"One other point to add, the PA report refers to the "gruesome campaign posters".. ermm.. actually, not that "gruesome"."

I'm sure they were designed to be gruesome. That would have been the whole point. To shock people.

So either you're saying that the advertising agency failed in its job or you having to pretend they're not gruesome just to make them more acceptable as a tactic.

Which is it?

If you follow the links in the original post, Jim Bob, you might be able to discern that there is an alternative opinion to the two options you present.

I have to admit a certain sympathy for the other minor candidate, Lynda Gilby (Vote for Yourself Rainbow Dream Ticket).

She is getting none of the publicity yet will win at least as many votes as the media darling.

"If you follow the links in the original post, Jim Bob, you might be able to discern that there is an alternative opinion to the two options you present."

Not on your questioning PA's use of the term "gruesome", there isn't.

There's no argument about that at all.

Obviously your thinking here was that it would bolster your previous argument. But it doesn't. It's more likely to undermine and distract from it. You just didn't think it through.

The point is that this was a knee-jerk response on your part to PA's use of the term "gruesome"

fiona o malley - not thats gruesome.

Jim Bob

The link to the previous post was to point out that the "gruesome" images have, in fact, already been approved for use by the Post Office in Liam Kennedy's election communication. A fact that was not included in either report.

Thats one more vote anyway from the lad at the bus stop

That must put it up to around 110 now

"The link to the previous post was to point out that the "gruesome" images have, in fact, already been approved for use by the Post Office in Liam Kennedy's election communication. A fact that was not included in either report."

You can't infer from that that it's proof the image is not gruesome. The P.O. would make allowances for public interest election material, just as Advertising Standards are entitled to make allowances for shock anti-drink driving ads etc.

It's allowable gruesomeness, in other words. So no need to question P.A.'s use of the term the term at all!