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?

I just think we need to be careful. Most would agree that this is (at best) in pretty poor tase. I'm just of the opinion that I'd sooner see pepole caused offence, than see others censored.

For example, I used to find Frankie Boyle edgy and funny (deliciously inappropriate). He then made the gag about that young disabled lad, and I switched off totally. Some would have found it funny, and I'm sure he still has lots of fans. I don't begrudge him his success, or his right to cause offence. I'm not about to appoint myself the moral arbiter for an entire nation. I know where I draw my own line, and that's enough for me.

Guido Fawkes says it is the brainchild of Harry Dromey, son of Jack Dromey and Harriet Harman. They must be so proud.

It's the fact that it is culturally unacceptable that has made the campaign a success from the advertiser's POV. It's because it's culturally unacceptable that it's shocking and therefore appealing to the target market.

This sort of thing has been successfully stamped out in UK. That's why it wasn't published here - we have the ASA and it would never have passed. By giving it publicity in a country where not a single page has been paid for "we" have played into their hands brilliantly.

As I said a campaign of outrage would be helpful in countries which have allowed it's publication but in UK it's just been fabulous free publicity and was completely unnecessary.

For the record, I'm not a white male. (not that it makes any difference)

Kim we get that you are a straight, white female like reeva. But until you know the motive you don't know if reeva was the intended target.
You are betting on a judicial system

Now that is interesting LineRunner. If there was ever a household that could instil feminist views you'd think it would be that one.

*Linerunner: At the risk of incurring even more wrath.....this takes it from "amusing" to "Funny" possibly "Hilarious". I actually laughed out loudly at that. sorry folks

Harry Dromey cares a lot about ridding football of homophobia according to his twitter account. Shame he tweeted 'MEGA lolZ' at the PP advert.( now deleted)

Did be come up with the idea because he knows what it is to want to shock your mother? i.e he new the campaign would be successful because of the outrage it would cause among middle aged women and therefore the appeal it would have to young men?

It didn't make me laugh. I sighed inside and thought how the love of money is the root of all evil.

Speak for yourself, DailyBread!

I am holding judgement on this one. I'm not even reading any press coverage of it because I would rather wait until the jury is back.

It's tragic all round and there will be no victors, no matter the outcome.

Well Contrarian, thanks for telling the little ladies their concerns are "getting a little silly now."

As has been pointed out, racism didn't become socially unacceptable because black people kept quiet when "hilarious jokes" were made. Sexism and ableism aren't going to vanish if women and disabled people STFU, sit down and know their place.

And in point of fact there's been quite a lot of evidence that gambling, on the rampant scale the Labour regulatory relaxing caused, has social costs which directly impact the Treasury. As well as causing sufficient unease amongst the voting public that it's been in the media with some regularity for a year or more - and not just on Radio 4 but on the main terrestrial TV channels, as dedicated documentary topics.

Behave yourself will you? You've taken a comment out of context. You demean your argument in doing so.

I honestly don't think that this campaign (by PP) is going to encourage/condone domestic violence. As has already been pointed out, this was not (I understand) a UK campaign. The characters involved are so far removed from most of us (or at least they're perceived to be) it just somehow feels that they're "fair game" even I cringed typing that

That's fine, Contrarian. I have cringed at most of your posts.

Well Contrarian, that reply absolves you of the suggestion completely.

The point is still valid. Had Paddy Power given odds on whether Megan Roberts (the young lady who went missing and has tragically been found dead) would be found alive or not, there would, I suspect and hope be an absolute public outrage. In this instance though, most people just won't be quite as bothered - as it all feels like part of the media circus you'd expect.

The point was perhaps better illustrated with the phone hacking trial. I didn't meet a single person who was bothered (I always felt that most of the outrage was false). That said, when pepole heard that Millie Dowle's phone was hacked, and Doreen Lawrence's, they were rightly appalled.

The ad isn't even funny. It's on the level of my 7 year old saying ha ha, there is a boy in my class called Oscar and he could win an OSCAR get it!

I wouldn't call it 'edgy' so much as written by somebody who doesn't have the brain power to understand why it might be offensive - it is edgy in the same way that Jim Davidson is edgy - not at all.

As with other "edgy" offensive humour, it is offensive because it normalises bigoted, nasty, abusive behaviour and opinions. "Ha, ha, that bloke of the telly thinks it's funny, so my behaviour can't possibly be wrong - can't you take a joke?".

Beyond that, if you can't see why somebody's death shouldn't be used to sell stuff, you really have a screw loose.

"The characters involved are so far removed from most of us (or at least they're perceived to be) it just somehow feels that they're "fair game""

And there you illustrate why this kind of advertising should be kept away from vulnerable minds.

But it isn't being used to sell stuff in UK. "we" have already decided that its unacceptable and they wouldst have been able to publish it here.

I disagree that offensive humour normalises, maybe in some cases where its widespread an repeated but here the whole point is that rightminded people know its wrong

I absolutely agree that it shouldn't have been produced and i am glad the regulation is there so itcould never be published in UK. I don't see why it is necessary to create a storm over it here though, that just plays into the advertisers hands

To borrow a bit of your post Marmalade: "Why is it that we make progress and rightly shun people for cracking the odd "paki" joke, the old shirt-lifters jokes?"

NOT because people kept quiet about them, that's for sure. I love the logic that the best protest we can make is shutting our faces - funny, isn't it, how this "protest" looks a lot like "going along with it".

PP will get more attention on a basic level, because more people will speak about them and visit their website, but they deserve lasting reputational damage from this, and they will get it. For instance, quite a few people I know work in politics, and anything from PP will probably be binned without reading now, rather than listened to.

They've become that guy in the pub who speaks too loudly about how all foreigners are stinking scroungers, and takes the awkward silence that follows as a sign that everyone there agrees with it.

Perhaps, but I think that's more of an argument as to why the whole notion of "celebrity" and that entire vacuous and consumer-driven culture should be kept away from vulnerable minds.

I think technical closes the argument perfectly.

Oops, did I just walk in the middle of some men telling us that this conversation is now at an end, and it's time for us all to get on with the dinner?

err, I can assure you it won't be (binned without reading) and nor should it be.

You don't have to go along with it. All you've done here though is promote a campaing that likely wouldn't have got a great deal of coverage (here) otherwise.

OK contrarian, how do you know?