In AH's view, the advertisement is a clear incitement to violence. 

Below is the ITC's initial response to this complaint. And this is followed by AH's response to it.

From Independent Television Commission 18/02/02

Thank you for your email of 4 February. I am sorry that this advertisement caused you concern.

The advertisement is one of a series built around the slogan: 'Could You?' showing celebrities discussing the qualities necessary to be an effective police officer. Lennox Lewis, invited to give his personal view, says, as you point out: 'The first rule of boxing is control. It's not about losing it with someone. It's about keeping your composure." But when he considers the example of dealing with someone who uses violence on a woman, he isn't sure that he himself would be able to keep his composure. This is a way of saying that the qualities society requires in the very best police officers, such as self-control in very difficult circumstances, are very special. 

We have not received many complaints of any kind about this advertisement, and viewers in general seem to understand the overall message, which is emphasising coolness under pressure, not violence or conventional notions of strength or 'toughness' or macho policing. 

It may well be a statement of an aspiration or an ideal, but we don't believe that viewers are interpreting it as an incitement to violence. The other advertisements in the series describe a variety of difficult situations where the need for self-discipline would be a desirable quality in any contemporary police officer.

Thank you for taking the trouble to give us your views. I understand that you object strongly to this advertisement for a variety of reasons, but this advertisement does not breach our Advertising Code.

Yours sincerely,

Elfed Owens

Viewer Relations Unit

from AH 21/02/02

Dear Mr Owens

Thank you for your letter of 18/2/02 concerning the Lennox Lewis advertisement which, I have to repeat, is clearly in breach of the ITC's Advertising Code and current UK laws in that it justifies and condones acts of violence.

Indeed, your very own letter suggests this fact!

You make it very clear in your own letter that the advertisement "is a way of saying that the qualities society requires in the very best police officers, such as self-control in very difficult circumstances, are very special."

In other words, for those of us who are NOT so special - which is, by definition, the VAST MAJORITY of us - acting violently in such circumstances would be THE NORM!

By suggesting that some particular behaviour is normal for ordinary individuals, or extremely difficult to avoid unless highly trained, you CONDONE this behaviour among the general population.

The message in this advertisement is very clear. If you would NOT act violently in these circumstances then you are SPECIAL, and therefore, perhaps, special enough to be one of - and these are your own words - "the very best police officers".

Quite simply, the advertisement is saying that ordinary people (MOST of us) who act violently in such a situation have a MORAL justification to do so on the basis of the fact that this is the NORM. 

It is NOT the norm. But the advertisement is clearly trying to make it so!

You also mention that this particular advertisement is part of a series. This simply makes matters even worse. A series merely reinforces within the public's mind two most highly relevant factors.

1. The very 'special' nature of those who might be eligible for joining the police. (Indeed, you yourself take this 'special' nature to even higher peaks by referring not simply to joining the police but only to becoming one of "the very best police officers"!)

2. The fact that this particular advertisement is actually put out by the police themselves!

That this particular advertisement has been approved by the police, and, in fact, is actually an advertisement for the police, makes its MORAL impact far greater than it would otherwise be.

Read this.

"The first rule of boxing is control. It's not about losing it with someone. It's about keeping your composure. But if I had to walk past a foul-smelling drunken wino urinating in my garden, I don't know if I could keep my cool with that man. I couldn't swear to that. Could you?"

Do you really think that the police would put out an ad such as this? Of course they wouldn't, because it would be a clear incitement to violence.

What about this one ...

"The first rule of boxing is control. It's not about losing it with someone. It's about keeping your composure. But if Elfed Owens doesn't do his job properly and take complaints about advertisements seriously, I don't know if I could keep my cool with him. I couldn't swear to that. Could you?" (No offence intended.)

The incitement to violence contained in both of the above examples really couldn't be clearer.

The Lennox Lewis advertisement is therefore in breach of Section 13 of the ITC code. "... no advertisement should prejudice respect for human dignity."

It is also in breach of Section 16. "Advertisements must not without justifiable reason play on fear." (Given that this particular advertisement is merely for recruiting purposes, there is NO justifiable reason for it to be so imbued with violence or the threat of it.)

It is also in breach of Section 20. "No advertisement may encourage or condone behaviour prejudicial to health and safety."

And, of course, it is CLEARLY in breach of Section 2. "Advertisements must comply in every respect with the law, common or statute," in that it contains a clear incitement to violence by claiming that such violence would be the NORM.

You say in your letter that "We have not received many complaints of any kind about this advertisement ..." - and so I presume that you have already received SOME complaints. Well, given that you have clearly upheld complaints on many occasions when only ONE person has complained, this fact, though welcome, is clearly just not relevant to my most deserving case!

I would also point out, with respect, that when you say that, "viewers in general seem to understand the overall message, which is emphasising coolness under pressure ..." you actually ENDORSE everything that I have said above! 

The advertisement is saying that there is a normal, justifiable, understandable, valid and acceptable 'pressure' to RESPOND WITH VIOLENCE to a male SUSPECTED of domestic violence. You actually ADMIT that the viewers take on board this message from the advertisement.

But the advertisement also tells viewers that only those who are 'special' could avoid responding to this 'pressure'!

How's about this for an ITC approved advertisement?

"The first rule of boxing is control. It's not about losing it with someone. It's about keeping your composure. But if a woman aborted her defenceless unborn child (flexing knuckles, menacing voice) I don't know if I could keep my cool with that woman. I couldn't swear to that. Could you?"

The Lennox Lewis advertisement does not even get close to saying, "Despite this pressure to behave violently you must not do so." ON THE CONTRARY, it is telling viewers that even those who are very SPECIAL can barely resist it.

In the advertisement Lennox Lewis makes it clear that he SERIOUSLY DOUBTS that even he - a well-trained HERO - could refrain from responding with violence.

This message couldn't be clearer!

Let me put this another way. Some thug has been arraigned for beating up badly (i.e. 'done a Lennox Lewis on') some guy whom he SUSPECTED of domestic violence toward a woman. The victim of the violence ended up in hospital with a broken nose, black eyes and two broken ribs. The violent offender is now in the courtroom. "But, Yer Honour, I'm not highly trained like Lennox Lewis, and even HE says that he could barely stop himself in such a situation. What do you expect from me? I ain't no policeman. I ain't nothing special. I'm just a normal bloke. I couldn't stop myself. It was completely natural wasn't it? Even the police advert says that you have to be someone 'special' to stop yourself from beating up another bloke like this. And I'm not someone special. I DID WHAT MOST PEOPLE WOULD DO!"

And he would be right according to this POLICE advertisement's claims! 

The advertisement can clearly be used as a justification for violence. Why? Because it DOES justify such violence!

Well, is this the kind of society that we want to encourage Mr Owens?

Just for a moment, imagine that you hated gays.

How might this affect you, or your behaviour toward the gays that you already hate?

"The first rule of boxing is control. It's not about losing it with someone. It's about keeping your composure. But if I saw two gay men kissing each other in the street, I don't know if I could keep my cool with those men. I couldn't swear to that. Could you?"

And just imagine the impact if the POLICE were actually pushing out such an advert in order to recruit officers! 

Gay-bashers would be out in droves. And only the most 'special' of them could resist the temptation to have a go - according to the advertisement.

And it would be a NATIONAL DISGRACE.

But, of course, the ITC would never accept such an advertisement - even if it was from the police. 

So, why do you accept the current Lennox Lewis advert but would, for example, reject the 'gay' version above?  

Well, I'll make a guess. It is because you are in some sympathy with the notion that it would be acceptable to inflict violence on a man suspected of domestic violence (and, further, that only those who are 'special' could resist doing so) but you would NOT be in sympathy with those who felt the very same way about gays kissing in the street!

Try this one! 

"The first rule of boxing is control. It's not about losing it with someone. It's about keeping your composure. But if I knew that this man had a paedophile conviction, I don't know if I could keep my cool with him. I couldn't swear to that. Could you?"

Well, I can't imagine the police pushing this one out! Can you?

Why not? Because it would CLEARLY incite violence.

In ALL my fictitious variations on this advert - as outlined above - I am sure that you can detect a fairly strong incitement to violence, an incitement that would be especially effective in those for whom the 'issues' in question were particularly sensitive, or inflammatory. 

And this Lennox Lewis advertisement is no different from them. (And bear in mind that my above examples do not contain a highly emotive video image of a menacing and heroic Lennox Lewis talking coldly and in a threatening manner while struggling to control himself!)

My belief is that you just don't have any sympathy for the target of the violence incited by this advertisement. 

That's all. It's as simple as that.

You just have no sympathy for the domestic violence SUSPECT. Fair enough. I can understand why many people might have this point of view - especially after thirty years of hateful feminist propaganda demonising males through every media orifice in the land.

But it doesn't alter the fact that the advertisement IS an incitement to violence, and, further, that it most certainly provides a justification for it - as can be seen in the courtroom scenario above.

However, the fact that you might sympathise with the sentiments in the advertisement is surely completely irrelevant to your job at the ITC, which is to uphold the Advertising Code and the law.

Indeed, it is your duty to do this Mr Owens!

This complaint of mine is not about an advert that is merely commercially dishonest, or marginally racist or sexist in any way. It is not about good taste or bad taste, or about a product that doesn't quite live up to the advertising claims.

My complaint is that, at worst, this advertisement is a blatant incitement to violence - not to everyone, but to a significant number of people. And, at the very least, it condones violence in the situation described.

As such, this is quite a serious complaint. And I feel, therefore, that it warrants far more consideration than you have currently allocated to it.

My own beliefs are that the Home Office and the police are constantly being pushed by powerful lobbying from hysterical women's groups to seek ways in which to demonise men and to create a public rage against them. The evidence for this is already huge - and growing all the time.

But, of course, it does not actually matter what were the conscious intentions of those who created this advertisement. Their intentions are completely irrelevant to the matter. What matters here is that this advertisement is clearly in breach of the ITC's Advertising Code, and it is your job to enforce this code regardless of where your own sympathies might lie.

And, of course, even though you might believe otherwise, if there is ANY CHANCE AT ALL that I might actually just be right about all this, and, further, given that this 'highly-charged' advertisement is presented NATIONALLY and so might sway the minds of millions of people in a more violent direction - even if each is affected by only a very tiny amount - you surely have a duty to investigate my complaint very thoroughly indeed. And, not to do so, would surely be a gross dereliction of your duty given the seriousness of my complaint!

I trust, therefore, that you will do your duty Mr Owen, and take a much closer look at this appalling advert.

And, further, should you consider this advert together with other evidence that shows - quite clearly in my view - that the Home Office is indulging in other antics which stir up (intentionally or not) more violence and more hatred in domestic situations (e.g. see Does The Home Office Willfully Stir Up Domestic Violence?) then I hope that you decide to create a massive fuss about it all.

Finally, I would add that I have spoken to THREE policemen about this advertisement. While none of them supports my view that the Home Office is intentionally stirring up violence, they ALL agree that the advertisement is 'conducive' to further violence. 

Well, of course, if the advertisement is indeed 'conducive' to further violence, it is VERY DEFINITELY in breach both of the ITC's Advertising Code and of the UK law.

And, as such, it is your duty to try to protect us from it.

Yours Sincerely etc.

From Independent Television Commission 5/03/02

Police Recruitment Advertising

Thank you very much for your further thoughts on this advertisement. In the light of those comments Elfed Owens has asked me to review the case. I've done so and although I appreciate the points you make, I'm unable to agree that the commercial is unsuitable for broadcast in the way you suggest.

You explore in some detail your personal interpretation of the commercial. However, when judging an advertisement's suitability for broadcast it isn't appropriate for us to do that. If we did, we might lose touch with the takeout of the average viewer and that is the basis on which we judge advertisements.

We think that if viewers in general shared your concerns we would have received many other complaints. I understand we have not. This indicates to us that the commercial's message is being interpreted as intended and that it isn't causing widespread offence.

Our decisions don't please everyone all of the time and I'm sorry if this one has displeased you. However, on this occasion I'm afraid that there are no grounds for us to intervene. Many thanks nonetheless for taking the time to share your views.

Yours sincerely

Vena Raffle

Head of Advertising Standards

33 Foley Street London W1W 7TL

from AH 21/02/02

Dear Ms Raffle

Thank you for your letter of 5/3/02 concerning the Lennox Lewis advertisement which, I have to repeat, is clearly in breach of the ITC's Advertising Code and current UK laws in that it justifies and condones acts of violence.

However, I am even more astonished and disappointed by your reply than I was ever prepared to be. 

It seems to me that you are claiming that the ITC is nothing but a sham.

On the ITC's website at this address http://www.itc.org.uk/regulating/ad_spons/index.asp the following statement is made. 

"Services that we regulate have to ensure that the advertisements which they carry comply with the ITC Code of Advertising Standards and Practice."

But yet, you claim in your letter that you are basing your judgements not on the ITC Code, but on the "takeout of the average viewer"! 

Are you saying that the ITC Code is only to be complied with if the 'average viewer' agrees with it?

And, if so, how on earth have you established this with regard to the Lennox Lewis advertisement? Have you done some kind of survey since I wrote to complain?

And how is it that you uphold MANY complaints on the basis of just ONE viewer doing the complaining?

Such as in this one, taken from your website ...

On 14 November, Carlton broadcast an advertisement for Ferrero Roche in which the actress Anna Brecon appeared. The advertisement was shown during a break in ‘Emmerdale’. A viewer complained that as Anna Brecon also appeared in ‘Emmerdale’, the ITC's rules had been breached.

You upheld this complaint because it was clearly in breach of the Code, not because the 'average viewer' was going to be upset by it. Indeed, only ONE viewer made any complaint about it.

As another example taken from your website: In November 2001, on the basis of ONE complaint, the ITC ruled that an advertisement featuring "two young attractive couples 'messing around' on railway tracks" was in breach of Rule 11 because the Code says that "It should be borne in mind that in some circumstances bad examples set by adults may also encourage dangerous emulation."

Well, you certainly did not talk about the 'average viewer' in your ruling here, did you? 

In fact, you specifically stated in this ruling that this particular advertisement was unacceptable because "in SOME circumstances bad examples set by adults may also encourage dangerous emulation."

Well, this is EXACTLY what I am saying with regard to the Lennox Lewis advertisement.

But somehow, and for some reason, you claim that my own particular complaint has to be considered on the basis of the views of a hypothetical 'average viewer' rather than on the basis that "in SOME circumstances bad examples set by adults may also encourage dangerous emulation."

Why is this?

Why are you not ruling against the Lennox Lewis advertisement through the same reasoning, in that "in SOME circumstances" it may, consciously or otherwise, condone and justify violence, and, further, "in SOME circumstances" it may even incite it?

Why are you trying to rest your case with regard to this Lennox Lewis advertisement on the notion of an 'average viewer' when you do not do so with regard to other advertisements?

Further, nowhere in the relevant section of the Broadcasting Act of 1990 can I see any reference to the 'average viewer'. 

Indeed, according to the very words contained in this Act of Parliament, "It shall be the duty of the Commission ... TO DO ALL THAT THEY CAN to SECURE that the provisions of the CODE are OBSERVED."

Putting this another way: According to the Broadcasting Act, it is NOT your role to base your judgements on what the average viewer might feel about an advertisement, nor on what YOU, personally, happen to think that an 'average viewer' might feel. 

Your duty is to uphold the Advertising Code.

In fact, this is what you say on your own website. "Sections 8 and 9 [of the Broadcasting Act] require the ITC, after consultation, to draw up (and from time to time review) a code governing standards and practice in television advertising, and to see that licensees observe the provisions of the code."

And, as stated in my last letter, the Lennox Lewis advertisement is clearly in breach of this Advertising Code in that it is demonstrably contrary to Sections 2, 13, 16 and 20.

Also on your website is the statement that, "The MAIN objectives of the Code are to ensure that television advertising: ... does not encourage or condone harmful behaviour." 

But the Lennox Lewis advertisement DEFINITELY condones "harmful behaviour". And I have already explained very fully in my previous letter of 21/2/02 how, exactly, it does this. 

Now, whether or not the "average viewer" has the wit or the perceptiveness to see how this particular advertisement CONDONES, induces, or encourages "harmful behaviour", is something that is completely irrelevant to the question of whether or not the ITC should rule against it.

The fact of the matter is that it does, or that it is likely to do so, and, as such, it is in breach not only of the ITC's Advertising Code, but also of UK laws.

Imagine, for a moment, that Lennox Lewis was a white boxer, and that the domestic-violence SUSPECT whom he can barely desist from beating up - and who is lurking in the background - was black.

Can you not envision the outrage that would be caused by such an advertisement?

I was alerted to this aspect of the Lennox Lewis advertisement by some of the emails that I received in response to my publicised protests about it. Here is an extract from one of them.

"This ad is the same as all the other's showing whites as good for nothing trash and blacks as f**king heros ... and the white scum in the govement is behind it. ... They are putting down there own kind and distroying our race. ... I would like to kich his [Lennox Lewis] teeth in. ... "

And now, having dug into my files, let me give you some additional evidence for the outrage that many other white men might feel about the ITC failing to address advertisements wherein black boxers such as Lennox Lewis are threatening white males who are simply SUSPECTED of some offence.

The following are some of the words spoken by the white suspects believed to have been involved in the murder of the black youngster Stephen Lawrence. They were covertly filmed by the police, and the following words are taken directly from the police records. The evidence from these records shows CLEARLY that the racial prejudices and the hostility of these young men toward blacks - as demonstrated by both their speech and their behaviour - were being HIGHLY inflamed, and consistently so, by advertisements displaying the same racial elements as are found in the Lennox Lewis advertisement. (And, please note, that the advertisements being referred to in the following words that are spoken by the suspects are not even remotely connected to violence.)

"This is a racist advert. The white, fat bouncer looks like a c*nt. Good-looking black geezers in the club are all having a good time and the f**king white geezers are all boring."

"Niggers are having a good time in the sun but all the white people are waiting at the bus stop."

Well, the evidence above seems very clear to me. Such young men become highly inflamed by even the most innocuous of advertisements when white males are seemingly portrayed as being 'overlorded', somehow, by black ones. 

So, can you see how the Lennox Lewis advertisement, which actually condones violence against white males, is even more likely to incite racial hatred, especially "in SOME circumstances"?

This, together with the other evidence that I presented to you in my last letter, cannot be discounted simply because you and the so-called 'average viewer' seem unable to grasp it.

IN MY OWN VIEW, by failing to address the real issues arising from this advertisement and by claiming, incorrectly,  that the ITC is only concerned with the attitudes of the 'average viewer' - when, in fact, both an Act of Parliament and the ITC's own Code of Practice clearly describe your DUTIES very differently - you are failing to do your duty, you are diminishing the worthiness and credibility of the ITC, you remain in defiance of the Broadcasting Act and, therefore, also of Parliament, you are failing to protect the Home Office and the police from what those in the advertising industry have done by creating this monstrous advertisement, and you are supporting broadcasts that are likely to incite violence in the public domain "in SOME circumstances" - the current statistics of which are there for everyone to see.

As such, I really do suggest that you do something about getting rid of this disgraceful advertisement from our screens. 

Apart from this being the right thing to do, you would also save the ITC and the Home Office from the bad publicity that will surely arise if the advertisement continues to be broadcast.

I would also advise you that your apparent lack of concern over the effects of the Lennox Lewis advertisement plays right into the hands of the National Front and the BNP, who will be able to use it for their own ends, whatever they may be.

The Commission for Racial Equality is, therefore, also unlikely to be happy about your attitude toward this advertisement, particularly since you are being publicly forewarned about the consequences of allowing it to continue to be broadcast.

And, of course, you will also come under increasing pressure from men's organisations from right across the world as they are increasingly alerted to the despicable nature of this advertisement (which also sits on the internet) and to the ITC's reluctance to do anything about it.

Yours Sincerely etc.

AH readers who would also like to complain about the advertisement can email Mr Owens here, and Ms Raffle here.

28/8/02 

The makers of Pot Noodle were slated by the advertising watchdog today after a poster which appeared to condone sexual violence attracted a record number of complaints.

The makers of Pot Noodle were slated by the advertising watchdog today after a poster which appeared to condone sexual violence attracted a record number of complaints.

The Advertising Standards Authority criticised Unilever as "irresponsible" after a poster for a spicy version of the snack carried the caption "Hurt me you slag".

More than 280 people objected to the advertisement, which appeared on hoardings across the country, making it the most complained about poster this year.

Unilever admitted that it had been warned by the Committee on Advertising Practice not to use the word "slag" because of its sado-masochistic overtones. However it insisted that the caption was intended to be "humorous".

The ASA acknowledged that the poster was "unlikely" to persuade anyone to "engage in violent acts", but it was "likely" to be seen as condoning violence.

Ordering Unilever to withdraw the advert from any remaining sites, the regulator told the company that all future campaigns must be vetted by the committee before publication.