Olympic picture farce rumbles on
Like Boris Johnson and Downing Street, I too am ‘deeply disturbed’ that a picture of a murderer has been used to promote the 2012 Olympics.
I ask you, who the Hell thought it would be a good idea to include Tony Blair in there? The use of this image is in extremely poor taste and it should not have been used to promote London.
I’m with Anne Widdicombe when she says that it’s ‘extraordinary that if we’re trying to promote Britain, we should do so with an image of a mass child murderer’.
Posted on August 25th, 2008 at 1:00 pm
| See also • Twinned with Nevada • Back (door) to Basics • Square peg, round hole |
• Permalink • Trackback • Subscribe |
|
• Filed under Bread and circuses, Culture, media and sport |
• |
LOL!
Seems like old Bozza didn’t go down well with an international audience either. “Too scruffy” is the global verdict on Boris. For shame!
a very public sociologist’s latest blog post… Bloggy Links
My girlfriend and I HOWLED watching the farce that was the handover - a double-decker bus that falls apart, long queues, umbrellas - and Boris Johnson.
This was an appalling way to promote the UK. There are any number of politicians that could have been featured and created the same level of revulsion without offending the masses. Shame on them.
Justin, you forget that we’re supposed to be working *with* Tony on this one:
http://london.pledgebank.com/Sportclubpatrons
Tim Ireland’s latest blog post… Holiday
I’d completely forgotten about that. Time to order the orange kit for my 5-aside team, Guantanamo United.
unless you think that cruelty is no better than callousness, I really don’t see the point of your jibe Justin. (As it happens, I have no fundamental problem with the use of the handprint-Hindley, but I can’t see the point or the humour in calling Blair a murderer. Grade-A c**t, yes, and depending on your interpretation of law/ethics, possibly a war criminal; but not a murderer.)
Satire n. Irony, sarcasm, or caustic wit used to attack or expose folly, vice, or stupidity.
depending on your interpretation of law/ethics, possibly a war criminal; but not a murderer.
The subtlety of your distinction escapes me.