Salvation Army advert..

[wonderstuff]

Any one else a bit at this ad? The bit where the Sally Army worker takes in a group of black youths, seemed to be identifying young black men as a group in need of saving, are we ok with that?

it also shows eldery man having dinner and a chat does that mean all elderly people are lonely with no family

Salvation army also need to stop using workfare!

No, but being lonely isn't such a negative thing. Maybe it's just me, I just thought it was odd casting.

And they feature children in their adverts too.

All groups they help.

Religious organisations are damned if they do and damned if they don't.

Well they do a lot of good and I couldn't do what they do so good luck to them.

I not damming them, I just don't like the ad.

the bit I think you are talking about could be young white men hanging about the streets why is their colour bad casting ?

They help everyone in need, regardless of race, religion, sexuality, colour, creed.

They do it out of kindness, give them a break

Wonder how many of the ones who are homeless with no food have had their benefits sanctioned due to the SA reporting them to the Jobcentre. Its a FUCKING HUGE conflict of interest which shouldnt be allowed.
There is another charity called St Mungos which helps homeless ppl Im willing to bet they have probably been getting donations from ppl who used to donate to the SA and now dont because of workfare.

Strictly speaking, young black men in general are far more likely to be in need of more help and support (I don't know if anyone needs 'saving) - they are, in general, more likely to be victims of crime, to get arrested, to underachieve academically, to be unemployed, and to live in a low income household. Its doing nobody any favours to ignore this.

johnnyvoid.wordpress.com/2013/12/17/salvation-army-fights-back-calls-critics-of-unpaid-work-offensive/

johnnyvoid.wordpress.com/2013/12/17/salvation-army-fights-back-calls-critics-of-unpaid-work-offensive/

I didn't know about the salvation army workfare.

Of course for all involved it was a way to get unpaid labour. It just seems so much worse if a group claiming to be moral does it.

May I assume from your OP, wonderstuff, that you don't mind this advertisement www.thinkbox.tv/server/show/ConCaseStudy.1474, in which some white people (and a dog) are "in need of saving"?

Having read through your post, I searched through dozens of Salvation Army advertisements, and only found three that seemed to show predominately either white or black people, who were need of support (do you think showing people to be in need of support, is portraying them negatively?).

Of those three, one showed predominately white skinned younger people; one showed predominately black skinned younger people (perhaps the one to which you referred); and the third showed predominately white skinned people in a wide range of age groups.

On the other hand, my search found dozens and dozens of advertisement, each showing people with a range of skin colours, a range of age groups and a range of needs.

I think that the fact that your OP focused on that one advertisement, and interperatates a negative bias against race, says much more about you than it does about the Salvation Army.

OP - you appear to be rather over sensitive to Race.

If all the people in the ad were white I suppose that would be Ok

SA and workfare isn't straightforward - they do seem to have a programme that will benefit participants (rather than being cheap labour).