Advanced search

Need your thoughts for Radio London, please, about PETA's 'Baby P' poster

(82 Posts)
GeraldineMumsnet (MNHQ) Mon 12-Oct-09 14:13:35

This PETA poster has been put up in Haringey, the borough where Baby P lived, by PETA, which campaigns for animal rights.

BBC Radio London wants to know your take on this. Do you think shock tactics in ads are acceptable?

Thanks in advance

Cerened Mon 12-Oct-09 14:17:37

I don't like it. I appreciate the message needs to be shocking but just wish Baby P wasn't now being associated with Peta - or in fact, where do you draw the line associating him with any other semi relevant cause?

ByThePowerOfGreyskull Mon 12-Oct-09 14:18:27

although it is accurate I am not sure it is appropriate, it would make me wander off thinking about the evil things people do to each other and less about hurting animals - sorry

GypsyMoth Mon 12-Oct-09 14:19:44

it wasn't what i expected,but good to see that he isn't being exploited by use of his picture. alot of people won't recognise who the man is.

RubyrubyrubysAScaryOldBint Mon 12-Oct-09 14:20:09

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

DuelingFANGo Mon 12-Oct-09 14:20:23

Mawkish. Horribly so.

But I suppose they will be appeaking to a section of society they might not have before.

Tortington Mon 12-Oct-09 14:21:02

are they allowed legally to a convicted criminals picture up in an advert?

i think it panders to the torymail and redtop paper mentality.

Sidge Mon 12-Oct-09 14:21:18

I don't like it. IMO it is belittling what that man has done to human beings. Not that animal cruelty isn't awful but it isn't comparable to what he did to children.

said Mon 12-Oct-09 14:21:33

I'm thinking about creulty to children, not animals, when looking at that. So, as a campaign, it doesn't work for me. Plus, think it's pretty cheap.

squeaver Mon 12-Oct-09 14:21:43

Honestly, I think it's a bit subtle and therefore not very good or shocking. Just a bit crap.

Itsjustafleshwound Mon 12-Oct-09 14:21:47

I can't say I would have made the association between the man and Baby P if it wasn't for the title ... perhaps more of a cheap shot than actually shocking ...

Tortington Mon 12-Oct-09 14:21:52

i mean if i were ever convicted of a crime - do i forfeit the rights to my own image?

DuelingFANGo Mon 12-Oct-09 14:23:21

I wonder who, if anyone, owns the copyright on that photograph and if they gave permission for it to be used in this way? Suppose they must have.

MarthaFarquhar Mon 12-Oct-09 14:24:52

looks like a police custody shot to me

It is true, though -- if you can bang someone up while they are still torturing animals it makes it more difficult for them to move onto torturing children (and even if they do they are flagged up in the system).

From subject line of this post I expected something a whole lot more contentious (although clearly it's proving to be contentious as it is). And it surprises me coming from PETA.

RubyrubyrubysAScaryOldBint Mon 12-Oct-09 14:25:58

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

mindalina Mon 12-Oct-09 14:26:20

PETA have no shame. I despise them.

Tbh I wouldn't have known who the guy was if I had just seen it in the street, and thus I would completely ignore it as more pointless PETA crap.

I honestly don't think this will gain PETA any sympathy from non-supporters. Quite disgraceful and revolting hijacking of such a sad tale imo.

You don't have rights to your own image, by and large -- the photographer does (with certain limitations and exceptions). And I imagine (disclaimer: don't know for sure but it seems to be how these things work) that in this case the headshot was released after the trial by the police with a general license for use and redistribution.

Merrylegs Mon 12-Oct-09 14:29:57

TBH, if the thread title hadn't said 'Baby P', I wouldn't have known who this man was. I think people would report cruelty to animals anyway. More so than cruelty towards a child, sadly.

OrmIrian Mon 12-Oct-09 14:30:08

No ruby - they promote the ethical treatment of animals generally, including in farming.

I don't think it's such a terribly contentious idea TBH. Cruelty is cruelty - the fact that is is carried out on non-human animals doesn't make it unimportant.

By said on Mon 12-Oct-09 14:21:33
I'm thinking about creulty to children, not animals, when looking at that. So, as a campaign, it doesn't work for me. Plus, think it's pretty cheap.

But that's the point of the campaign, isn't it? You're supposed to think about cruelty to children and that, even if you don't give two shakes of a rat's tale [pun not originally intended, but what the heck] about cruelty to animals, reporting/catching people who abuse animals is helping to avoid future cruelty to children. This is being specifically aimed at people who aren't fussed about animal cruelty, and isn't even attempting to outrage them about animal cruelty (which is what surprised me).

Gaston Mon 12-Oct-09 14:32:42

I do not think that Thing's face should be seen by innocent kids/people. It (he) is sick and we should not have to look at it !

RubyrubyrubysAScaryOldBint Mon 12-Oct-09 14:33:08

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

OrmIrian Mon 12-Oct-09 14:33:56

If someone can casually torture an animal - chuck a kitten out of a top floor window for example - do we not think they need to be deterred or punished. It's not the automatic next step to be torturing children but regardless of that, do we really want to accept that kind of attitude and behaviour?

RubyrubyrubysAScaryOldBint Mon 12-Oct-09 14:35:46

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now