In being completely appalled by this attitude to Oscar Pitorius' trial?

[perfectstorm]

So Paddy Power have decided to run a poster campaign and national media ad campaign on whether Oscar Pitorius is convicted of killing his girlfriend, complete with an image of him as an Oscar award, and the slogan " "It's Oscar Time. Money Back If He Walks." Their blog says, "Global media attention, bar-stool conversation and pillow talk will shift from the Oscars on Sunday night to Oscar on Monday when the Blade Runner straps on his prosthetic limbs for the long walk to the high court."

I don't know if it was an accident or whether he murdered her, but does it actually matter? A young woman is dead, this is a murder trial, and they think it's casual entertainment people can take a flutter on, akin to the sodding Oscars.

Are they run by David Brent?

Just signed the petition

Deplorable

The petition doesn't in any way disallow Pistorius the presumption of innocence. The fact he killed Reeva Steenkamp is not in doubt. He isn't innocent of that. The fact another woman has died at the hands of a man is not in doubt.

And at contrarian possibly being dismissed because he was a man. God forbid. But fear not, the rest of the internet will listen to him.

Complain to the Advertising Standards Authority.

Have done. The Ending Victimisation & Blame organisation have made it easier for you.

I was disgusted when I saw the ad.
I listened to Paddy Power (try to) defend the ad on the Joe Duffy show on RTE 1 radio.
I would hope people will boycott Paddy Power bookmakers but I won't hold my breath.

It's also insulting to the state of South Africa. He's on trial for the most seriuos offence after treason in any judicial system and they turn it in to a cheap joke.

Unfortunately the test is whether it will ause Paddy Power's key customers to boycott, not MNers.

MsHighwater, the fact is that this trial is to establish whether a woman was murdered and Paddy Power are making it into a game without thought for her family's feelings.

just heard him defending it on radio 5. absolutely disgraceful.

There is a massive difference between a tasteless joke that makes you titter even though you know it shouldn't and the same tasteless joke being used as an ad to publically promote a company. Nevermind the ethics of promoting betting on a murder trial.

I agree with bobthebuddha- the world has gone a bit mad.

Though I think the term MegaLOLz makes me shudder more.

The problem (as I see it) is that Paddy Power haven't broken any laws in this country. We have the Advertising Standards Authority which (I'm told) would likely have prevented the ad being published here.

The internet has been both positive and negative. What makes me uncomfortable is that what's being advocated here is a form of censorship. As much as I think this campaign is in poor taste (though I've been honest enough to say I found it amusing) I think the right to freedom of expression is one that we absolutely must protect.

If you don't like it, don't use PaddyPower - and encourage others not to.

Contrarian we aren't advocating a lynch mob here, just discussing whether there should be laws that prevent this sort of thing and what an appropriate response from the public and possibly lawmakers is.

Other example: companies which give bribes in other jurisdictions are given a hard time in the UK.

I hadn't accused anyone of advocating a lynch mob, but rather I expressed concern as to the danger of what amounts to censorship. I also beleive that an appropriate response (when the sole purpose of the campaing is to raise the profile of an organisation) is to ignore.

We have laws in this country (sadly in my opinion) that would have prevented this campaign being published here. The only course of action open to lawmakers is to try and introduce controls over what can be published online.

As for an appropriate response from the public........the public aren't a separate and distinct entity. Some of the public will be outraged (Mumsnetters and the like) Some will find it hillarious (Millwall football fans) and many will find it in poor taste but otherwise not really be bothered about it.

Some sweeping generalisations above. Apologies to Millwall football fans both of them

I think you can find this funny without condoning violence of any kind though I'm open to being convinced otherwise. It's very witty. It's acknowledging the undeniable truth that murder trials are dramatic spectacles.

I watched The Killing for entertainment. Until we examine that, we can't condemn people for being fascinated by the real life version.

If Pistorius had shot a fellow male athlete - I think it would be even more gripping, and bets would still be laid?

However, I think it is very rude and silly to say "get a grip". If someone is offended, they are offended and you have to respect that.

goon if Pistorius had shot another male athlete it would be beyond rare, so yes it would be of more interest. If he is found guilty I hope it sparks a discourse on partner violence, especially by men against women and how horrifically common it is.

And yes we can condemn people for using other's real lives as entertainment when they did not sign up for that.

Kim No, I do not think that ANYTHING is acceptable. Anything which directly incites hatred or violence should fall within the scope of censorship. Something that merely offends........shouldn't (in my opinion).

I can only imagine what must have been going through that poor girl's head (and I'm certain that she didn't deserve such a terrible fate) but to say you can condemn people for using other's real lives as entertainment when they did not sign up for that, is probably not entirely correct. The young lady in question was a model who was in a relationship with a world-renowned sports star. She would have been very aware of the celebrity status that the union would have inferred and there's a tacit acceptance of everything that entails As tragic as these event are, and I'm against the whole notion of celebrity; as things are in life, so shall they be in death.

That's not to say in any way that she deserved this - that would be absurd- but rather it's all part of the media circus and speaks to the whole celebrity culture. PP, for all their ills, can't be held responsible for that.

you may be right but something tells me no.

I think the real problem is that this isn't a story about Reeva. From childhood onwards, we learn to focus on the male attacker - our trial system reflects this. This isn't an inquest into Reeva's death, it's a part of the Pistorius story.

So I think Paddy Power see this as a story about the discomfort of a rich superstar who has been caught, with Reeva just being a plot device. And I think everything about our society encourages this and that we are naive if we expect people to abandon their taught reactions to stories like these just because these people are real.

I suspect Paddy Power would probably draw the line about betting on the reactions of Reeva's mother.

So I think that, if we focus on condemning the wit of this advertisement, we miss the real problem which is that this isn't Reeva's story. And if we do that, those who laugh at its cleverness will continue to be baffled by our outrage.

Perhaps? Or have I got this wrong?

Muslim's stink (offensive but o.k.)

Kill all the Muslims (not o.k.)

Vile indeed. I watched a programme about Reeva Steenkamp and her flat mate was interviewed. She was utterly devastated at the loss of her friend and couldn't stop crying and said what a lovely person she was.

Someone on my FB posted 'looking forward to the Oscar Pistorius trial' as if it's a football game. People can really be so awful. I'll bet Reeva Steenkamp's family are not looking forward to it. How awful for her and for them.

Lottie, I think the problem here is that Reeva's story doesn't have the right elements of drama. It is the story of every victim.

Whereas Oscar's rise to glory then sudden downfall - well, it's classic drama, isn't it? The story is about him.

So I think we should probably not hope for too much focus on Reeva here.

They are a disgrace to the bookmaking industry in my opinion. Wouldn't put a bet on with them if you paid me. I've watched them make awful remarks and comments about people before, and some of the "stunts" they have tried to pull off! Unbelievable bad taste and anything for a quick buck.

"an appropriate response (when the sole purpose of the campaing is to raise the profile of an organisation) is to ignore."

I think you are wrong.

Long after this advertising campaign is forgotten or Paddy Power has changed its name or been bought by somebody else and nobody can remember whether this campaign advertised gambling or beer, the background sense that it is acceptable to forget about the real people involved in a violent murder and confuse fact and fiction remains. When we stand up and say loudly this isn't funny and point out why, we change the message.

As an aside, if anybody really thinks this campaign is witty, perhaps I could interest them in some of my children's knock knock jokes?

I went to a secondary school where the student mix was 50/50 white British kids and Asian kids. I know I'm generalizing with Asian but.
So I saw a lot of racist bullying. Pakis stink, currymunchers etc. Then beating up starts.

Muslims stink isn't offensive but OK. Allowing things like that to stand breeds a culture where it's normal to single out certain groups for bullying or worse.

Challenge things like this from the off and it will fail to breed into a normalised behaviour. Not sweating the 'small' stuff is permitting the small stuff to grow.

contrarian78

The advertising standards authority doesn't check every advert in advance (nothing would ever get out!) although it does check some proactively, mostly it works by investigating complaints.

Their mission statement:

"Our mission is to ensure that advertising in all media is legal, decent, honest and truthful, to the benefit of consumers, business and society"

(my bold not theirs)a

I would question whether this advert was decent but can't be bothered to look through the advertising code in detail for a definition of decent. But even if an act is legal you can't advertise it is the advert isn't decent.

It isn;t censorship anymore than than any other ad being expected to be legal, decent, honest and truthful. That's the code advertisers sign up to. What we as a society might consider acceptable to be published in a book for an individual to read might be considered unacceptable to be plastered across a billboard or newspaper advert or TV commercial.

Advertising is more ubiquitous and with that right to display your message widely comes the responsibility to do so within the codes laid out.