Soham Trial

Hobbes

Just saw a little bit of it on Sky TV. All I can say is....

Vodafone couldn't pay for advertisement like that.

You think they would use a picture which isn't such a blatant advert.

vibe666

don't suppose you'd care to elaborate on that would you?

didn't see the bit in question, but I'm assuming you mean vodafone had some kind of part in it all.

funnily enough, I actually grew up round there. I'm scottish by birth, but grew up 10 minutes down the road in Ely. I was even a barman in The Red Lion in Soham, which was in some of the news about the case. I was also good friends in my younger days with one of their uncles who I went to school with.

I know people here must think, 'oh, what a terrible thing, but at least it's not here', but everywhere is home for someone, and trust me if it can happen there, it could happen anywhere here too.

I know Ireland does have a lot of skeletons in it's closet with all the stuff that's happened in the church in the past, but I don't know of anything in recent history that has been similar here.

unfortunately, with the scum that is walking the streets these days, sooner or later it will probably happen, and nobody will have learnt anything from the last time.

Hobbes

The picture of the two children they are using for stock footage they both have massive "Vodafone" adverts on thier T-shirts.

spudulike

I presume the vodafone reference is in relation to all the mobile phone evidence submitted??

Anyway I agree that this type of thing can happen anywhere - as a society we can only be judged with how these things are handled and it is a credit to the people of Soham how well they reacted and a credit to the Police to have got the the bottom of it. All that remains is for the guilty party to get the most severe punishment possible...

spudulike

I wouldn't think that this is the type of advertisments that either vodafone or Man Utd would have wanted.

Hobbes

Why not? Two innocent children that everyone cares about advertising for Vodafone.

All they need is the guy wear an BT t-shirt and it would be perfect.

spudulike

True - though i don't know how many people would buy vodafone phones based on that picture.

Mercury

I'm I'm not mistaken, the reason that they are using that particular photo is because it was the last one taken of the girls, about half an hour before they went missing. It's also the one that people would be most familiar, considering that it was splashed all over the news and in every shop window in London at the time that they disappeared.

Zombrex

I wouldn't say that the advertisments has a more effect than Vodafone expected from sponsoring Man United team kit in the first place. Every weekend Europe is full of people wandering around in Vodafone sponsored Man U tops

I was a little surprised that the advertiment wasn't blurred out when showed on TV, but then again the photos were originally used as descriptions of what the girls were wearing when they were killed, so I guess blurring the advertisment would have limited their effectiveness

Beëlzebooze

hang on hobbes, two little girls have been murdered, and you are discussing the possible merits of having a company's logo's on their photographs?

honestly..

Hobbes

Originally posted by Beëlzebooze
hang on hobbes, two little girls have been murdered, and you are discussing the possible merits of having a company's logo's on their photographs?

honestly..

No I am not. I am somewhat annoyed that Sky would show the advert on the T-Shirts. Hence the comment "You think they would use a picture which isn't such a blatant advert."

Syth

Mercury's right, They are only using those photos because they are the photos that everyone is familiar with. It would be different if Vodafone actually sponsored the trial...

therecklessone

I didn't see the point of this at first, and that was when a mate mentioned it during the search for the girls. I haven't spent a penny on Vodafone products as a result...

I did mention it to a lot of people though, and there was roughly a 50/50 split on the effect of the pic. Some DID see it as great advertisment for Vodafone, they do say there is no such thing as bad publicity, just ask Michael O'Leary.

Zombrex

Originally posted by therecklessone
I didn't see the point of this at first, and that was when a mate mentioned it during the search for the girls. I haven't spent a penny on Vodafone products as a result

Well as Syth said it is hardly like Vodafone was sponsoring the trial or the girls or anything. Originally they would have had nothing to do with the picture, it would have been controlled by the police. Vodafone or Man United would have had no control over what photo was used. Have you boycotted all Man United matches as well because they were shown wearing Man U tops?

Vodafone spend millions on advertisements each year, they sponsored the Man U top so their logo would been seen whenever someone saw either the team or a supporter wearing the kit. TBH I would say they couldn't be bothered by the tiny bit of association they get by having the girls wearing a Man United top. It makes no difference, everyone knows that Vodafone are plastered all over the tops anyway. It is not like either Vodafone or Man United need the publicity.

As for the question of why use that picture the picture was used originally because it was taken a few hours before the girls disappeared and it showed the tops the girls were wearing when they disappeared. It is still being shown because it is the picture the public now associates with the girls. Sky could possibly blur the Vodafone logo now, but I don't think there would be much point since everyone knows the logo is Vodafone. I certainly don't think Vodafone are telling Sky not to blur the image.

I don't think there is any distasteful motive behind this

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Hobbes

There is a different between it being a set up and a blantant Ad.

I've had the TV card running to try and grab a picture of how it looked, however it looks like someone may of said something to Sky as when the big picture comes up they fade out from around the face so you only see the girls and a small bit of the logo. Which IMHO is much better.

Huge difference then what it was. I am well aware of what the picture is. They weren't showing the whole picture they had zoomed in on the t-shirts and girls faces but all you could see was a huge Vodafone advert.

embee

do you actually think that vodafone executives sat in their offices rubbing their hands with glee when the girls went missing?

Sky News only showed the girls in their jerseys as it was the last picture taken of them....

Hobart

Originally posted by embee
do you actually think that vodafone executives sat in their offices rubbing their hands with glee when the girls went missing?

Sky News only showed the girls in their jerseys as it was the last picture taken of them....

The fact that the girls were murdered is a tragic event. The fact that the last picture taken of them was in a shirt sponsered by Vodafone, is incidental.

Don't go over the top with what is actually a fairly innocuous observation on Sky's coverage.

therecklessone

Originally posted by Wicknight
Well as Syth said it is hardly like Vodafone was sponsoring the trial or the girls or anything. Originally they would have had nothing to do with the picture, it would have been controlled by the police. Vodafone or Man United would have had no control over what photo was used. Have you boycotted all Man United matches as well because they were shown wearing Man U tops?

I'm sorry, I may not have made my point very well. What I meant was that despite the rather obvious Vodafone logo in the picture, I haven't been tempted to invest in any Vodafone products. I DIDN'T mean that I was boycotting their products as a result, because that would be a very silly thing to do.

That's that cleared up.

CodeMonkey

Hobbes, don't be such a cynical bastard. The girls are meant to be wearing the identical man united shirts when they disappeared. That's presumably is why that picture is used.

Hobart

And codemonkey, don't be so insulting. I don't see where Hobbes denied that they were/were not wearing Manu shirts. In fact if you knew anything about the case you would know that they were wearing Manu shirts, not supposed to be as you put it. The point that Hobbes raised is mute, imo. It's also correct, but incidental, in light of what happened.

Robbo

Originally posted by Hobart
The point that Hobbes raised is mute, imo.

In so far as it says nothing?

Should we de-brand all news reports these days? Should be have Liam Keane pictured stark naked on 6:01 news instead of wearing an ill fitting Top Shop suit? Perhaps it would be more suitable brand exposure for certain politicians to walk out of tribunals wearing Primark shirts?

Or perhaps it may be worth considering that having their logos splashed across the chests of two murdered children at the centre of what may become a long running and unpleasant legal matter may not be what Vodafone planned for in this years advertising budget?

CodeMonkey

Originally posted by Robbo
Or perhaps it may be worth considering that having their logos splashed across the chests of two murdered children at the centre of what may become a long running and unpleasant legal matter may not be what Vodafone planned for in this years advertising budget?

Worth considering? That statement makes me sad. It's even worse than Hobbe's cynicism. So big coperate companies are always heartless and evil money making machines, not run by individuals who might have varying values. I don't know what's worse, companies that might behave this way or people who are more concerned about pointing out these highly unlikely conspiracies.

Hobart

Originally posted by Robbo
In so far as it says nothing?

No. It says what it says. It's just meaningless, in the context of what the picture represents to most people.

Should we de-brand all news reports these days?

No. I don't think that that was ever suggested.

Should be have Liam Keane pictured stark naked on 6:01 news instead of wearing an ill fitting Top Shop suit?

Firstly, I would have no idea what a "Top Shop" suit looks like. And secondly I have no concern about awhat any innocent member of the public wears. If they are caught on camera, well then, that's just incidental.

Perhaps it would be more suitable brand exposure for certain politicians to walk out of tribunals wearing Primark shirts?

Some of them do, I'm sure.

Or perhaps it may be worth considering that having their logos splashed across the chests of two murdered children at the centre of what may become a long running and unpleasant legal matter may not be what Vodafone planned for in this years advertising budget?

I have no idea what you mean by that statement. Perhaps you would like to clarify.

Robbo

Originally posted by Hobart
I have no idea what you mean by that statement. Perhaps you would like to clarify.

Sorry for the lack of clarity. I'm saying that it's pretty far fetched to imply that this is intentional advertising.

Hobart

Originally posted by Robbo
Sorry for the lack of clarity. I'm saying that it's pretty far fetched to imply that this is intentional advertising.

I agree. I don't think that that's what Hobbes' meant when he first posted, but I could be wrong. I believe that the fact the 2 girls where wearing Manu shirts with Vodfone advertisements on them is incidental. I cannot speak for Vodafone, but I would imagine, that's it's the last thing they would be trying to make a buck out of. The same goes for Manu.

In fact, something you alluded to in your points, it does not seem to matter what a victim/perpetrator where's when the press get a picture of them. The manufacturer or advertiser on those products would, in most cases, remain silent about that.

Hobbes

Originally posted by Robbo
Sorry for the lack of clarity. I'm saying that it's pretty far fetched to imply that this is intentional advertising.

You would of had to have seen the picture I guess. Which they are no longer showing.

They show the two girls now in the photo as a whole, and yes it looks just like a photo. Or they show now the area from around thier faces faded out so you only see thier faces.

The one I was talking about they had more or less zoomed the whole background TV on the T-Shirts with the girls heads taking the just the top part of the TV. It looked exactly like a vodafone advert.

So yes in that case it did look like an advertisement.

Another I didn't twig on. Someone here mentioned the phone records. I just noticed they are saying "Vodafone records" rather then "Mobile Phone records". Only Sky have been saying it.

I love the name calling though and the assumption that vodafone intended it all along. Keep taking the koolaid.

What I was saying that the original picture I saw was in very poor taste. I guess Sky thought so too as they changed it.