On the very first occasion that I saw the advert on my TV, I knew, I just knew that is was going to set the fur flying. I was right.
Scenario: a man picks up his car keys and leaves the house to get into his brand, spanking, new Land Rover Freelander Sport motor vehicle. A woman (presumably his wife) spots him leaving. She rushes up to the bedroom, opens the dresser drawer and pulls out a starting pistol. She rushes downstairs again and runs outside just as her husband is getting into the car. She points the gun up to the sky and fires a single shot, thus giving him signal to get started.
Pretty innocuous stuff. But still far too traumatic and disturbing for some people:
A television advert for Land Rover featuring a woman firing a gun has been banned by watchdogs for glamourising gun culture….
The agency behind the advert said it was intended to promote the message “that the Freelander Sport triggered sporting behaviour”.
But 348 viewers complained to media regulator Ofcom, meaning that the advert is in the top 10 of the most complained about commercials.
Most viewers were concerned that the commercial glamourised or normalised gun culture despite the fact handguns are illegal in Britain. Many also pointed out that the gun was stored irresponsibly.
Yes, you are reading that right. People might be encouraged to store the guns which they do not possess irresponsibly. Priceless!
The right to keep and bear arms is not a debate in this country. Nor is it an issue or an idea or an argument. It has all been subsumed into a deep national psychosis for which I see no prospect of any cure.
What would make you think we are trying to provoke?
“… 348 viewers complained to media regulator Ofcom, meaning that the advert is in the top 10 of the most complained about commercials.”
The top ten?
Interesting combination: 348 turkeys voted for Christmas. At the same time, the collaborator mentality is fearsome. I can’t help but feel there was a sense of self-righteous “reporting” behind this. “We [never ‘I’] just felt we should draw your attention to …. could be dangerous for the kiddies … in this country we have laws against people having guns … Could encourage …”.
This incident and others before leads me to wonder what would have happened in WWI and II if Britain had been part of the continong and France had been an island. Would the Brits have been pleasing their German masters in exactly the same horrifying way?
Just asking.
It has gone this far.
A few weeks ago I happened to be at a military function, where, chained like some mythical beast to a display table, was a ratty-looking Browning 9mm automatic. I peered down at it wondering how on earth something so horrible could still be issued in the age of Glock and SIG, when a hulking squadie in his twenties manifested before me, picked it up, wrapped it in his fists and said: “You hold it like this…” I smiled (as you do) and said, “Yes, I know… any good is it?” (not having used this particular weapon).
The shaven-headed one gave me an old-fashioned, almost shocked, look. As if to say: ‘A civilian!? With a gun!?!
Mr Carr, you are, I fear, quite right, as usual. This is a disease for which there is no apparent cure. Even our infantry has been indoctrinated.
I think we should also ban the Olympics, as the sight of the officials firing those starting guns was deeply disturbing, and liable to corrupt the youth of this country.
“Many also pointed out that the gun was stored irresponsibly.”
Considering that every starter gun I’ve ever seen doesn’t actually have a functional barrel (ie, it’s completely sealed, no projectile comes out),and just makes a loud noise I’m wondering what the responsible way of storing a starter’s pistol is…
And if this is an issue then I guess we need to start looking into buying gun safes and trigger locks for children’s cap guns while we’re at it.
I’m probably not one to talk though. We freak out over a boob show during the Superbowl, you freak out over a starter pistol. I’ll call this one a wash.
Verity: what kind of a question is that?? If France had been an island and Britain had been on the continent would the Brits have been ‘pleasing their German masters in the same way’? Aside from the rediculousness of the question (how about: what if the US hadn’t been on a continent the other side of the world, but had been part of continental Europe?!?), the article is just about some weirdos reacting weirdly to a TV advert (a crap advert at that). Sounds like you have a bigger point to make – something you wanna get off your chest perhaps?
Hank Scorpio – How is this relevant? Do you think British TV viewers are sophisticated enough to know the difference between starter guns and real guns? When they are not permitted by Daddby Tony to touch a real gun? The British have been denuded of gun knowledge, and have become passive. They allowed it.
Touchy Mike – I have no point to get off my chest. I am posing a question which I feel is germane to the post. I would be genuinely interested in hearing the views of other commentators.
While the ‘whistleblowers’ can squeal without declaring themselves, you are bound to get this petty, small-minded, complain at every chance, behaviour. They have ‘the power’, without the responsibility, – so typically Nu-English, so typically socialist…
Just what has become of England when such sneaky behaviour is tolerated, even encouraged?
Come on people, seriously, be honest. Wouldnt you, deep down inside, just love to drop the nice libertarian principles, take over the gov by force, find out who these 348 people and all their fellow travellers and ship them off to an island somehwhere?
No I know, were not allowed to think like that.
But its nice to dream a little.
No, Shawn, I can’t speak for anyone else, but I haven’t the faintest interest in who any of these people are.
And I wouldn’t want to take over any government by force, given that most governments are something I wouldn’t want to have a hand in. Government should be a tiny, tiny presence in civil society.
If you ‘dream a little’ of taking over a government, good luck to you, but don’t have the temerity to try to superimpose your dreams on my posts.
This is completely inappropriate and off-topic. I promise not to do this ever again, or at least not very often. If there were a Goddess, She would send me to hell or to the nearest socialist state–Canada, probably–for bringing up this topic in this context. But I can’t find a better place for it, and it’s important. So here goes.
All of you libertarian furrinners who think that Dubya & Co. are wonderful beings ought to go read anything on the ‘Net about Terry Schiavo. This is not an isolated incident. Dubya & Co. seem to believe that the American courts–arguably the most powerful entities in the land–these Dubya thinks that American courts are their own personal playground. As one of our pithier commentators here in the U.S. put it, “He was born on third base, and thinks he hit a triple.”
This yank weeps for your nation upon reading about this starter-pistol business. There’s little that can be said about it that isn’t obvious to anyone with even a modicum of reason.
GCooper posted: “… a ratty-looking Browning 9mm automatic. I peered down at it wondering how on earth something so horrible could still be issued in the age of Glock and SIG.”
There’s nothing wrong with the HiPower (except for its inappropriate name and its magazine disconnect). I’d much rather have that pistol than any Glock.
The HiPower is elegant, reliable and accurate. I’ve always thought it had a sort of British aesthetic to it (despite its American-Belgian roots). It is a very appropriate sidearm for your military. Now, as for your army’s silly rifles…
none:
Generally speaking, the one function of government that libertarians agree upon is to protect people from what they cannot protect themselves. Terry Schaivo is about as defenseless as one can get, and there is legitimate debate as to how debilitated she is and what her husband’s motives are.
Furthermore, Dubya may well have been born on third base, but he’s proved himself to be a pretty good infielder. Not a minarchist by any stretch of the imaginnation, but far less of a statist than the alternative.
Did Britain have an Olympic shooting team?
I probably should be used to it by now, but having seen the advert in question I’m stunned that it was banned. It’s almost too pathetic to be true.
It’s also all terribly depressing: that there’s a body that censors adverts; that there is gun control; and now censorship of adverts with guns.
It’s just a load of nonsense really, on so many levels. The most dangerous thing in the advert, the car, was simply left lying around outdoors, completely unsecured! And those humans, just walking about the place! They even seemed to have their free will intact.
I am also confident that the very same week that the ad was first shown the same TV channel put on programmes that contained far more violent and glamorous use of guns (and cars) than the ad and I bet not a single one of these armchair mashed potato head complainers batted an eyelid.
A farmer, a friend of mine living in Suffolk, with his elderly mother, kept a 12 bore shotgun at home for many many years. According to police requirements he kept it in a locked and secured gun cabinet.
The police came round to conduct their annual check on holders of firearms certificates to make sure the gun was kept secured in accordance with the licence requirements.
The farmer was out at the time, so the police officer asked the elderly mother if she knew where the gun was kept and where the keys were to the cabinet. Helpfully she said she did – the cabinet was upstairs in his bedroom and she thought the keys were in his desk draw in the study.
The police confiscated the gun, revoked the licence and took out a court order banning the farmer from keeping a gun for at least ten years on the grounds that an unauthorised person had access to it.
I’ve heard that story before, WHS, but never came across anyone that had real life experience of it happening (either to themselves or someone they know) so thanks for sharing that.
All members of my household know exactly what to say if/when they are interrogated by the police.
JohnJo,
Yes, this is by no means an isolated incident. It seems to be a standard police ploy to try to establish if anyone else knows where the cabinet and keys are. It may even be part of the licence check.
So, if you hold a licence – beware…
The police hate the idea of anyone else having firearms.
JohnJo,
Yes, this is by no means an isolated incident. It seems to be a standard police ploy to try to establish if anyone else knows where the cabinet and keys are. It may even be part of the licence check.
So, if you hold a licence – beware…
The police hate the idea of anyone else having firearms.
If the ad were to be pulled then let it be because it was crap.
However I have just sent my complaint to OFCOM that the ban was unwarranted!
At the NYC counter-protest, one of the signs we carried said:
“Ban guns, they’re an occupational hazard to criminals”
Joe – You think that’s funny? Always ahead of the game in Gramscian social engineering and turning the world upside down so everyone feels disoriented, a parole board in Britain refused parole for farmer Tony Martin, a year or so ago (he’d shot two burglars who had broken and entered his home a dozen or so times, killing one of them), on the grounds that he posed a danger to burglars.
Rob Fischer, I share your despair.
Verity, my tongue was planted firmly in my cheek when I wrote my post above, you took it way too seriously.
Shawn – mi sculpa.
a parole board in Britain refused parole for farmer Tony Martin, a year or so ago (he’d shot two burglars who had broken and entered his home a dozen or so times, killing one of them), on the grounds that he posed a danger to burglars.
He shot them *in the back* and showed no remorse. I know you probably think that’s reasonable for someone violating your home, but I’d rather we held people to higher standards than that. (I’m actually a fan of laxer gun laws – I just don’t want people to literally get away with murder once they have the guns).
(incidentally, given how left-wing the media is supposed to be, it’s quite surprising how many people have come to believe TM acted in self-defence, and are surprised to learn he shot the kid in the back while he was running away…)
Moving back on topic, as Shawn says, I’d be delighted to line the 348 complainers up for a shooting…
348 people? That’s not very many. Given the otherwise unremarkable nature of the advert, it’s likly that most of them knew, or were in some way associated with, each other! How difficult could it be for an NGO with an interest in banning firearms to get 348 of it’s members to complain?
“He shot them *in the back* and showed no remorse.”
We’re in no position to judge whether he felt threatened or not, or his overall state of mind when he took the shot. He should be given the benefit of doubt. The thieves are the ones who took the decision in break in, which ultimately led to the shooting, they are the ones who should be held responsible.
Well, at least we know that another 348 slummers have found a new cause: They’v read the stereotypes, heard about the rap, they’ll go try and find some ghetto full of poor black kids which they can rescue from this evil “gun culture”. Though I am making a big assumption that the warmth of their fireplace and the sparkling of their champaign won’t distract them first.
Keeps them off my street at least.
john b – This same pair had broken into Tony Martin’s house eight or 10 times previously. If someone breaks into your home at midnight, and it’s pitch black out, and you live in an isolated house on the Broads, miles from anywhere, and the police treat you as a joke every time you call and ask for help, I’m guessing that you would be as apprehensive as Martin was.
As to this canard that that little 16 yr old sleaze who got shot mercilessly in the back … why do the papers cover up the cirumstances and just emphasise that he was shot in the back? (As if we didn’t know.)
Martin had awoken, heard someone in his house, got up, frightened to turn his light on, picked up his shotgun, crept to the head of the staircase, and opened fire. He knew they were somewhere in the house, but didn’t know they were at the bottom of the staircase. He shot blind to frighten them away. He killed the kid and winged his 37 yr old uncle, who had a string of 37 convictions to his name. Not 37 charges. Convictions.
As we’re mentioning Martin, I still can’t get over that the police were thinking of relocating him to Australia, at a cost to the taxpayer of around 1/4 million pounds, because the gypsies who were part of the extended family had threatened revenge when he got out.
They knew who was issuing death threats? So they were going to remove Martin from his surroundings and send him to Australia with a new identity? Last time I looked, issuing death threats was a crime.
And I feel so badly for those poor burglars… Serves ’em right and society would be a lot better off if criminals knew that screwing around with other people’s property can result in the distinct possibility of getting killed.
That’s why I’m very much in favor of the “make my day” laws.
Martin had awoken, heard someone in his house, got up, frightened to turn his light on, picked up his shotgun, crept to the head of the staircase, and opened fire. He knew they were somewhere in the house, but didn’t know they were at the bottom of the staircase. He shot blind to frighten them away.
Interestingly enough, TM was convicted in a court of law for waiting up all night with a light on for them to rob him, so he could wait until they were in an appropriate position, pull guns on them, and then get his revenge. The judge at his appeal explicitly rejected the defence claim that he shot wildly in the dark without expecting to hit anyone. His conviction was instead reduced to manslaughter on the grounds that his clinical paranoia led him to massively overestimate the threat he was facing.
Look, there are arguments for loosening the gun laws, and there are arguments (as Alan Massey and Hank Scorpio say) for allowing you to kill anyone who’s in your house without your permission. But conflating the two points does nobody any good, and using some poor mad bastard who killed a child in a fit of paranoia as a posterboy for either cause is sick and wrong.
JohnJo, WHS’s tale is not apocryphal, because it bears an uncanny similarity to a case a few years ago in which a London solicitor had his shotgun licence revoked by Essex police, after his mother was found to have (limited) access to his gun cabinet. He fought them – unsuccessfully I think – in the courts.
As for john b, I’m surprised anyone should worry about Martin’s shooting the “child” (16 year old career burglar with 28 court appearances) in the back, a laudable epsiode of vermin control.
Today marks the final date for submissions to the Firearms Controls Consultation Office at the Home Office, following the issue of yet another “consultation document”. A few concerned individuals – a tiny minority of a UK population largely indifferent to, when they’re not being hysterical about, firearms – will have submitted closely reasoned, rational, fact-filled arguments against any further erosion of our right to own firearms. Before too long, however, we’ll see even more restrictive measures pushed through Parliament. The UK political Establishment does not like the peasantry having the means with which to defend itself, and the peasantry is for the most part too interested in watching Big Brother to give a damn.
john b – What were the judge’s politics? Is he a rabid supporter of antigun laws in Britain?
Tony Martin sat up all night with the light on waiting for them to rob him? How did he know they planned the burgle his house that night? Or was it contended that he sat up all night every night with the light on?
“… his clinical paranoia led him to massively overestimate the threat he was facing.” It’s paranoid to feel threatened by two strange men, maybe armed, breaking and entering and sneaking round your home in the dead of night? He not only overestimated the threat he was facing (paranoia, you know) but massively overestimated it?
Tony Martin had a show trial and show parole hearings organised by the establishment which has an interest in keeping the British public dependent on the police and the judges. They love the ‘no guns in civilian hands’ culture.
Also the dead kid was 16. He was a child? But in the language of the left, he would have been at least “a young person capable of making his own informed decisions”.
If someone is in my house in the dead of night without my permission, he’s going out feet first, on a trolley.
“But 348 viewers complained to media regulator Ofcom, meaning that the advert is in the top 10 of the most complained about commercials.”
I’m just trying understand a few things about our shared culture and language. Is that sentance grammatically acceptable over in GB?
I doubt any of the 348 prodnoses who objected to this advert were really offended by it, they just thought that they should be offended by it. And given the zeitgeist their objections were taken with all seriousness by the regulators, who in my view should have told them to grow up and stop wetting their beds. I suppose this boils down to a belief that guns are bad, therefore only bad people have guns. That’s about as far as the debate goes in the UK these days. Luckily the police will always be there to protect us, and there isn’t a serial killer on the loose in London, so that’s ok.
Bobby, the sentence is acceptable, but the spelling of ‘sentance’ is certainly not.