General Chat

Lynne - I wish everyone had your sensitivity about what we do in public places! I'm not a prude either but young couples 'eating' each other on trams, buses, etc in front of children, and touching each other inappropriately, make my blood boil. I don't want to see it, as far as I am concerned some things are for private consumption. But I can cope with potties and even breast feeding, if done discreetly. Just a crazy, mixed -up senior citizen!

i think they have done the right thing as it's not just adults that get this awful disease but children aswell.the research isn't goverment funded so they have to raise alot of money to try and combat this disease and anyone that has had the heartache of seeing a loved one die of cancer or are living with this terrible disease it's a worthwhile causexxxxx(:

Hi Dilys Thanks for your comment and I agree with you that its very sweet but I just wonder about the choice of the children involved. I would be horrified if my mum and dad decided that it was ok for a shot of my bottom to be shown on TV. Even worse, me on the toilet. I just think that its wrong for someone to decide that its ok for such children to be seen in a situation that would normally be semi-private. I don't think I would have my child on a potty in a public place. Maybe I'm just too prudish for my own good! Lynne

It's funny about bottoms...........none of us would dream of perching in front of our friends, to do the business, but would think nothing of a child going on the potty in front of anyone! I love the ads showing babies' bottoms being kissed but, then, I am seeing it with an innocent mind - sadly some won't.

Hi all I'm not sure that using kids in the cancer appeal ads bothers me that much. After all, kids do get cancer as well as adults. The thing that I object too is when an advert features a child on the loo. As far as I know, they won't allow shots of adults on the loo on TV in general so why allow the kids to be shown. Its not fair on them as they couldn't choose not to do it. As for showing the bottoms of babies and toddlers in nappy adverts.. don't even let me get started! You can't show a bare adult bottom till after the watershed. I can't see the reasoning for allowing that to happen. OK, off my soapbox for the afternoon. Lynne

Whilst I agree that it is almost like emotional blackmail, personally I dont' have a problem with this advertisementl after all it is for a very good cause. If the sign of a child, wtih an implied illness, causes more people to donate to the cancer charity then I'm all for it. Sometimes we think about things too much.

I don't mind children being in any advert, chartible enterprise, film or anything else on TV. However, the child in this case is not just in the advert/appeal, the child is being "used" for the image she portrays specifically to create an emotion by the viewer. The Charity Commision is very strict on how money is to be collected eg on street collection, one rule is that no child under the age of 16 should carry a collection box, collectors should not beg for money which includes asking for contributions etc. Whilst I except that the Cancer appeal is not breaking any rules, there must be room for debate on child actors appearing in TV appeals etc in this way. Martin

so you are more comfortable with children being used for commercial enterprise than you are using a child actor in an appeal* for a charitable cause? * technically it's not an advert as they aren't offering you a product etc

martin Of course thats what they're doing - using an imagine of da child to tug at the heart strings. it's effective. Paul

Generally, I have no problem in having children in adverts, indeed they can make a very effective contribution to an advert, eg the Clarks shoes advert using the hula hooping girl. However, I am not too sure about using a childs appearance for promotion purposes as in the Cancer appeal advert. I have no doubt that this is a very worthwhile cause. However, it would seem to me that the makers have decided to use as an end shot the face of a pretty child, imply that she an awful disease, specifically to capture the hearts of the nation. What do others think? Martin