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?

Do any of the high profile ruffled feathers include groups of young men who spend Saturday afternoons betting on football and Saturday mornings playing slots? The groups who are campaigning are exactly the groups those young men (as a group, obviously not all) enjoy shocking. Even if thy don't agree with the sentiment of the adverts (and most won't really) they will enjoy the effect they're having on boring older people.

But Technical, as you've already commented, they don't very often vote. And pressure on Parliament in terms of the ethics of betting companies from people who dovote is not what the industry wants. Especially right now. The industry want to attract new customers, but they want the machines available for those new customers to use, and the extended opening hours Labour brought in maintained and not cut back to the old levels.

I didn't say that PP were unheard of, just that many Mumsnetters wouldn't have heard of them.

I'm not encouraged by anyone.

People will often feel offended by jokes, sometimes justifiably, sometimes not. It's very much a personal matter.

WIth regards to ignoring those things that casue us offence..... if the purpose of the offending material was to casue offence in order to raise the profile of an organisation, then the correct course of action is to ignore. In fact, I'd go so far as to say, it's the only course of action.

Ignoring stuff doesn't make it go away.

I understand the point you're making, I do.

But if we ignore and don't challenge things like this, when will our young men ever realise it's not right to find fin in DV? Most young men now would be horrified at jokes made at the expense of, say, a black sportsman. Thirty years ago, it would have been acceptable banter down the pub.

Only through challenging these 'jokes' will we ever make progress.

And less of the 'older people'! I'm only 33!

What good does ignoring things like this do? To ignore is to condone.

Yes, perfect that's all correct until you get to the bit where the tax revenues have to be replaced from elsewhere. None of the campaigners will be volunteering to pay extra taxes and as we know, any party who campaigns on increasing taxes on the MC is very unlikely to win.

So, the reputation of PP has only been enhanced among it's target customers and the damage done among others doesn't matter from an immediate commercial POV (as they're not likely to be customers anyway) and it won't matter long-term because although lip service will be given to reducing the harm these organisations cause, no-one will have the will to actually stop it.

Yy to squoosh and Kim.

I am a complete media phobe and even I have heard of PP.

I have just signed the petition. They should be dealt with by ASA.

People laughed at Maggie Thatcher's death, people laughed at Michael Jackson's death.

I wouldn't contend that this young lady's death is a laughing matter; however, she's not any less dead for a bookies embarking on this sort of campaign, and I think it's a bit of a leap to suggest that such things really encourage domestic violence and the like (though I stand to be corrected).

the fact is that this case, more than any other, has unique attributes which mean that most of us have formed an opinion as to his likely guilt. Rarely will a case have these attributes (attractive victim, famous suspect, etc.) I'ts that which PP are capitalising on.

ASA? why? As I understand it the ad hasn't been released in UK, although it has been reproduced plenty, completely free of charge to PP.

As for the tax revenues - the PaddyPower near where I live is right next to a payday loan outfit, and the other bookies is next door to yet another payday loan place. MN sees a reguar procession of people plunged into debt because of their DH's gambling, people are made homeless because of gambling, bringing their children up on reduced food shopping budgets and so on - and MN isn't even reprepsentative of the communities most affected by gambling debt.

I wonder what the net benefit is of the tax revenue?

You're comparing the natural death of a much reviled, elderly politician to the shooting of a young woman by her own partner?

Oookkkayyyy...

Ah now Blu, if the numbers work, that could well be the angle the campaigners should use

errrr, yes, becasue it does bear comparison. I'm not saying either is correct, your post illustrates that you feel there's a difference. For some, the line will be elsewhere.

I would say of course this advert and encourage people to place bets on the outcome trivialise this murder.

Like I said - where's the line? Why not a high profile child abuse case? How about betting on sentence length for terrorists? Serial killers? Why don't we sit outside the courts with a picnic and make a day of it?

Just returned to this thread so not read all the pages, so this may have been mentioned already. There's a request from change.org which can be signed
www.change.org/petitions/patrick-kennedy-paddy-power-please-remove-your-offensive-betting-on-the-outcome-of-the-oscar-pistorius-trial-and-donate-any-profits-so-far-to-a-women-s-charity-fighting-violence-against-women?

That's sort of what televised trials do. Even reporting on cases tends to be sensationalist. People love it. It's the same reason the tabloids (particularly the News of the World -as was) are so popular.

As uncomfortable as it seems, not everyone is as bothered about such matters as some wish they would be.

I laughed out loud at the assumption that I have never placed a bet with Paddy Power because I won't have heard of them.

A majority of mumsnetters have probably never placed a bet with paddy power because as intelligent beings we know that gambling is a waste of money.

I've never placed a bet with ANY betting agent because I have far better things to do with my money!

I agree that sensationalist reporting does a lot of harm.

That was sort of my point. They haven't hurt themselves commercially with this.

This is all just free publicity. In that sense, the campaign is beginning to look inspired.

It's horrid.

It's not inspired.

It's base and cruel and immoral. It's cavalier and actually uninspiring.

It's actually very depressing.

Quite Fibberty - which is why it doesn't matter if you like the campaign or not. If anything that fact that you have strong objections makes it better - if you disapprove the company must be doing something on the edge, something a bit risqué. A young man placing his first bet knows (usually) that his mum won't approve, if he can do it with a company she really disapproves of, even better.

There will be young men and boys, approaching a time when they might place a first bet who are now far more aware of PP than they were yesterday.

Technical Absolutely correct.