The ADgenda: this week's most offensive advert

Fat binder tablets.

With the waistband of Britain tightening as obesity statistics grow, it’s
only understandable that adverts quietly confront us with solutions to
shrink our shameful stomachs. It’s nicer than being told off by news
articles! But, when the news lectures us about children wider than they are
tall and our imminent deaths at the hands of the Big Mac, the underlying
message is, above all, health (and maybe Britain not being picked last in
the PE class of the world). XLS Medical’s advert for their fat binder
tablets remarkably omits all possible health benefits for whatever the
cartoon science says their product does.

Of course, health isn’t their main selling point. Why would it be? It’s not
as if the name of their brand features the word “medical”, a word pointing
directly towards health in all possible uses. Marching under this universal
“medical” flag, it must be difficult to segregate your market so harshly,
but they manage it. This advert’s target is so fixed on women it’s like an
insecurity-seeking missile. The central figure, our heroine, laments at
gaining weight until she doesn’t feel like herself anymore. The images
accompanying this claim are indeed shocking deviations from being oneself:
she happily holds a baby and eats a sandwich at her desk. But the straw
that breaks the camel’s back is when she struggles to zip up her
tightly-squeezing clothes – and the penny drops. The only reason XLS
Medical would ever expect anyone to buy this is because of insecurity about
their image – insecurity which their adverts help to create.

Are men not in need of help with dieting? Or is it expected that,
since they don’t wear red dresses like on the Special K box, they’ll just
do the Manly Thing and keep drinking their beer-bellies gargantuan, sucking
in their gut when a pretty lady walks by? Targeting diet products at women
is not just perpetuating a worn-out ad stereotype like women as homemakers
or sex objects; it’s stretching the gender gap beyond repair. When men
barely get tutted for being an above-average size, women are so fervidly
encouraged to look like models that some can end up starving themselves.
And defining beauty under “medical”? Maybe the advertising world just holds
different definitions to the real world: New Medical Special K: now more
effective in keeping you presentable!


XLS Medical’s advert. Photograph:
Photo: Getty Images
Show Hide image

I'll vote against bombing Isis - but my conscience is far from clear

Chi Onwurah lays out why she'll be voting against British airstrikes in Syria.

I have spent much of the weekend considering how I will vote on the question of whether the UK should extend airstrikes against Daesh/Isis from Iraq to Syria, seeking out and weighing the evidence and the risks.

My constituents have written, emailed, tweeted, facebooked or stopped me in the street to share their thoughts. Most recognised what a difficult and complex decision it is. When I was selected to be the Labour candidate for Newcastle Central I was asked what I thought would be the hardest part of being an MP.

I said it would be this.

I am not a pacifist, I believe our country is worth defending and our values worth fighting for. But the decision to send British Armed Forces into action is, rightly, a heavy responsibility.

For me it comes down to two key questions. The security of British citizens, and the avoidance of civilian casualties. These are separate operational and moral questions but they are linked in that it is civilian casualties which help fuel the Daesh ideology that we cannot respect and value the lives of those who do not believe as we do. There is also the important question of solidarity with the French in the wake of their grievous and devastating loss; I shall come to that later.

I listened very carefully to the Prime Minister as he set out the case for airstrikes on Thursday and I share his view that Daesh represents a real threat to UK citizens. However he did not convince me that UK airstrikes at this time would materially reduce that threat. The Prime Minister was clear that Daesh cannot be defeated from the air. The situation in Syria is complex and factionalised, with many state and non-state actors who may be enemies of our enemy and yet not our friend. The Prime Minister claimed there were 70,000 ground troops in the moderate Free Syrian Army but many experts dispute that number and the evidence does not convince me that they are in a position to lead an effective ground campaign. Bombs alone will not prevent Daesh obtaining money, arms and more recruits or launching attacks on the UK. The Prime Minister did not set out how we would do that, his was not a plan for security and peace in Syria with airstrikes a necessary support to it, but a plan to bomb Syria, with peace and security cited in support of it. That is not good enough for me.

Daesh are using civilian population as human shields. Syrians in exile speak of the impossibility of targeting the terrorists without hitting innocent bystanders. I fear that bombing Raqqa to eliminate Daesh may be like bombing Gaza to eliminate Hamas – hugely costly in terms of the civilian population and ultimately ineffectual.

Yet the evil that Daesh perpetrate demands a response. President Hollande has called on us to join with French forces. I lived in Paris for three years, I spent time in just about every location that was attacked two weeks ago, I have many friends living in Paris now, I believe the French are our friends and allies and we should stand and act in solidarity with them, and all those who have suffered in Mali, Kenya, Nigeria, Lebanon, Tunisia and around the world.

But there are other ways to act as well as airstrikes. Britain is the only G7 country to meet its international development commitments, we are already one of the biggest humanitarian contributors to stemming the Syrian crisis, we can do more not only in terms of supporting refugees but helping those still in Syria, whether living in fear of Daesh or Assad. We can show the world that our response is to build rather than bomb. The Prime Minister argues that without taking part in the bombing we will not have a place at the table for the reconstruction. I would think our allies would be reluctant to overlook our financial commitment.

We can also do more to cut off Daesh funding, targeting their oil wells, their revenues, their customers and their suppliers. This may not be as immediately satisfying as bombing the terrorists but it is a more effective means of strangling them.

The vast majority of the constituents who contacted me were against airstrikes. I agree with them for the reasons I set out above. I should say that I have had no experience of bullying or attempts at intimidation in reaching this decision, Newcastle Central is too friendly, frank, comradely and Geordie a constituency for that. But some have suggested that I should vote against airstrikes to ensure a “clear conscience” ’. This is not the case. There will be more killings and innocent deaths whether there are UK airstrikes or not, and we will all bear a portion of responsibility for them.

A version of this article was originally sent to Chi Onwurah's constituents, and can be read here