Why This Ill Thought Out Campaign By A Cosmetics Company?

[cassa333]

Why does a cosmetics company feel they need to become political and make s very big statement against the police is beyond me. Do they think all their customers are anti police and will flock to their stores?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-44330078

[woofgang]

no idea....but it has certainly got them publicity which is surely the aim of advertising?

[cassa333]

As they say, all publicity is good publicity.

[chelle7272]

Because the company consider themselves 'activists' around environmental and animal welfare issues. Agree it is very ill thought out though!

[cassa333]

But what has environmental and animal welfare got to do with undercover policing? Basically nothing.

[chelle7272]

As the article says it is about wrongdoing by officers while undercover and involved with activists

[chelle7272]

I don't really get why they are taking such strong stance either

[ToraToraTora]

let's hope they never need the old bill then eh! think it through luvvies!

[Prudie]

It does seem an odd stance to take. Maybe someone in their senior management has been personally affected.

[Canary42]

As Beneton have shown in the past, there's no such thing as bad publicity - they do it deliberately to get a level of coverage which would cost billions.

[kvalidir]

It's not an anti police campaign, it's an anti corrupt behaviour by undercover police against activists campaign, however that is a very complex thing to get over in a series of ads so unfortunately it just comes over as anti police.

[Peter Pedant]

ucpi isnt working - that's why !

"what ucpi den?" I hear you ask - undercover police inquiry - the inquiry isnt working. - two years in and five to go....

to give you a leedol flavverrr..... Justice Easily-Led has declared that he cannot confirm or deny that any of the people who fathered babies on left wing firebrands were policemen

Laughable - so what is he inquiring about ?
well a whole load of left wing firebrands found that the absent fathers who abandoned them with children to bring up twenty years , were .... um .... policemen
Some have successfully sued their employers - such as Chief Constable Dick-Zipped-Up for twenty years' maintenance - police defence was - "nuffing to do wiv me guv - that isnt part of their duties." The defence failed

This wouldnt have happened if the police ( oops no! ) were happily married said Mitting J last week to squawks of dismay at his naivete

The NCA chair ( surely that should be the Nookie-chair? or chief of Nookie) tweeted yesterday:
"This sector is highly regulated, and doing valuable work against terrorism....."

er - - - doesnt seem like it
does it?

Get nookie on the job by applying to be a policeman .....

and then unbelievably - the chair of Nookie continued
"and when the company (Lush) is broken into and robbed dont expect us to come running"
um - we don't .....

If you look at the Mick Herne reports - the dept involved was NOT regulated or monitored, resisted reform in 2005, and further resisted in 2009
so they closed the whole thing down and put them on traffic duty. 2010
They also required them to destroy all their records - it was so secret you see.

When all this blew up two years ago - someone volunteered: " yeah being told to destroy records was always very odd .... so I kept a hard drive. here it is...."

what ucpi den I hear someone say .....

[Old_Geezer]

Wow. PP was more readable than the article.