ASAholes…

Posted on

While all and sundry are getting their knickers in a knot over the words printed on T-shirts, here’s a story that might have almost slipped under your radar.
File this one under “They’re not serious, right?”

Sadly, it seems that they are:

The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has instructed a TV advert depicting angels falling from heaven because they are attracted to a man’s deodorant, to be withdrawn, as it could offend Christians.

A viewer who complained to the ASA about the advert said the suggestion that angels (God’s messengers) would literally fall for a man wearing this deodorant was incompatible with his belief as a Christian, according to the ruling by the ASA’s directorate made on October 14. A copy of the ruling was sent to Sapa.

The advert for Axe deodorant depicts winged, attractive women crashing to earth in what appears to be an Italian town, and then being drawn towards and sniffing a young man who has used the deodorant. The text at the end of the ad reads: “Even angels will fall”.

Oh dear. Can I say that this decision is incompatible with my belief as an Atheist? Probably not, since that seems to count for very little. But it is incompatible. Wholly incompatible.
And this incompatibility is made worse by the detail given for the ASA descision to ban the ad:

The directorate was concerned that the angels were depicted falling and, secondly, being attracted to a mortal man.

“As such, the problem is not so much that angels are used in the commercial, but rather that the angels are seen to forfeit, or perhaps forego their heavenly status for mortal desires. This is something that would likely offend Christians in the same manner as it offended the complainant.”

Firstly, since when has there ever been a problem with individuals falling in adverts? Are we now going to ban all ads which depict falling of any kind? The baby landing bum first on the bog roll? The woman parachuting despite it being “that time of the month”? Absolutely anything and everything for Elastoplast?

These are angels, for crying out loud. They’ll be fine, because – like the ASA point out – they’re immortal, see? Yep: in this ruling, the ASA has drawn a distinction between angels and their “heavenly status” and us mere mortals. In essence, they are suggesting that they believe that angels exist and that those angels have heavenly status, which they infer, confers immortality. Er… Halo?!?!

That single complainant, of course, is well within his rights to be offended and to complain. However, I do find it strange that despite this advert flighting across much of (predominantly Christian) Europe and the (predominantly Christian) United States, together with a host of add-ons such as the amazing augmented reality stunt at Victoria station, that he is the only Christian to be offended by this. As far as I can see, there have been no other instances of any part of this campaign being banned anywhere else in the world.
Even in the “nanny state” UK or the “sue now, ask questions later” US: no ban.

Could it then be that it is the complainant that is being over-sensitive rather than the advert that is being potentially offensive?

However, this is what we are going to have to accept going forward. When people choose to be offended at the slightest thing, the slightest thing becomes offensive.
Foschini group are taking t-shirts off shelves because a few loud people disagree with the wording on the front.
But does the juvenile legend “I put the STD in STUD – all I need is U”, really imply that the wearer is going to go all out to try and contract herpes virus from everyone he sees in an effort to appear more manly? Do you honestly believe that?
Do you think that when I wear a Nike t-shirt, I’m constantly Just Doing “It”, whatever “It” may be? Really?

I don’t envy the ASA, walking the fine line between the normal population and the often unnecessarily mouthy minorities. But when they make decisions like this one, they provide ammunition and impetus for more trivial complaints and they’re on a slippery slope.

Morten: New album, new tour

Posted on

After the heartbreak of a-ha going their separate ways and the heartbreak of a million tonnes of snow at Gatwick Airport, some new green shoots are beginning to emerge from the wasteland that my connection to Norwegian music had become.

Yes, a new solo album from Morten and a tour to go with it. Sadly, I don’t think South Africa will make it onto the itinerary, but the UK has already got three confirmed concerts in Manchester, London and Birmingham, with further dates announced in Zurich and Paris. The UK dates are in May and I’m off to the UK in June. So that’s not great.

Still, at least I have a new album to look forward to. This will be his 5th solo offering, and the first since his brilliant Letter From Egypt in 2008:

The other a-ha band members are still doing their own thing as well: Pal with Weathervane here and Magne in Aparatjik.

Look out for more a-ha related videos on here over the next week or so, simply because I can do that on here because it’s my blog.

Cell use ‘worse than driving drunk’

Posted on

Interesting quote from Gary Ronald of the AA in the Cape Times this morning:

Driver distraction is probably six times more dangerous than driving drunk. If a driver over the legal alcohol limit of 0.05 already has the potential risk of being involved in a crash 15 times more than a sober person, the context of distraction is even more frightening.

I’m all for any measure that improves road safety in SA. But it worries me that Gary seems to be spouting figures for the sake of figure spouting: “probably six times more dangerous than driving drunk”? Well, maybe it is, but why chuck the word “probably” in?
Does this figure that you are spouting come from any sort of research or did you just make it up? And if it came from some sort of research, what sort of result is “probably six times more dangerous than driving drunk”?
When I do science, I don’t come up with results like that. I either say yes or no. And if I’m ever tempted to stray towards a “probably”, then I go away and I do some more research until I can say yes or no.
That’s how it works.

People see that sort of quote and they think “He’s just made that up, hasn’t he?”.
The obvious next step is not to take what Gary is saying seriously and then what most individuals will do is refute all stats on cellphone usage while driving as being nonsense, which in itself is also nonsense, but that is what will happen.

And it spoils what is a very important message: that using your cellphone while you are driving is a dangerous thing to do.
That’s why it’s illegal.

But then, so is driving without a seatbelt and so is drinking and driving and so is speeding and so is going through a red light.
Sadly, here in SA, there is a real issue with people’s attitudes to obeying rules and a real issue with any sort of law enforcement on the roads.
Every day, I see tens of people driving while using cellphones. There’s the usual two versions of the talkers: one doing 130kph without really looking where he’s going, and the other one who unknowingly slows down to 30kph and may weave slightly.
Then there’s the texters (although it could also be social media or email, of course). There are also two types of them: the ones who hold the phone up right in front of their field of vision, resting it on the top of the steering wheel, and the ones who have it down on their lap, text, look up, look down, text some more, look up, look down, text some more etc etc etc. Each of these four approaches demonstrates a clear lack of concentration on the road around them. Each is dangerous and illegal.

Funny thing is, most of those people would probably baulk at the suggestion that they would ever drive drunk and yet they happily use their phone while on the road, which “is probably six times more dangerous than driving drunk”. Why?
Is it because they don’t know how dangerous it is?
Is it because they know and don’t care?
Is it because they don’t think they’ll get caught?

The spokesman for Cape Town Traffic Services, Kevin Jacobs, said 4 184 drivers in six months had been fined for the unlawful use of a cellphone while driving.

4,200 in 6 months. That’s 700 a month. Or 24 a day. 1 an hour.
In a city with 3,000,000+ inhabitants. It’s a drop in the ocean.

The war on drink driving in SA has proved that it takes a combination of stricter law enforcement and powerful advertising to even begin to get the message across to a public which is used to getting away with breaking rules. For the first time since moving here, I am beginning to notice a shift in attitude amongst my friends when it comes to drink driving. It used to be that they’d know it was wrong, but that they take the chance of getting away with it. Now there’s more of a social stigma attached to it (like in the UK) and there’s more awareness about getting caught and the consequences that come with it, people don’t do it any more.

How long before using your cellphone while driving (which, lest we forget, “is probably six times more dangerous than driving drunk”) generates that same sort of reaction?

A year? Ten years? Never?

What are you looking at?

Posted on

Just back from another magical weekend at the cottage, so not much from me here this evening, save for this picture of a Cape Weaver Bird (Ploceus capensis)… er… weaving.

This was taken at Houw Hoek Inn where we stopped for morning coffee and milkshakes on the way through to Agulhas. The subject didn’t seem too impressed at my intrusion. I’ll upload some more images from the weekend when I have the energy to do so.

Sweet and Sour

Posted on

Today’s big news was that I was a big winner of one of the week’s most prestigious awards: The Sour Service Award of the Week on the notoriously bitchy controversial Whale Cottage Portfolio Blog. In receiving this honour, I join other luminaries such a Sea Point parking marshall [sic], Coco’s in Hermanus (is that a strip club?), the entire V&A Waterfront, ADT and, in at least one instance, The City of Cape Town.

To be singled out for the difference I have made to Chris’ life has made me very proud.

However, apparently the blog post that I wrote (because I “had nothing better to do”) was “most unprofessional” and displayed “a libelous [sic] ‘journalistic standard'”. It was “riddled with errors”, although apparently the spelling was pretty good, which must have upset her a bit.

Being a proud Yorkshireman and having a devastatingly concise scientific mind, I don’t like making errors. And it is for that reason (and not because “I have nothing better to do”) that I write this post this evening. I want to right the wrongs. I want the truth. I can handle the truth.

Things Chris says I got wrong:

I said that she rents out self-catering accommodation, when actually, they’re B&Bs.
Fair play, Chris – I’ll give you that one. Huge difference between the two, as breakfast is something you can stick another mark-up on and also, you don’t have to buy those annoying mini ovens for the rooms. Well done.

I quoted an eyewitness (in a “maliciously false fabricated  report”, nogal!), but she says that there was no-one close to them.
Well, yes Chris, I did quote “an eyewitness”, but I had the choice of at least 4 eyewitnesses to quote.  One of them took a photo of your car, clamped. Either they were very close to the scene or they have a hell of a zoom lens on their phone.
How do you know that I wasn’t quoting the parking attendant, Chris? After all, he was very close to you, wasn’t he?
Or perhaps there really was no-one there and you were you talking to yourself.
You might want to seek some psychiatric assistance about that, Chris. It’s not normal.

Chris says that I was not at the Convention Centre, and that I admit that I wrote the blog post purely on hearsay.
In alleging this, Chris undermines the entire journalistic profession. Indeed, if we are to use the von Ulmenstein method of reporting, then it means that only those actually present at any given event can mention it.

A great example would have been the news yesterday.
But when asked if  Muammar Gadaffi was dead, the boss at Al-Jazeera didn’t turn round and tell us:

Well, actually, we can’t say, because there were no reporters actually on the scene.
All we have is eyewitness reports. And photos. Pfft – that’s just “hearsay”.
To report that would be irresponsible, and damaging to the reputation of newsrooms generally.

…now did he? No, he didn’t.

That minor issue aside of course, Chris would never stoop so low as to report on an event at which she wasn’t present, now would she?
N… oh wait… yes – yes, it appears from this typically scathing post on the WDC judges’ visit to Cape Town that she would. Because – and I’m revealing this in an effort to continue the spirit of openness and honesty which has characterised our brief yet fulfilling relationship thus far, Chris – you wrote about a million words (give or take) and expressed some pretty strong opinions about the visit, for which you comprehensively failed make the guest list.

No. I had enough sources, enough evidence. I think that one belongs to me. And that makes it 2-1.

So – now I have reviewed and researched those three alleged errors that “riddled” my “libelous [sic]” blog post and I feel that my conscience is a little clearer, let’s quickly fill you in on the things that Chris didn’t highlight as being falsehoods and which I believe I’m therefore entitled to consider – given her meticulous eye for detail (if not spelling) – that she accepts are correct.

Things Chris accepts are correct:

That she parked illegally at the CTICC. If not in a disabled bay, then blocking a fire exit. Well done for not inconveniencing one person and merely potentially endangering everyone in the car park. Top marks.

That she is one of the more unpopular online figures in this city.

That she was singled out in Mandy de Waal’s scathing review of Cape Town food blogs (wherein the description of her included the word “libellous”, but spelled correctly).

That someone set up this site, which alleges all sorts of nasty things about her properties.

That there’s a video showing how “disgustingly dirty” her Franschhoek self-catering B&B is.

That her Franschhoek property is ranked 48th out of 49 in the area, based on 30 reviews.

Don’t you just love blog posts “riddled” with facts?

I always wonder in these situations if our online paths will ever cross again. Part of me feels that Chris will, in some way, attempt to even things up. Part of me wonders if she’ll want to risk bothering.

Either way – I’ll be here, hanging around 6000 miles from civilisation…