Sainsbury's Accused Of RACISM - Quickly Apologises Even Though They Did Nothing Wrong

First topic message reminder :

19th May 2014

Sainsbury’s has apologised after one of its stores dressed a mannequin in a 'slave outfit' to promote the sale of the 12 Years a Slave DVD.

The Heyford Hill store in Oxford has now been forced to remove the display after a Twitter backlash.

The supermarket chain has since said sorry for the tasteless promotion stand, adding that 'it should clearly have never gone up'.

It featured a barefoot headless mannequin wearing an outfit similiar to that worn by Solomon Northup, the main character of Steve McQueen’s film.

The Oscar winning epic graphically depicts the brutality of slavery.

The model was wearing a beige shirt and cropped black trousers, with a twig in its pocket, and was placed on a stand selling DVD and Blu-ray copies of the film.

Around the model's neck is a sign saying 'new' - although it is not clear whether the clothes themselves were on sale as part of the promotion.






Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2632876/Sainsburys-accused-racism-dressing-MANNEQUIN-outfit-matching-lead-character-12-Years-Slave-stand-selling-DVDs-film.html#ixzz32BizDOsE

Irn Bru wrote:I don't see anything wrong with the mannequin  being dressed that way. It certainly isn't offensive, indeed it may be a fashion statement that many will have to follow with this shower running the country at the moment.

I dont think its offensive, it looks more like an after thought.

Irn Bru wrote:I don't see anything wrong with the mannequin  being dressed that way. It certainly isn't offensive, indeed it may be a fashion statement that many will have to follow with this shower running the country at the moment.

Well, that's one way of looking at it!!!!!   

Irn Bru wrote:I don't see anything wrong with the mannequin  being dressed that way. It certainly isn't offensive, indeed it may be a fashion statement that many will have to follow with this shower running the country at the moment.

Hahahahahaha trust you!

victorisnotamused wrote:bullshit yourself.....

YOU said it was derogatory....

I said it MAY well be...

therefore not making a judgement on that....


I then "schooled" YOU on its common, or vernacular use....

something you have trouble with often...

you see didge...you might know a bit about history

but I know a LOT about language and its use and construction....something you might study with profit...

you see didge...you DONT know what i'm thinking ...as you often prove...you just make groundless and inacurate assumptions....and end up looking a right wally.....

Complete gobbledygook, you are making your own view to what was stated clearly as a derogatory use from Jesus in regards to disbelievers, so any notion you have is pure speculation when you fail to understand he was talking about judgement previously. The dogs and swine is in regards to those who ridicule, reject, and blaspheme the gospel once it has been given to them, showing clearly smelly is making a derogatory use of the words in regards to Sassy, when before he has countless times made reference to her looks for example claiming dyke looking. So your view is absurd to what smelly was trying to do, so I am not bothered what you are thinking but what smelly was trying to portray and if anything he knows personal abuse is not allowed and was trying to be smart using a derogatory verse to get at sassy.

So what you claim on language is pure horseshit when you have no notion of what Jesus was actually talking about.

Schooled again

It's just overreaction once again , because its the thing to do these do always looking out for something that causes offense ,
If they wanted it to look like the front of the film cover they would have put a black mannequin not a white one , its just silly .

Didge wrote:

victorisnotamused wrote:bullshit yourself.....

YOU said it was derogatory....

I said it MAY well be...

therefore not making a judgement on that....


I then "schooled" YOU on its common, or vernacular use....

something you have trouble with often...

you see didge...you might know a bit about history

but I know a LOT about language and its use and construction....something you might study with profit...

you see didge...you DONT know what i'm thinking ...as you often prove...you just make groundless and inacurate assumptions....and end up looking a right wally.....

Complete gobbledygook, you are making your own view to what was stated clearly as a derogatory use from Jesus in regards to disbelievers, so any notion you have is pure speculation when you fail to understand he was talking about judgement previously. The dogs and swine is in regards to those who ridicule, reject, and blaspheme the gospel once it has been given to them, showing clearly smelly is making a derogatory use of the words in regards to Sassy, when before he has countless times made reference to her looks for example claiming dyke looking. So your view is absurd to what smelly was trying to do, so I am not bothered what you are thinking but what smelly was trying to portray and if anything he knows personal abuse is not allowed and was trying to be smart using a derogatory verse to get at sassy.

So what you claim on language is pure horseshit when you have no notion of what Jesus was actually talking about.

Schooled again

It isn't against the rules of the forum to quote bible scripture is it ?

Vicar of Dibley wrote:

Didge wrote:


Complete gobbledygook, you are making your own view to what was stated clearly as a derogatory use from Jesus in regards to disbelievers, so any notion you have is pure speculation when you fail to understand he was talking about judgement previously. The dogs and swine is in regards to those who ridicule, reject, and blaspheme the gospel once it has been given to them, showing clearly smelly is making a derogatory use of the words in regards to Sassy, when before he has countless times made reference to her looks for example claiming dyke looking. So your view is absurd to what smelly was trying to do, so I am not bothered what you are thinking but what smelly was trying to portray and if anything he knows personal abuse is not allowed and was trying to be smart using a derogatory verse to get at sassy.

So what you claim on language is pure horseshit when you have no notion of what Jesus was actually talking about.

Schooled again

It isn't against the rules of the forum to quote bible scripture is it ?

Morning Dibs


Nope, but what if it is being used to get around the rules to be derogatory to someone?

Sassy wrote:

Vicar of Dibley wrote:
Amen

He wasn't praying VOD dear, or are you normally abusive when you pray?

he quoted scripture Amen means and so be it , and that i agree

I leave being abusive to you sassy its suits you  

Didge wrote:

Vicar of Dibley wrote:


It isn't against the rules of the forum to quote bible scripture is it ?

Morning Dibs


Nope, but what if it is being used to get around the rules to be derogatory to someone?

Morning didge, we won't know really because it is scripture and smelly_bandit used it in reply to what sassy said .

Vicar of Dibley wrote:

Didge wrote:

Morning Dibs


Nope, but what if it is being used to get around the rules to be derogatory to someone?

Morning didge, we won't know really because it is scripture and smelly_bandit used it in reply to what sassy said .

Dibs I have debated smelly for years and he is not stupid, he has some brains, of that I will give him that, he knew what he was doing as has done it loads before.

hey ho we will have to agree to disagree

Didge, Jesus rebuked maybe that is what smelly_bandit was doing so he didn't have to say much more ,just a thought .

Vicar of Dibley wrote:Didge, Jesus rebuked maybe that is what smelly_bandit was doing so he didn't have to say much more ,just a thought .

Except the rebuke by Jesus is derogatory in itself in referring to those disbelievers as dogs and swine.

Didge wrote:

Vicar of Dibley wrote:Didge, Jesus rebuked maybe that is what smelly_bandit was doing so he didn't have to say much more ,just a thought .

Except the rebuke by Jesus is derogatory in itself in referring to those disbelievers as dogs and swine.

I dont believe for one minute you didnt understand that "pearls before swine" is a saying that has been in use for years and years.

Nems wrote:

Didge wrote:


Except the rebuke by Jesus is derogatory in itself in referring to those disbelievers as dogs and swine.

I dont believe for one minute you didnt understand that "pearls before swine" is a saying that has been in use for years and years.

That made no sense

Didge wrote:

Vicar of Dibley wrote:Didge, Jesus rebuked maybe that is what smelly_bandit was doing so he didn't have to say much more ,just a thought .

Except the rebuke by Jesus is derogatory in itself in referring to those disbelievers as dogs and swine.

The analogy of the dogs actually comes from Proverbs: “As a dog returns to its vomit, so a fool repeats his folly” Proverbs 26.11