I laughed until flapjack came out of my nose.

But that was because I happened to be eating a flapjack at the time. It's not like I've got hamster pouches where I store bits of flapjack just in case someone gives me a good old laugh and I want to show my appreciation.

Anyhow, this is doing the rounds on Facebook, you may have already seen it. I'f you haven't go and have a look before the listing expires, what starts off as a mundane advert for an old Ford Focus degenerates into one of the most surreal and funny things I've read in a long, long time.

As I seem to be stuck in a Sci-Fi bubble at the moment, I'll show you this picture which amused me greatly:

Adverts we'll never see again - Part 8.

Adverts we'll never see again - Part 7.

Adverts we'll never see again - Part 6.

Adverts we'll never see again - Part 5.

Adverts we'll never see again - Part 4.

Adverts we'll never see again - Part 3.

Adverts we'll never see again - Part 2.

Adverts we'll never see again - Part 1.

The beauty of crowds.

The term 'flash-mob' usually conjures up images of people stripping a store of its contents en masse, or a lightning strike demonstration by a group of concerned individuals.

I like flash-mobs, I may not agree with something they are demonstrating against or for, I certainly don't agree with a pack of criminals picking some poor sod's shop clean, but I do like the dynamic, especially in terms of demonstration, where a group of people can turn up and leave the authorities completely exposed and unprepared for the crowd. There's something energising about it, even if it can result in destruction of property and vandalism. I suppose my delight comes from the fact that some people still realise that they can get together and organise themselves without the all pervasive hand of the State coming in to co-ordinate.

There are many motivations for flash-mobbing, and the below is one of the most beautiful I've seen, or more correctly perhaps, heard. The motivation here is commercial, it is clearly a low-cost, viral ad. But it is a thing of rare beauty.

Sit back, watch, listen, enjoy and think how thrilling it must have been to have had that going on about you with no warning at all.

Stating the bleeding obvious about stating the bleeding obvious.

Another swipe of the axe today.

The government is to get rid of 287 advertising and marketing jobs as part of its spending cuts programme.

Staff numbers at the Central Office of Information (COI) will fall by two-fifths from 737 to 450.

The move follows a government freeze on "non-essential advertising", with the COI's budget estimated to have fallen by more than half.

Chief executive Mark Lund said the operation would become "leaner", but unions said they were "disappointed".

Staff are being offered the chance to apply for voluntary redundancy, although there are expected to be compulsory lay-offs.

The usual caveat here. I am a public servant and may well hear the swoosh of the axe myself before long, but the simple facts are that we are broke, the government is too bloated and too fond of interfering. I really do sympathise with the people who are now staring down the barrel.

It is hard to think of an area where this is more true than with government advertising.

The concept is an odd one, they take our money for a service, then spend more of our money telling us about the service they've taken our money to pay for. I would suggest that if they need to tell us about it, we don't need that service too much, otherwise we'd all be demanding to know where this service is.

Look at this one:

What's the message here? Don't eat crap, don't sit on your rapidly expanding arse all day long and you won't keel over at 40 after the Japanese harpoon you whilst you're walking down the street? Really? Is this vital information?

No, of course not. It is evidence of a government that just cannot help sticking its bloody nose in and trying to micro manage every aspect of our lives. We know this, and those that haven't made a connection between the tenth slice of chocolate cake and the small objects in perpetual orbit around their wobbling bulk are so stupid that the gene pool will not miss them all that much.

Let's have another, shall we?


Whoa! Hang on just a minute, do you mean to tell me that taking money I'm not entitled to is a crime, and if I commit a crime then I may end up in the land of the stripey sunshine? Has anyone told the MPs? There's also another favourite of the government in here as well, 'we're watching you'. A message you may remember from other government adverts like the one where your car is going to be crushed, because you've not given them money to piss away on advertising campaigns or when the TV licencing man calls round, because you've not given the BBC money to piss away on political and environmental indoctrination.

One last one:

Once again, stating the bleeding obvious. You can tell us all you like, the fact is that some twats (normally only a few years past the golden haired child who will be chasing the brightly coloured ball into the road) will always drive at 40mph at maximum revs down a street like the one pictured above because they are indeed twats, and couldn't care less. Browbeating the rest of us won't change this. A responsible driver doesn't need a speed limit (although I understand why they exist) on a road like this, because they will see the conditions and think to themselves, 'hmmmm, someone might step out here, best reduce my speed to minimise the risk of a collision if they do'.

Those that don't should have their licences taken away for driving like a clot.

And once again, another favourite of the government at the bottom. Telling us to be scared. No such thing as a safe road, best keep the kiddies inside.

Of course the problem with keeping the kiddies inside is that they can't move about like nanny says in the first advert.

Goverment advertising: Disjointed, stating the bleeding obvious, nannying, scaremongering, expensive and won't be missed at all.

The One That Is Asking 'For Whom?'. . .

I've been thinking back to my school days again. When I was doing my GCSE's one of the options I took was meeja studies. I believe the other options in that particular area of the list was dance, agriculture and something equally mindless. One of the modules on the course was a very simplistic overview of how advertising works, and it is something that has stuck with me over the last twenty odd years.

Adverts tend to fall into a number of categories, and one of the most popular is the use of fear. Your chopping board contains more bacteria than your toilet seat. You won't die in an NHS hospital if you buy private medical insurance from us. Your brickwork won't fall apart if you treat it with our chemical. That sort of thing.

What we are seeing now is the most ferocious advertising campaign we'll see for five years. It's all being paid for through your taxes (see the huge tax benefits the big parties can derive from your donations) and licence fee. You are paying for this campaign on your own senses. Neat trick, huh?

So looking back to the lessons I had about advertising, what conclusion can I draw from this?

David Cameron has warned of the dangers of a hung parliament and said only a "decisive" Conservative government would "get the job done".

Hmmm. You see when PharmaCo advertise Klapaway as the only treatment you can buy that won't have the ladies running for the hills next time you get a dose, are they doing it because they really, really care about your venereal health or are they doing it because they really, really want you to buy their product?

The answer is obvious.

So when Cameron says:

A hung parliament would be a bunch of politicians haggling, not deciding.

They would be fighting for their own interests, not fighting for your interests. They would not be making long-term decisions for the country's future, they would be making short-term decisions for their own future.

Are we supposed to believe that he really cares for us or do we suppose that he's trying to make us scared of a hung parliament?

Why should we be scared of a hung parliament? Where is the difference in a hung parliament where politicians would be fighting for their own interests and making short-term decisions for their own future and the majority parliaments where for, as long as I've been alive, politicians have been fighting for their own interests and making short-term decisions for their own future?

It doesn't seem any more scary to me than what we've experienced thus far. Let's face it, the decisions that have been made when there has been no haggling have hardly been excellent, have they? Labour have had a huge majority for the last 13 years, the economic decisions have been poor. At best. Yes, David, I can see you putting your hand up, but your record isn't exactly glowing, is it? ERM ring any bells? Oh? That was the fault of the EU was it? Would this be the same EU you've refused to let us have any say over?

No, when Dave says a hung parliament is dangerous, he means it's dangerous for him. A hung parliament means he's toast if he can't command a minority government or put together a coalition. Given how hard Gordon was tonguing Ned Clark's (or whatever his name is) arsehole on Thursday, I don't fancy Dave's chances of managing the latter.

What is even more dangerous for the Tories is if the Limp Dims have got such a significant bounce from the debate, and continue over the next two, that their share of the vote goes up so much that you can't put a fag paper between the three. They'll be demanding PR then and could hold the balance of power so firmly that any partnering party would have to give in. You wouldn't like that, would you? I've no love for the Limp Dims, but I'm all for PR, mainly because it is more representative than this 'representative democracy'.

No Dave, it ain't dangerous for us, and all the time you bleat on about it, the more you reveal how scared you are, and with good reason, any Tory who can't despatch this hated government and despised PM isn't worth a wet paper bag.

Your turn to be afraid, it doesn't work on me any more.

Post Script

Oh yes, I've just seen ITV's rehash of The Prisoner, and it's rubbish.

The One That Is A Little Confused. . .

In my last article, a correspondent called 'Sarah' posted the following comment (I suspect I am not alone in this):

Please, please, please feature this post. I am not a god botherer but I found this mint. I suspect that even the bible bashers have had enough of 'free speech' when it means in a Christian Country even the Christians voice is un heard. I reckon they are fighting back. Eye for an Eye etc. Lets see how many complaints this gets. Bearing in mind it's not just Christians, it's a group of The Christian party, the Trinitarian Bible Society and the Russian Orthodox Church. I have no God but if the 'Righteous' can do it so can any one else. Lets see how much coverage the Bollocking Bastard Cunts and the Daily wail give this one.

She then posts a link to this story in the Daily Mail.

The crux of it is that in response to the bus ad campaign run by the Humanists, the above named organisations have clubbed together and put an ad campaign together in the same milieu that reads 'There definitely is a God, so join the Christian party and enjoy your life.'

I must admit that I may be suffering a dense patch this evening, because I don't really understand what Sarah is getting at.

First of all she states that 'bible bashers have had enough of free speech', I'm not going to argue with that. Religion is by its nature dogmatic and the whole history of religion is littered with incidents of people speaking their mind being put to death in a variety of interesing ways as a result.

She claims that in a Christian country, the Christians' voice is not heard. Well, I don't agree with that, whenever the Arch-Bishops of York and Canterbury open their mouths (which happens with depressing regularity) it is plastered all over the media. The very fact that Christian organisations are at liberty to place this advert shows that their voice is very much heard. Whether it is heeded is a different matter, and one for the individual.

She then says that they are 'fighting back'. Fighting back against what? The Christian Church has an important place in our society. I don't for a minute think it should, I support the complete divorce of Church and State, I'm perfectly happy for people to practice whatever religion they want. I am not happy with unelected clerics voting on law in this country. It is the imposition of a belief system I do not subscribe to and I do not think it fair to have one sect of one belief in control to the exclusion of the others.

Then, 'Lets see how many complaints this gets'. None I would have thought. Only believers in God would complain about an advert calling His existence into doubt. For non-believers they will look at an advert that says 'There definitely is a God' in the same way that they would look at adverts saying 'There definitely is a Father Christmas' or 'There definitely is a Tooth Fairy'. They just won't care. That is once you discount the professional offendees, but I couldn't care less about them, they'll complain about any assertation.

I think the big difference is that a significant proportion of the religiously active want to persuade non-believers to believe. They believe, rightly or wrongly, that it is their duty to save these peoples' souls, very few atheists try to convert the believers to their cause. I would hope that people like me (my views on the Church are quite clear on these pages, God I have no problem with) accept other peoples' beliefs on the condition that they don't try to force me to comply or use their belief structure to otherwise effect my life.

I guess what I'm saying is that I truly believe in freedom of speech. If you want to say you believe in God, then fine, knock yourself out. If you want to say you don't, then the same applies. The same can be said of politics. Where the problem comes is when people are imprisoned, tortured and put to death for expressing a view different from the status quo, we've seen it all too often in both spheres of religion and politics. Thankfully in this country we've moved away from persecution regarding the former. As for the latter, well, perhaps this post by Guthrum over at Old Holborn's place will give cause for alarm.

No flame wars or arguments, but if you read this Sarah, I'd be grateful if you'd comment to make sure I haven't completely misunderstood your points.

The One That Thinks This Is A Bloody Good Idea. . .

Courtesy of DK.

I don't remember how much it costs the Humanists to put their atheist/angnostic messages on a bus, but I don't recall it being a huge amount. Plus I should imagine in the current climate that advertising space is going quite cheap at the moment.

The One That Wishes They'd Turn The Sound Down. . .

Just a quick one today.

That's a picture of my street when the adverts come on, because they're so FUCKING LOUD.

I'm now getting very tired of being blasted through the wall into next door's living room whenever a commercial channel feeding through the Sky satellite system cuts to the adverts. The difference in volume between the programmes and inducements is startling.

It is also embarrasing, frankly, when I get people from Hammerfest knocking on my front door asking if I wouldn't mind turning the volume down on my telly, because the noise of adverts is disturbing their herd of reindeer.


This doesn't make we want to buy the sponsors' products, indeed it has quite the reverse effect. Now bloody cut it out.