UK Nutter News

Milli Hill of Somerset is a parenting columnist for Somerset Life Magazine and blogger for The Mule.

She has created on online petition entitled Jeff Bezos, Amazon CEO: Refuse to carry books which advocate the physical abuse of children. The petition urges Amazon (both .com and .co.uk) to stop allowing books that purportedly advocate, endorse, and advise parenting techniques that involve the physical abuse of children as a disciplinary technique. Examples of some titles targeted by the petition include To Train Up A Child by Michael and Debi Pearl, Shepherding a Child's Heart by Tedd Tripp, and Don't Make Me Count to Three by Ginger Plowman. The petition continues:

Such books, and others like them, promote behaviour which is abusive of children. All of the above books advocate the use of a rod and other implements on children under one.

Such behaviour is abusive to children, and it is also 'offensive', which is contrary to Amazon's Content Guidelines.

It may well also be illegal, as it seems to go far beyond the 'reasonable chastisement' currently sanctioned by law in the UK, (where this petition originated) and in many US States. Not only is beating on a regular basis with a rod likely to leave a mark, which is illegal in the UK, it is also likely to amount to inhuman or degrading treatment, which is a breach of human rights.

We wish Amazon to urgently review their decision to stock any book or other product which advises the physical abuse of children.

The petition currently stands at 10,425. Apparently this includes many notable names in the field of children's rights, psychology, child development, and religious child maltreatment.

Perhaps a little strange that the group does not petition against the religions that prove such a fertile breeding ground for bad attitudes to children.

A film trailer by the makers of Wallace and Gromit has been criticised for poking fun at people with leprosy.

The scene shows the arrival of the Pirate Captain on board a captive ship, demanding gold.  Afraid we don't have any gold old man, this is a leper-boat, explains a crew member. See, he adds as his arm falls off.

Essex-based Lepra Health in Action has expressed disbelief at the scene in Aardman Animation's The Pirates! Adventures with Scientists.

Lepra's president Sir Christian Bonington said:

It might make you laugh but leprosy stigma not only hurts, it is still forcing people to live a life on the fringes of society.

Not only is the dropping off of body parts a total misnomer we have to ask ourselves, as we watch it uncomfortably, is it acceptable for us to be laughing at the millions of people who are disabled by leprosy? '

A spokesman for Bristol-based Aardman said it took criticism like this seriously and was reviewing the matter.

Update: Potential for offence disarmed

25th January 2012. See article from independent.co.uk
See trailer from youtube.com

The creator of Wallace & Gromit, Aardman Animations, has bowed to international pressure after being accused of poking fun at leprosy sufferers in its latest blockbuster film.

Aardman have announced that the offending leper scene in The Pirates! In an Adventure with Scientists, set for release in March, will be changed out of respect and sensitivity after being convinced that the scene could increase stigma and discrimination for millions of leprosy sufferers.

The scene showed the main pirate character landing on a so called leper ship looking for gold, but is then clearly aghast when the leper's arm falls off. It has already been seen on the film's trailer by hundreds of thousands of people on You Tube and in cinemas worldwide, but Aardman will now remove all offensive references to leprosy.

Chief executive of LEPRA, Sarah Nancollas, said:

We are genuinely delighted that Aardman and Sony Pictures have made this decision, though obviously we will have to wait to see the final film to see it was dealt with.

Hopefully this publicity will help to reduce the damage that has already been done with the use of this trailer across the world.

A poster advertising lingerie, seen on the side of buses in early November 2011, stated Introducing Naked Glamour Calvin Klein Underwear and featured five images of a model wearing a bra and briefs.

The complainant, an Orthodox Cherdi Jew, objected that:

1. the ad was offensive to the large Orthodox Jewish population of Stamford Hill, whose religious beliefs required them not to see images of women wearing only underwear;

2. it was irresponsible to display the ad in untargeted media in public as it would be seen by children.

Calvin Klein said they did not believe that the ad was offensive or socially irresponsible. They said the ad merely featured the product, their underwear range, being worn by a model. They believed it was reasonable to feature models wearing underwear when advertising these products, and that the ad was neither sexually suggestive nor overtly sexual. They also said their media vendor had not believed that the ad fell into the risky category, and had been happy for the ad campaign to proceed.

ASA Decision: Complaints not upheld

1. Not upheld

The ASA noted that there was no explicit nudity in the images, and that the ad was for an underwear range. We considered that the nature of the product meant that viewers of the ad were less likely to regard the ad as gratuitous or offensive, and noted that the poses of the model were natural. We considered that the ad might be viewed by some as mildly sexual in nature, as the underwear featured in the largest image appeared sheer in nature, and the product name Naked Glamour was featured. However, although we recognised that some people with strongly held religious views may find the ad distasteful, we did not consider that the ad was likely to cause widespread offence or serious offence to those with religious views.

On this point we investigated the ad under CAP Code rule 4.1 (Harm and offence) but did not find it in breach.

2. Not upheld

We noted the complainant's concerns that this ad, displayed on buses, was likely to be seen by children. We considered that the ad may be viewed by some as mildly sexual in nature, as the underwear featured in the largest image appeared sheer in nature, and the product name Naked Glamour was featured. However, we did not consider that the images were overtly sexual, and considered that the ad was acceptable for use in outdoor media likely to be seen by children. We therefore concluded that the ad was not socially irresponsible.

On this point we investigated the ad under CAP Code  rule 1.3 (Social responsibility) but did not find it in breach.