Flush Lush

[Loz]

Happy to say I've been avoiding this foul-smelling place for the best part of two decades.

Ahead of the game...

[JohnL]

They seem to want to be involved in politics for some reason - there was an issue with undercover officers - but why are they getting involved (I may be missing something).

I can't help think of the judges being called 'enemies of the people' though when people talk about respecting our legal system.

[Michael Palaeologus]

Given the amount of news coverage that they have received, it seems like a savvy but very cynical PR move.

[flocker spotter]

Lush has a long history of activism.there is plenty out there if you could be arsed to google it.

[JohnL]

Michael Palaeologus Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Given the amount of news coverage that they have

> received, it seems like a savvy but very cynical

> PR move.

I'd never heard of them but I have now.

Get my soap/shower gel etc. from Sainsburys :)

I'd heard of Body Shop though

[holloway]

Just walking past the Oxford Street branch gives me a headache from the fumes, I don't know how the staff cope.

[JoeLeg]

flocker spotter Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Lush has a long history of activism.there is

> plenty out there if you could be arsed to google

> it.

I think this was crudely done though, like they left it to the intern to figure out. The essential message got lost behind what looks like a blunt attack on all police officers.

Activism is good, this was stupid.

[Sue]

I don't like most of their strongly smelling products, but I have the greatest respect for their ethics.

[flocker spotter]

JoeLeg Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> flocker spotter Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Lush has a long history of activism.there is

> > plenty out there if you could be arsed to

> google

> > it.

>

>

> I think this was crudely done though, like they

> left it to the intern to figure out. The essential

> message got lost behind what looks like a blunt

> attack on all police officers.

>

> Activism is good, this was stupid.

Possibly badly delivered but the avalanche of negative comments in the crappy press and online does not seem to derive from any reasoned consideration of the (admittedly jumbled) issues presented, just hot steamy knee jerkery action from hot gammon jerks.

[mattseaton90]

flocker spotter Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Possibly badly delivered but the avalanche of

> negative comments in the crappy press and online

> does not seem to derive from any reasoned

> consideration of the (admittedly jumbled) issues

> presented, just hot steamy knee jerkery action

> from hot gammon jerks.

What do you expect when you're marketing to the general public?! You can't launch a nationwide marketing campaign with a huge asterisk expecting you to do your own research into the topic(s) at play.

This was dreadfully executed, regardless of your thoughts and feelings on the topic. There's no counter argument to that, just look at the public reaction...

[Loz]

flocker spotter Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Possibly badly delivered but the avalanche of negative comments in the crappy press and online

> does not seem to derive from any reasoned consideration of the (admittedly jumbled) issues

> presented, just hot steamy knee jerkery action from hot gammon jerks.

Ah, nothing like a racist epithet to really drive home that point, is there?

Look at it this way: if an organisation commented on terrorism by seemingly berating all from a particular race or religious group, they would be rightly vilified. This is no different.

But, hey, it sells soap. Which, for all the virtue signalling, is the basic goal.

[flocker spotter]

the impotence of being ernest

[Saffron]

Lush have always been bluntly political. It's their niche.

It seems Lush use the sale of soap to further their political views, not the other way around.

I find their campaign intriguing. I was familiar with the cases they're referencing long before this campaign ever surfaced.

I wonder what the correlation is between people who disagree with their campaign, and people who would have never bought their soap anyway...?

[rendelharris]

Loz Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> flocker spotter Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

>

> > Possibly badly delivered but the avalanche of

> negative comments in the crappy press and online

> > does not seem to derive from any reasoned

> consideration of the (admittedly jumbled) issues

> > presented, just hot steamy knee jerkery action

> from hot gammon jerks.

>

> Ah, nothing like a racist epithet to really drive

> home that point, is there?

Only the right have attempted to make the pathetically poor case that "gammon" is a racist insult - ironically those who immediately cry "political correctness gone mad" if anyone objects to far worse insults. It's a bit childish but calling it racist is desperate.

[flocker spotter]

the lead protagonist on this seems to be Rebecca Lush (coincidence) - lots of previous going back to twyford. Also Tamsin Omond is in the mix somewhere - this niche is brim full of toffs

[JoeLeg]

Many of those who object to the use of ?gammon? have had very little trouble with ?snowflake? and ?libtard?. Sauce for the goose, methinks.

I?m not really sure what they were trying to achieve; like Saffron says, many people were already aware of the facts of the cases concerned, and no one is surprised that undercover police (or any police) have abused their power. The West Midlands Serious Crime Squad is no more (thankfully), but corruption is unfortunately still with us. There must surely be better ways to highlight it than such as this.

It just seems so...amateur, like they were really just trying to provoke for the sake of it.

[rendelharris]

JoeLeg Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> It just seems so...amateur, like they were really

> just trying to provoke for the sake of it.

Yes, reminded me of those Benetton ads in the late 80s/early 90s, where they'd put a picture of a guy dying of AIDS or a just-born baby up in order to persuade one to buy more pullovers.

[civilservant]

entirely appropriate that this should be discussed on the EDF

ED has strong form in terms of dodgy coppers, such as the nest of vipers that operated out of the old police station (opposite the Actress) before it was shut down - see https://www.theguardian.com/uk/1999/oct/06/nickhopkins or http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2586486/The-Met-corruption-files-A-chilling-investigation-police-links-botched-probe-Stephen-Lawrences-murder-axe-killing-private-eye.html

and of course the killings of Daniel Morgan and of Stephen Lawrence have never been properly resolved

[Sue]

civilservant Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> entirely appropriate that this should be discussed

> on the EDF

>

> ED has strong form in terms of dodgy coppers, such

> as the nest of vipers that operated out of the old

> police station (opposite the Actress) before it

> was shut down - see

> https://www.theguardian.com/uk/1999/oct/06/nickhop

> kins

In the East Dulwich case, the drug dealer involved was presumably well aware that her lover was a cop.

Whereas the women in the cases referred to by Lush were not. In fact they were in relationships with men who had taken on completely false identities.

ETA: And whilst you could say those policemen should not have done it, it was what their job required.

So the really dodgy coppers in their case were further up the chain - the ones who thought that getting a policeman to go as far as to father a child with a woman totally unaware of who their lover actually was was perfectly OK.

Not that that excuses anything.

[Loz]

rendelharris Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Only the right have attempted to make the pathetically poor case that "gammon" is a racist

> insult - ironically those who immediately cry "political correctness gone mad" if anyone objects

> to far worse insults. It's a bit childish but calling it racist is desperate.

Apart from the glaring error of your first three words, an insult that is specifically applied to a certain race is, by definition, a racist insult. The insult even alludes to a skin colour. QED.

I notice that those who disagree with me haven't actually made any actual argument that it's not racist, just the very weak 'defence' that 'they' use insults as well, so it's OK. Which is a bit like saying that assaulting someone who may possibly have assaulted someone else is somehow OK, rather than the ever-descending-circle of madness is actually is.

I don't much like the views of Brexiteers either, but 'gammon' is still a racist insult however much you try to justify it.

[rendelharris]

Loz Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> rendelharris Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

>

> > Only the right have attempted to make the

> pathetically poor case that "gammon" is a racist

> > insult - ironically those who immediately cry

> "political correctness gone mad" if anyone

> objects

> > to far worse insults. It's a bit childish but

> calling it racist is desperate.

>

> Apart from the glaring error of your first three

> words, an insult that is specifically applied to a

> certain race is, by definition, a racist insult.

> The insult even alludes to a skin colour. QED.

>

> I notice that those who disagree with me haven't

> actually made any actual argument that it's not

> racist, just the very weak 'defence' that 'they'

> use insults as well, so it's OK. Which is a bit

> like saying that assaulting someone who may

> possibly have assaulted someone else is somehow

> OK, rather than the ever-descending-circle of

> madness is actually is.

>

> I don't much like the views of Brexiteers either,

> but 'gammon' is still a racist insult however much

> you try to justify it.

I'm not trying to justify it, I said it was childish, it's just not racist. It refers to the propensity of certain over-indulged MPs to wattle up when displaying their outrage, so it doesn't in fact refer to a skin colour, rather a skin condition caused by high blood pressure from over-indulgence and frothing rage. It's not aimed at a race, rather a certain type of person. As Owen Jones (I know you'll love a quote from him) said, ?affluent white men with reactionary opinions are not a race. White people mocking other white people over their skin color is not racism.?

Call it childish, call it offensive by all means, but calling it racist is just plain silly.

[JohnL]

First used by Charles Dickens (although some dispute this).

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2018/05/turns-out-charles-dickens-invented-concept-gammon-1838

[JohnL]

then if I remember used to describe the same guys that popped up in Question time as audience members week after week during the 2017 election campaign (many assumed they were paid stooges) - "Wall of Gammon" - the author since says he didn't want it to become a meme and it was just a joke

Note he's a children's author - so it is probably childish

[rendelharris]

The guy who coined it (although Caitlin Moran previously memorably described David Cameron as "a camp gammon robot, a C3PO made of ham") sums it up well:

Now, I don?t think anyone genuinely believes ?gammon? is racist. No one has ever found ?Gammons Go Home? daubed across their front door. There were never segregated schools for gammon children. And the fact that many of the commentators claiming to be so offended by the term routinely call millennials ?Generation Snowflake? is delicious. They?re also rather selective about which free speech they choose to defend. Likening right-wing men to pork products is beyond the pale, but shouting ?Gas the Jews? at a pug is apparently of Magna Carta importance.

[JoeLeg]

Loz wrote

> Apart from the glaring error of your first three

> words, an insult that is specifically applied to a

> certain race is, by definition, a racist insult.

> The insult even alludes to a skin colour. QED.

?Gammon? is not racist. It really isn?t. It?s juvenile and idiotic but it doesn?t refer to all white people. It refers to what supposedly happens to someone?s blood pressure when they get angry, which can apply to any member of the human race.

>

> I notice that those who disagree with me haven't

> actually made any actual argument that it's not

> racist, just the very weak 'defence' that 'they'

> use insults as well, so it's OK. Which is a bit

> like saying that assaulting someone who may

> possibly have assaulted someone else is somehow

> OK, rather than the ever-descending-circle of

> madness is actually is.

No, what I said was that the very people who are targeted by that phrase have been using insulting language towards those who disagree with them for some time now, language which I have argued against and been told (not by yourself, I should point out) is perfectly acceptable. It?s hardly surprising that a counter-phrase has been created, and personally I feel both sides should refrain. As I said in another thread, most debate these days has descended to the level of adolescent playground insults, and here we have s perfect example.

>

> I don't much like the views of Brexiteers either,

> but 'gammon' is still a racist insult however much

> you try to justify it.

I didn?t try to justify its use. And I sill dispute the racist nature of it. ?Gammon? is far more - I would say - of a class/age/political issue insult.