it was voluntarily removed due to complaints regarding it's insensitive nature.

Nobody's hand was forced & the law wasn't used to club anybody's freedoms.
Click to expand...

That is a good thing at least..but i still feel the path has been laid
this is the best and worst thing about twitter et al. things like this really gain momentum and a bandwagon starts
 
al4x said:
That is a good thing at least..but i still feel the path has been laid
this is the best and worst thing about twitter et al. things like this really gain momentum and a bandwagon starts
Click to expand...
We can have freedom of speech without being needlessly offensive to the vulnerable - but either way, I'm not suggesting using the law to enforce this view - just asking that large multinational corporations have some sensitivity to a collection of people who are also their customers (or face criticism, as if group A uses it's free speech to offend - group B is also free to condemn & criticise it).

Free speech isn't just saying whatever you want without being challenged.

In this case this is free speech working as intended,

Group A (corporation) exercised it's free speech by creating a product others deemed offensive.
Group B (some of the public) exercised it's free speech by criticising the product & requested it was removed/renamed due to it's insensitive nature.
Group A (corporation) agreed it was not worth the damage to reputation & made the changes.

Isn't this how the system should work? (with no laws being involved to force a specific view & all parties acting peacefully without coercion).
 
Last edited:
Lets hope policemen/women, teachers, school girls, cheerleaders,nurses, air hostesses and Secretaries never go and look in the costume section in Ann summers....
 
It's a disgrace, it portays mental patients as some kind of violent killers which is obviously not the case.

People with mental illness have enough stigma to face without stuff like this supporting it.
 
Looks like all the OcUK "nutters" are being offended here today.

Same as i do when all the fatty, fat, fat, fat threads pop up :P hahah
 
If it were called 'Depressed person' or 'Biopolar freak' I could kind of get behind the band, but it is clearly referencing extreme sadistic psychotic killers of a fictional nature.

I don't believe for one second that anyone actually thinks that people with depression or other mental illnesses run around covered in blood-soaked strait-jackets wielding meat cleavers.
 
krooton said:
If it were called 'Depressed person' or 'Biopolar freak' I could kind of get behind the band, but it is clearly referencing extreme sadistic psychotic killers of a fictional nature.

I don't believe for one second that anyone actually thinks that people with depression or other mental illnesses run around covered in blood-soaked strait-jackets wielding meat cleavers.
Click to expand...

it's obviously supposed to be an escaped mental asylum patient , do mental asylums even exist any more?
 
Complete non story.

It's a costume of a popular culture character from bad/tacky slasher movies. Usually complete with fake blood and knife.

It's not a reflection of a stereotype or opinion the nation holds about psychiatric ward patients or attempt to make fun of mental problems in the same way as dressing as a sexy nurse is not an attempt to objectify female National Health Service employees and dressing as Elmer Fudd does not try to glorify poaching or belittle suffering of small carrot munching animals.

It's time to grow up media.
 
starfighter said:
It's a disgrace, it portays mental patients as some kind of violent killers which is obviously not the case.

People with mental illness have enough stigma to face without stuff like this supporting it.
Click to expand...

Shall we get rid of all the Ann Summers costumes that portray policemen, nurses, nuns e.t.c as flithy sexual deviants then as well?
 
Jono8 said:
Shall we get rid of all the Ann Summers costumes that portray policemen, nurses, nuns e.t.c as flithy sexual deviants then as well?
Click to expand...

I don't think there's a stigma or stereotype towards policeman, nurses or nuns actually being sexual deviants, whereas there is definitely a negative stigma attached to people suffering mental health issues in large parts of our society, and a lot of people's attitudes towards mental health are so backwards that they probably aren't too far off this slasher image.

The stigma attached to those with mental health issues can cause real suffering, there's really no need to reinforce it by naming the costume "mental patient". There's nothing wrong with the costume, just how they named it.
 
I think I know why people are so easily offended these days. It started with the Muslims crying about everything and always getting their own way, now everyone else wants a piece of the pie.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom