Sexist and dangerous Samaritans ad

The message is good. Suicides, especially jumpers, are impulsive and can be distracted with small talk for long enough to have second thoughts.

The implementation is terrible, and not just because of the thoughtless use of the support human. The creators seem to have no common sense and no idea of how humans work.

The correct thing to do would have been to signal to hi-viz guy. They're trained for dealing with jumpers.

It's completely wrong to shame women for being unwilling to tackle a potentially dangerous man.

And the way she tackled him was too personal IMO. Maybe better to stand a little way away and facing the same way as him, and start one of those general purpose conversations that people have in public places (about the state of the trains, say) addressed as if to everyone in earshot.

🎯 this. There’s so many levels to the actor they chose for this. And mind you she’s black but not “too black”

Are you really going to pretend they are the same thing?

Bit of a strange campaign isn't it if its literally "Do you know where I can get a coffee as I sit here waiting for a train I need to catch"

"Oh yea there's a place just round the corner"

"OK ill let you crack on, I hope my nonsensical question as a complete layman has interrupted your thoughts enough to prevent you from doing something drastic that usually requires perfessional intervention. Cheerio!"

Exactly, I’ve seen quite a few videos recently including one in Belgium last month of men shoving women onto the tracks.

The truth is mentally ill men seem to be a greater risk to others than say a mentally ill woman. And most women are not going to have the same strength as the average man so I’d feel more confident approaching a woman who looked distressed but even then I’d take care.

Changing how the woman looked with regards to hair and makeup was unnecessary and manipulative. There are other ways of getting that important message across

And if no one intervenes its someone else's fault, which is the underlying message and utter bollocks. Agreed @Megifer

This is, inadvertently perhaps, something that will make those who have lost others to suicide feel guilty or make people start feeling anxious about others.

Instead of the government putting the money and structures in place for more mental health support and trying to create a society that isn’t so detrimental to many peoples mental health, it’s all about having a tea and a chat with a random or a neighbour.

The truth is so many people are frazzled, overworked and struggling in these times. But it’s much cheaper to get us all to run around and try to address some of the symptoms than the root of it.

For instance they could have more staff at railway lines to look out for this sort of thing but it’s much cheaper instead to rope women into talking random men at train stations.

Also many if not most people - especially women - who die by suicide put on a pretty good mask and you won’t see them hovering around the platform edge.

Yea I know somewhere let's go"

"Oh ummm I was just asking so I could go alone

Well I don't always assume that a person asking me for directions to a place is automatically inviting me to go with them

Actually, one good thing about this whole thread is that it has reminded me to re-start my efforts around suicide prevention at my local spot (which I mentioned upthread).

It has some very old and faded Samaritans signs - even getting these replaced could be a good thing. Or perhaps a motion-sensitive camera.

But consider reading this article if you feel able to do so - it obviously contains some upsetting content but it completely changed my mindset around suicide.

Prevention measures can and do make a difference.

The bold new fight to eradicate suicide | Suicide rates | The Guardian

I would see if there were any staff around elsewhere.

What I wouldn't do is approach a disturbed and distressed looking man who is standing close to the edge of the platform, because if he's really disturbed he might push me onto the track.

It's ridiculous that this ad is showing another man, who looks like railway staff, just ignoring the distressed man while the woman, who is just a member of the public, approaches him with a question about coffee which seems like a chat-up line. If she really wanted to know where the nearest cafe was, the obvious person to ask would be the man who worked there.

That would’ve been ideal - the perfect solution really.

"Yea I know somewhere let's go"

"Oh ummm I was just asking so I could go alone"

Honestly 🙄

Small talk is "nice weather isn't it?"

Exactly

No, it was me who said it. The person you've been replying to?

She looks fine. Everyone looks fine. Nevertheless women buy make-up because looking fine is not good enough for women. Society has higher expectations of women than that. This remains true even if individual women rebel against it.

The made-up version is for added beauty, or even 'desirability'. The added beauty is to communicate that the left-hand version's behaviour is more moral.

Beauty is being equivocated with the personality trait of "proactive about strange men's welfare to one's own potential detriment". It's a bit like the Roald Dahl quote that having nice thoughts makes you a more beautiful person.

Did we just watch the same advert? 😕
She didn't ask him out at all, she asked if he knew where she could get a coffee from.
Small talk to make sure someone's OK.
If it was a person who was in a bad place, it could help "ground" them momentarily and help them, you never know.
Not sure what you mean by sexier, either?!
Nothing at all about that, sorry but what are you on about?

For the record it wasn’t me who said everyone looks fine without make up. I said she looks fine.

Is it worth a complaint to the ASA?

Yes, I think we're probably saying the same thing really.

To the Samaritans, their entire charitable purpose is around suicide prevention - so if an advert does a good job of promoting that message, then it is successful from their point of view.

This is their charitable purpose from the Charity Commission website:

(A) TO ENABLE PERSONS WHO ARE EXPERIENCING FEELINGS OF DISTRESS OR DESPAIR, INCLUDING THOSE WHO MAY BE AT RISK OF SUICIDE, TO RECEIVE CONFIDENTIAL EMOTIONAL SUPPORT AT ANY TIME OF THE DAY OR NIGHT FROM APPROPRIATELY TRAINED SAMARITANS IN ORDER TO IMPROVE THEIR EMOTIONAL HEALTH AND TO REDUCE THE INCIDENCE OF SUICIDE; AND (B) TO PROMOTE A BETTER UNDERSTANDING IN SOCIETY OF SUICIDE, SUICIDAL BEHAVIOUR AND THE VALUE OF EXPRESSING FEELINGS WHICH MAY OTHERWISE LEAD TO SUICIDE OR IMPAIRED EMOTIONAL HEALTH.

So it meets those purposes, even though I agree it could be improved in other ways.

Whereas if HM Government were creating an advert then one would hope that they would be much more conscious of how it would impact on different groups, including women, from the outset although I wouldn't count on it these days. I believe there is still the need to do an equalities impact assessment for new initiatives?

That’s got nothing to do with this ad. I’ve been asking why is there a made up and a make up free version of this woman when it’s not necessary in order to understand that the woman is having a conflicting dialogue. Two of the same person is quite sufficient for any half intelligent person to work it out.

Not read the whole thread, but I notice "blurry man" is wearing orange hi-viz, so probably station staff.

Everyone looks fine without make-up.

So why is anyone buying it?

willWillSmithsmith · Today 14:39

MrsSkylerWhite · Today 14:36

Some aren’t.
**
Then they might not be capable of understanding anything in this ad. They could easily have just had this woman look the same on both sides of the dialogue”

OK, fair enough.
I just don’t have the same issue with you at the presentation.

OldCrone · Today 14:37

MrsSkylerWhite · Today 14:31

And if she hadn’t seen him and really thought the man was about to do something terrible?

It's quite clear that she can see him”

You’re absolutely right in this ad, I put that badly. I was thinking more of a real life situation, if a woman with a feeling that someone was in trouble and wondering whether to intervene hadn’t seen someone else. What would they do?

I still don’t understand why make up being a billion dollar industry has to do with the woman having a made up and a make up free version of herself in the ad.

Then they might not be capable of understanding anything in this ad. They could easily have just had this woman look the same on both sides of the dialogue.