Government Ads

[ItsDave]

Why are all the Government ads manipulising the use of children in nearly all of their adverts? With the speeding one, a dead child. Don't speed, you'll kill a child, you wouldn't like that if that was your kid. The smoking one "I'd do anything for you" (Sing song) its like, I suppose I should do it for the kids.

Does anyone else find thise type of manipulation kind of... cruel or like... wrong? It really annoys me to think of this shallow type of indoctrination. Your takes?

[Black_Apalachi]

Haha and the climate change one is the little girl. I don't see what the argument here is though lol.

[Nixt]

It's one of the best way to get through to people, so I don't see why they shouldn't do it if they are making a valid point.

[Bun]

the public are thick, makes sense to manipulate them.......

[Sly]

dont see the problemo

[-:Undertaker:-]

These adverts must cost millions upon millions and don't make one blind bit of difference, sometimes with the amount of government adverts we get you'd be forgiven for thinking Joseph Goebbels is still knocking around.

[Ardemax]

yey lets turn this innocent debate into a mass argument about how crap labour is and how much money we're spending ^. just no.

the advert with the child is really effective and creepy which will put drivers off driving ridiculous speeds around schools and children based units.

[-:Undertaker:-]

yey lets turn this innocent debate into a mass argument about how crap labour is and how much money we're spending ^. just no.

the advert with the child is really effective and creepy which will put drivers off driving ridiculous speeds around schools and children based units.

My post contributed to the thread on a number of points, i'm opposed to government adverts because;

• They are not effective.
• They cost absurd amounts of money.
• The government is getting too big, too in-your-face.

Very simple, although you seem to suggest by your post you wish to have a debate about Labour and government spending despite the fact my post never mentioned either of them and I had no intention of mentioning them.

[Ardemax]

My post contributed to the thread on a number of points, i'm opposed to government adverts because;

• They are not effective.
• They cost absurd amounts of money.
• The government is getting too big, too in-your-face.

Very simple, although you seem to suggest by your post you wish to have a debate about Labour and government spending despite the fact my post never mentioned either of them and I had no intention of mentioning them.

Didn't mention any of them? Wanna re-think that bit.

They are effective, they don't cost more than most commerical adverts and the message is being brought forward because of the ridiculous crime levels in the UK to date.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Didn't mention any of them? Wanna re-think that bit.

They are effective, they don't cost more than most commerical adverts and the message is being brought forward because of the ridiculous crime levels in the UK to date.

You did, you mentioned Labour and how much money we are spending - your words, not mine.. On effective, they are not. Nobody listens to these adverts, otherwise nobody would smoke, nobody would drink, nobody would speed and we'd all live happily ever after. If these adverts really do make a difference, i'd sure like to see the results of lower crime rates and so on because at the moment I see the opposite.