Guiness Advert potentially "Banned" under new drink legislation

Your Face

blueser wrote: »

I'm fantastically well, actually. Thanks for asking. Your concern for me is deeply touching. However; enough of the small talk. Back to my question. Why does making that comment make that man a prick? When you're ready, thanks.

:rolleyes:

Reputable Rog

Louie Nervous Kangaroo wrote: »

But, does the advertising actually result in more sales anyway?

The sight of people having rooftop parties in New York started me on Orchard Thieves, now I can't stop and drink at least 8 pints a day. Not.
Most of the beer I drink isn't even advertised, I have never seen an ad for Corsendonk or Cotton Ball.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

Your Face wrote: »

Are you ok?

Any chance you can actually answer the question asked of you several times? What is wrong with the line????

Your Face

Louie Nervous Kangaroo wrote: »

Any chance you can actually answer the question asked of you several times? What is wrong with the line????

Allinall

Louie Nervous Kangaroo wrote: »

Any chance you can actually answer the question asked of you several times? What is wrong with the line????

I'd say the poster is a victim of the advertising industry.

They're pissed.

Your Face

Allinall wrote: »

I'd say the poster is a victim of the advertising industry.

They're pissed.

Aw, the attempts at finding allies is cute.

goose2005

There's a new group called Drinkers’ Voice aimed at stopping some of the nannying
https://drinkersvoice.org.uk/faqs/
http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/drinking-is-good-for-you-and-most-people-know-it/20340#.WcQbH8h96M8

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

Allinall wrote: »

I'd say the poster is a victim of the advertising industry.

They're pissed.

It would appear he has something in common with said guy in the advert.

RandomName2

Ted Plain wrote: »

This law simply aggravates me. It aggravates me greatly.

I feel like that one poor child banned from doing everything their friends are doing by their obsessive, manipulative, over-strict asshole parents.

:mad:

I brought this up when there was plenty of time to do something about it. Nobody seemed bothered.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=98067429

elperello

RandomName2 wrote: »

I brought this up when there was plenty of time to do something about it. Nobody seemed bothered.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=98067429

Fair play to you for being on the ball.
It just seemed so outlandish at the time.

Correction it still seems outlandish now but it is happening!

blueser

Your Face wrote: »

:rolleyes:

That doesn't really answer the question, amusing though it (faintly) is. Now; cut to the chase. What is wrong with that line? Pretty please, with sugar on top.

[Deleted User]

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I'd say its a matter of time until alcohol companies can't advertise at all

We live in hope. The last "respectable" drug dealers.

OldMrBrennan83

This post has been deleted.

WoollyRedHat

Deleted User wrote: »

Surely it would be 99% of ads ...

Quote makes no sense at all.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

WoollyRedHat wrote: »

Quote makes no sense at all.

Why not? If they remove any scenes showing people, animals or pubs then 99% of the adverts will be gone.

demello

It is referred to as 'marketing' or ' promotion'. Let's call it what it is. It is not marketing, it is legalized drug pushing. Alcohol companies spend 0.7% of turnover on legalized drug pushing. The answer is simple. Apply a social tax of 0.7% of turnover n the alcohol companies and ban the 'marketing' of alcohol. Use the money collected to sponsor festivals, promote well being, subsidize non alcohol social venues etc. We should be liberal enough to allow the sale of alcohol and mature enough not to all it be pushed on young people and to promote wellbeing and alternatives so that alcohol damage is minimized.

WoollyRedHat

Louie Nervous Kangaroo wrote: »

Why not? If they remove any scenes showing people, animals or pubs then 99% of the adverts will be gone.

No no, as in the quote saying that the first two things would also be banned ala the article makes no sense to me, not what Boney said.

murphthesmurf

demello wrote: »

It is referred to as 'marketing' or ' promotion'. Let's call it what it is. It is not marketing, it is legalized drug pushing. Alcohol companies spend 0.7% of turnover on legalized drug pushing. The answer is simple. Apply a social tax of 0.7% of turnover n the alcohol companies and ban the 'marketing' of alcohol. Use the money collected to sponsor festivals, promote well being, subsidize non alcohol social venues etc. We should be liberal enough to allow the sale of alcohol and mature enough not to all it be pushed on young people and to promote wellbeing and alternatives so that alcohol damage is minimized.

Subsidize none alcoholic social venues, so Starbucks then. You want to tax alcohol to subsidize Starbucks and Costa. I take you don't drink, and so therefore no one else should. What festivals would you sponsor? Would it be mandatory for them to be alcohol free? It will be empty except for you and a few vegans and hippies smoking pot. No one wants to push it on youngsters, the big companies would sell it to whoever if you let them, but that's not about to happen.
You snowflakes may need to be wrapped in cotton wool and gave your hand held through life, leave the rest of us out of it.

murphthesmurf

[Deleted User] wrote: »

We live in hope. The last "respectable" drug dealers.

What? How about coffee? Is cafine not a drug? But then where would all the lads with 'man buns' hang out.
Once we have been saved from ourselves and drink, what will be next. Sugar will be next, high sugar and high fat foods. Because all the obese people are 'victims' of the food industry.
After this may well be your coffee, as coffee is bad for you too. We cannot just ban the 'drugs' that you don't like, we'll have to do the all.

murphthesmurf

Pubs will soon become places where only the middle and upper classes hang out. The working class having been priced out lf them as they are rowdy violent scum with beer bellys who talk too loudly. They will be places where people with 'special forces beards' (thats what we used to call them years ago), 'man buns' and men who sit with their legs crossed go. Having interlectual conversations about progressiveness and diversity. Free from the background noise of yobs watching the game or telling rude and offensive jokes, usually at the expense of minorities. The pubs will sell a selection of craft beers and Prosecco, the prefered drink of the left.
Sounds like hell to me.

prinzeugen

Its probably the tech companies behind it. Get rid of the main sponsor for events.

We will have the Google/Facebook pro 14 not Guinness pro 14 rugby.

Tickets only available to those with a Google+ or Facebook account.

Sure they hijacked gay pride so this must be the next target.

Victor

I don't see the problem. We can still have good ads. they just won't be about a product that gives people cancer / liver disease / the scutters.

Jim Bob Scratcher wrote: »

Nanny state gone mad

Tell that to the people who have to deal with alcohol abuse.

Louie Nervous Kangaroo wrote: »

But, does the advertising actually result in more sales anyway?

If it didn't, do you think the alcohol companies would be spending millions on ads?

Victor

murphthesmurf wrote: »

I'm sick to death of the 99% having to give way for the 1%.

It's much more than 1%. Many people abuse alcohol and 3% of the population are serious problem drinkers. that doesn't include the people around them that are affected.

murphthesmurf wrote: »

If you're a drunk, sort your life out.

People need to start taking responsibility for their own actions.

You want problem drinkers to do this? Aren't you expecting a bit much?

But alcohol is not [addictive]

Really? About 38,400,000 results say otherwise. https://www.google.ie/search?q=is+alcohol+addictive&rlz=1C1CHBF_enIE704IE704&oq=is+alcohol+addictive&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l5.4090j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Patww79 wrote: »

It's really about time people took responsibility for themselves and their own offspring and they were made do so.

Load of Nanny state snowflake bollocks.

:rolleyes: Isn't making someone do something much the same as making someone not do something?

BillyBobBS wrote: »

Soon enough it will be illegal to have sex, you know just in case you have a good time.

How does reducing alcohol advertising prevent you having fun?

Junkyard Tom

All this political correctness is going to turn our children gay.

Xcom2

Better get ready to pay higher taxes when the government gets its way in stopping everyone smoking and drinking.

All the people that would have died from related issues will be living a lot longer, claiming pensions and costing the HSE a fortune for age related issues.

Personally I cant wait to be 100 years old, loads of you will be paying for it and some of you are going to be wiping my arse!

:-)

Victor

Xcom2 wrote: »

Better get ready to pay higher taxes when the government gets its way in stopping everyone smoking and drinking.

Tax burden would be the same (or likely less), although possibly sourced differently. Alcohol and tobacco are a net burden on the exchequer and society - taxes earned from them don't off-set the health, damage, loss of work and social costs.

All the people that would have died from related issues will be living a lot longer, claiming pensions and costing the HSE a fortune for age related issues.

No. While people will live longer, they will be living healthier lives and earning longer. I had an aunt and uncle, each who were 40-a-day smokers. They dropped dead in their mid-forties. Wouldn't it have benefited them and their families for them to have lived fuller lives?

Personally I cant wait to be 100 years old, loads of you will be paying for it and some of you are going to be wiping my arse!

And folks, that what Xcom2 thinks of us.

Xcom2

I'm not here much so have not read your 69,000 posts so I have no idea if you are an argumentative idiot or a humorless buffoon.

I thought the smiley at the end of my post would have been enough.

:-)

Please tell me you are not on the welcome committee?

:-)

murphthesmurf

Victor wrote: »

It's much more than 1%. Many people abuse alcohol and 3% of the population are serious problem drinkers. that doesn't include the people around them that are affected.

You want problem drinkers to do this? Aren't you expecting a bit much?

Really? About 38,400,000 results say otherwise. https://www.google.ie/search?q=is+alcohol+addictive&rlz=1C1CHBF_enIE704IE704&oq=is+alcohol+addictive&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l5.4090j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

:rolleyes: Isn't making someone do something much the same as making someone not do something?

How does reducing alcohol advertising prevent you having fun?

So 3% then, 97% have to change the way they live and think to suit 3%.
Yes I want the problem drinkers to do this, they got themselves into it, they can get themselves out of it. Give them the therapy / AA meetings etc and ban them from buying alcohol. Your solution is that the poor innocent helpless 3% are far more important than the rest of us, so we should all give up alcohol to suit them.
I don't believe alcohol is addictive at all, 97% drink it as a choice not an addiction. Some people have addictive personalities and will turn to whatever they can get. That's their problem.

gramar

I wish these bed wetters would get lost.
There were also complaints about an AIB ad that showed a child in a car that was wearing
a puffy coat and appeared not to be properly fastened.
It's embarrasing.