Thursday, 30 May 2013

“Bitter race row over Faversham brewery Shepherd Neame's Spitfire beer ad”

Shepherd Neame are not my most favourite brewery and their advertising always manages to offend me greatly, as it should any decent thinking person! 

They do say that there is no such thing as bad publicity but when, in my humble opinion, a brewery brings a quality product like real ale down to the level of the lager lout and swivel-eyed UKIP types it’s a very sad day indeed. 

Shepherd Neame’s jingoistic approach to beer advertising really has no place in the day and age and I’m glad, if this article is to be believed, that an advert for Spitfire has been refused permission to be aired on TV. ‘The sketch, which stars comic duo Armstrong and Miller, makes reference to "Poles" and "Paddies" laying patios.

I have blogged before about their distasteful advertising. I even complained to the Advertising Standards Authority about them. Sadly my complaint was not upheld. I repeat my call now ‘Come on Shepherd Neame clean up your act.’

Perhaps it’s time for beer drinkers to boycott the likes of Shepherd Neame. And while we’re on the subject lets boycott Charles Wells for their somewhat neo-sexist Rik Mayall ads.

12 comments:

Anonymous said...

"Swivel-eyed UKIP types..."

What a racist and bigoted comment. You, Sir, are a hypocrite and off my blog-list. Good-bye.

Paul Garrard said...

Thanks. I think I may have touched a nerve there :-)
You shy person have made my day.
Not sure how it makes me a racist, bigoted or a hypocrite but thanks for the laugh.

Anonymous said...

Can't sexism, racism and every other 'ism' be portrayed by a fictional character? Or do we have to ban every fictional character from being a bigot?

Paul Garrard said...

Dear Green-inker, it’s all about context. You may like to read this:
http://www.of-course-blog.co.uk/2013/05/fanny-my-arse.html

Paul Bailey said...

Shepherd Neame are more of a "contract lager" brewing company these days, although they do own some pretty decent pubs. Their cask ales are dire, and I know very few people who drink, let alon enjoy them. Most people in their pubs seem to agree, and drink their Ersatz lagers instead.

The same goes for their puerile, juvenile advertising. Thankfully I haven't seen the ad you refer to, but if it is anything like the anti-German, "we won the war", nonsense of previous Spitfire campaigns then I will certainly continue to give Sheps a wide berth!

David Nicholls said...

You must be very easily offended, I suggest you get a sense of humour, before I report you to the "society for those who have had a sense of humour bypass"

Paul Garrard said...

I’m not easily offended. In fact the only thing that offends me is gross stupidity. I also like to think I have a good sense of humour, just not keen on the cheap and lazy sort :-)

Barm said...

I had a very nice pint of Master Brew in Faversham a couple of months ago, and their new bottled Double Stout and IPA are quite palatable.

But the new advertising is unspeakable and even worse than the Bottle of Britain campaign. Who are Armstrong and Miller anyway?

RedNev said...

It's curious how the worst sort of humour can have its defendants with their predictable comments about a "humour by-pass". The fact that something is intended to be a joke doesn't mean it's actually funny; surely everyone knows that there are good jokes and bad jokes. I got a similar reaction when I described a Brewdog video as borderline racist from someone who said he'd "laughed like a drain" when he saw it and - because of me - was going to watch it and laugh at it again straight away. I think I was meant to be upset by that, but I merely pitied his stupidity.

By and large, jokes that depend for their humour upon bigotry are funny only to those who share the prejudices concerned. If they are genuinely funny anyway, they don't need the prop of prejudice to set up the punchline.

Martyn Cornell said...

There is - there really is - an important and vital difference between racism and taking the mick, and for those of you who don't get that, I'm sorry, but you really need to analyse your own responses to work out why you see something designed to get a light and fundamentally harmless laugh as something designed to try to subjugate, humiliate and oppress someone. As an Englishman I've heard a few jokes by Irish people which have England or English people as their butt, and I've never felt they were being racist towards the English because they weren't. And yes, I thought the Spitfire ads were great, particularly the Bandits at 6 O'clock one.

Paul Garrard said...

Ah I get it. It’s only a little bit racist so it doesn’t count. Other nations do it so that makes it okay. I’m surprised you didn’t drop, ‘health and safety gone mad’ in for good measure. Attitudes will never change with this sort of tacit acceptance. Tasteless humour is often insidious in nature.

RedNev said...

Martin, without using the words, has gone for the "humour by-pass" option - we don't appreciate the difference between mickey-taking and racism. This assumes that the two are mutually exclusive, but that isn't necessarily so.

I've seen mickey-taking in operation in the workplace with men cracking sexist jokes, and if you don't like it, they'd glare at you and say things like, "It's only a joke, for Christ's sake!" and "Political correctness gone mad!" What they usually didn't notice was that there were often women seething, but saying nothing as they didn't wish to invite ridicule for being humourless killjoys. If they did notice, they'd usually think that was funny too.

If someone doesn't like a joke, they are entitled not to like it without being told they've had a "humour by-pass" or that they need to analyse their responses, unless you're asserting that every mickey-taking joke is automatically hilarious.