Huguenot

It's a great idea skyblue. As it happens, there's already a site set up to do exactly this - it's called www.justgiving.com If you go on there and set up your charity account, it actually lists people who donate, and the amount they donate. All a poster needs to do is specify that the freecycler gaining the goods must have posted a donation of a certain amount on the site AFTER the date of the offer post. The poster can even specify the charity. Really, really simple to do, and totally in your hands. All that Admin would need to do is post the policy as a sticky on the top of the section.

Probably didn't help that his CEO was jewish too...

Bobjingle

So are you saying that this statement - "charged with using threatening, abusive or insulting words with intent to cause harassment alarm or distress" - is factually incorrect? Chants and gestures that are aimed to provoke by referencing or ridiculing the deaths of others is clearly abusive and insulting, is clearly intended to harass and cause distress. The example of the police is completely irrelevant. Manchester Untied fans and the families of the dead are not employed and trained for a job that regularly comes into conflict with the public. They are entitled to be protected from the malicious behaviour of others. I've got no doubt this law is applied inconsistently, but that is no defence either. BTW, I don't think it's okay for people to call policemen c***s either. You didn't deny this, you just claimed the policemen should get used to it. You're obviously proud of this sleight of hand, in a way that is beyond your legal responsibility. What a shame that people with these beliefs should have an influence on the law in the UK.

In general I agree with your sentiment about prejudging a situation silverfox, but the truth is I can't identify a single thing that could mitigate for this kind of outburst. For the Guardianistas, this from a couple of decades ago:

I just don't get the relevance of your assertion silverfox. Even if the videomaker had known that Galiano was a racist bigot, he didn't make him one. Galliano was spouting horrific racist invective that celebrated genocide whilst using it as a verbal weapon to attack, demean and humiliate his neighbour. No-one made him do that. Do you think it's okay behaviour if there's not a camera around?

I'm really sorry to hear that ratty, I hope things pull together for you really soon.

What a thick skin you have silverfox. I think 'abuse' is probably more accurate than 'said', and regarding content consider this as a jewish couple whose grandparents likely were victims of the holocaust: "I love Hitler" and, "People like you would be dead. Your mothers, your forefathers, would all be f**king gassed." Having said that, he just looked like a pathetic drunken prat, but he does have history on these views. From a commercial point of view, being associated with such views may well impact on your choice of designer dress. From a legal point of view, in France it's illegal. He's a high-profile defendant with indisputable evidence. The authorities are required to prosecute or a face a disintegration of government authority. Personally I think he's seriously disturbed. Hence 'sorry' isn't enough, but I'm not sure what outcome is appropriate.

I don't think so, because it's too rational. Car ownership is predicated upon irrational convictions. You could achieve it by running campaigns with fat losers behind the wheel of a car, doing fat loser things and dying young. You'd get hauled over the coals for it, but at the moment car ads are full of young pretty people doing successful things with a promise about sex at the end. It's just as distorting.

Exposed? HAL9000 outed me months back, you can't put the toothpaste back in the tube you know. Advertising can't brainwash people, but it can elevate awareness, influence priorities and alter the ideas you associate with particular products or ideas. For example, the Chelsea Tractor syndrome was created by reinforcing the belief in a certain group of people that looking good and demonstrating wealth was more important than caring for your environment, and that a Chelsea Tractor could achieve this for you. There was no brainwashing involved, these customers already had big egos, big houses and big bank accounts and tiny penises. The advertising merely suggested that a big car would fit with their portfolio and make up for their shortcomings. As for crap, just buy supermarket own-brands. They'll do a similar job, but you won't be very happy because you probably have negative associations with them.

Very good game. Here's a tale... Before '88 drink driving was more than socially acceptable, it was considered a demonstration of social status. It was largely associated with chief executives in jaguars that could get away with it. In rural areas it was an aspirational objective, and pubs even had breathalysers on which 19 year-olds in XR2s could test how pissed they were before they drove home. (They were installed by police on the basis that they would do the opposite). In the next few years we had a concerted govt. campaign that demonstrated graphically the damage these guys did. Drink driving is now socially unacceptable. It may be difficult for people to envisage this unless they lived through it. Advertising is a political hot-potato: (1) In a libertarian society the booze firms are free to advertise at will, and the people have to learn the consequences (it clearly doesn't work). (2) In a progressive liberal society the booze firms are free to advertise at will but we tax the bastards and spend it on govt. advertising to point out the bad side (seems to work). (3) In a totalitarian society we prevent booze firms from advertising (see above from DJKQ). You have to work out what policy you think is best. DJKQ insists that I believe in (2) because it's my business. I don't. I believe in (2) because I think it's healthy. I believ in informed self-expression as a socialist ideal. Current Conservative policy is (1) And some idiots claim advertising doesn't work...

Ha, yes. What I meant was that not all people who work in advertising are wallies, and not all of those who are wallies are Hoxton types.

Put it this way (bearing in mind I've had a few beers)... An advertising campaign claiming 'fish are good for you' would be a waste of time if no-one knew what a fish was. However, running the campaing might influence people to investigate what a fish was. Likewise saying 'this is a fish' (a publicity exercise) would be pointless if no-one cared. So they're often linked, which is where the hardworking people in advertising really work hard. They're not all wallies in Hoxton.

Hmmm, I know where you're coming from binary_star, but we have to lay down the lines somewhere otherwise things get so blurred that we can't establish what or how we want to achieve something. There are exceptions, but the easiest way that I communicate the idea is through a strategy called PPR - profile, perception and revenue (revenue doesn't need to be defined in monetary terms - it's what 'comes' to you as a result, like 'venir' the Frog word meaning 'to come'). 'Profile' generally means 'Does anyone know who I am?' 'Perception' generally means 'If they know who I am, what do they think of me?' 'Revenue' generally means 'What do they do as a consequence?' Publicity generally falls into just being aware of your existence; advertising generally means influencing the values and attributes that they associate with this fame. The money question doesn't enter into the equation, you can spend money at all levels, or none. I'd argue that money spent on advertising that didn't either contribute to, or capitalise upon, public awareness was wasting time. You're effectively asking someone to have an opinion on a subject they don't even recognise.

I should add that I'm not casting aspertion on DJKQ's motivation, I'm just pointing out that any observation in a public domain is by definition 'advertising'. To ascribe it to Hoxton wannabees is tenuous.

It is a bit 6th form, but deserves a response. Publicity is a catch-all that describes the generation of public awareness, advertising is a subset of this that involves communicating the values or attributes of a product, service or organisation. One can gain publicity through pooing on your chair at the Oscars, but it may not necessarily describe the attributes of your product. DJKQ's play on 'proft or gain' is haphazard and suspect. DJKQ may gain through several levels through expressing an opinion, including an elevated social status that allows her position on one debate to influence her achievement on another. She may want to be seen as the Florence Nighingale of the renting classes - I wouldn't guess at what advantage this may give her: there are plenty of politicians who achieve material or emotional gain through a perceived social elevation... Satisfying one's ego is often gain enough...

Please bear in mind that advertising for charitable donations to Shelter is the same advertising to persuade people to buy a Nissan. Or perhaps there's some advertising that people don't like? In which case be more specific? In a non-materialist world, advertising will still exist. It'll just promote different ideas and products.

'Selling' anything DJKQ? Sure you are - you're 'selling' your point of view - clearly with a pretty low price tag. Here's a definition of 'advertising': "Description or presentation of a product, idea, or organization, in order to induce individuals to buy, support, or approve of it." You can't get more accurate than that. You 'sell' an idea when you try and persuade your partner to go to the cinema... I think you have a pretty tight definition of advertising as 'Stuff done by people I don't like to persuade other people to do things I don't think they should do'. Seems pretty weak. But of course on that basis you can slag it off as much as you want ;-)

LOL! Do you not think you're 'advertising' your views there, DJKQ? You're obviously a big believer, and you feel it's important to get those views out there to influence others. You do it in words, others do it in words and pictures, others in pictures and videos etc. Your criticism is simply subjective, on the basis that your views are worthwhile and others are not.

It would probably be preaching to the converted. It's another example of carclubs failing to hit the mark in identifying the motives of those who could use carclubs but don't. Exchanging a privately owned personal transport for a shared-ownership one can't possibly campaign on the basis that the 3 min walk to the car is going to increase their health.

Your workplace is only required to meet a number of UK & European directives in terms of safe computer use. If your company has met these requirements then you don't have much to negotiate on. If you feel that your company hasn't met these requirements, the the first place you must complain is to your company. Until you have done this, and given them the chance to respond and rectify the situation, you don't have much of a position. If you feel they have not done this, are not responding, and are not helping to satisfy these requirements then you can either pursue it through your union, or independently. Most companies are pretty up to scratch on these requirements, so do think very carefully before bringing a private case against them. As ridgley said, migraine and 'strain' are very very difficult to prove. In particular, please note that there is currently no evidence to suggest computer use affects your eyes, and as such a case brought on this basis would almost definitely fail. The provision of spectacles for 'distance viewing' is considered best practice, not compulsory, and 'glare' doesn't feature at all.

Well, here it's 11.10pm and I'm on my own with a beer - I'm just catching up :) For karter I guess that despite the beauty, it's not particularly interesting - a bit like Gwyneth Paltrow.

Very happy to be home today from a dry (alcohol) country!! Cold beer, cigarette. YAAAYY!!!

'Advertising' is a big industry. Creatives caricatured by *Bob* are probably only 5% of the labour in the industry, and the Hoxton-twat caricature probably only vaguely applies to 1 in 10 of them. It doesn't help that 'Apprentice' candidates behave in this way when doing the advertising episodes, but no-one says that sausage manufacturers are stupid because the Apprentice candidates are etc. It's very unreliable profession, most people in the creative area will work for intern salaries for several years doing 14 hour days before getting a proper break. Even if they own their own company, contracts are performance driven, so if 'ads don't work' as Snorky claims, they soon lose their jobs. Snorky's come out with this whining scab-scratcher of an issue before, so it clearly annoys him. Can't be bothered to get dragged into a silly debate, but have various bits of info if anyone would really like to get involved with the profession. Hard work, and little gratitude though ;-)

It's a cost/benefit issue - not a fixed argument. For some people cost may be defined merely in financial terms, or in convenience terms; for others it may be defined in social terms or environmental terms. Likewise benefits may be classed in emotional, financial, temporal or other terms. I disagree with DJKQ that someone may have 'no other option but to own a car', but I agree that there are situations where the benefits of owning a car would likely enormously outwiegh the perceived cost - especially for those who are physically disabled by age or infirmity, for those with extended family responsibilities and so on. Even in those situations there are alternatives - and they will find themselves in the spotlight when the cost of the resources to run a car starts to escalate (for example the price of oil), or the efficiency of car ownership decreases (for example through gridlock). Likewise having points on your license doesn't mean you MUST buy a car, it just means that if you want a car, you can't use a carclub.