Bad Taste or Bad Call?

Crisis was refused ‘permission’ by the SU to display the true image of Prince Harry on their recent publicity imagery.

The SU have complained to Crisis about its choice of publicity for the upcoming Bad Taste Party on 21 November. But is it Crisis who have made a bad call, or the SU?

Crisis originally used the following image to promote the event, featuring a world-recognised photo of Prince Harry displaying the Swarztika logo on his arm.

The original imagery: is this offensive to you?

So if the image is already so well-known, why should the SU have a problem with it? That’s exactly what Carpe Noctum questioned too.

They commented that, “In the context of the theme of the party and given that the image of Prince Harry in that fancy dress is known around the country, we weren’t aware there would be a problem. We find it unlikely that the newspapers would have been asked to revoke images of Harry when they were first published.”

One student certainly doesn’t agree with the SU’s reaction. Beth Route commented that: “There really is nothing here to make a worthy complaint of. That image of Harry is so well-known that almost everyone will have seen it before, and anyway that just shows the whole purpose of the Bad Taste Party”.

But surely the SU has a point, doesn’t it?

One of our German Erasmus students felt that “people really just don’t take things like this seriously enough. It is offensive, whether it’s on Prince Harry’s arm, in a newspaper, or on a Club’s promotional piece. I don’t see why the image of the Swarztika should so readily be thrown around like it has no meaning behind it”.

Crisis did however respect the SU’s complaint, and altered the image.

The image of the Swartztika has now been replaced with a (surely unoffensive?) black triangle

This was not sufficient for the SU, who further instructed Crisis that simply covering the Swartztika was not enough.

Perhaps understandably, Carpe Noctum has not taken too kindly to this. They commented that they “urge the person offended by triangles, or the people who pre-empted possible offence caused by triangles, to come forward so that we can ensure none of our future publicity contains any triangles – or any shapes that may cause offence, for that matter.”

Nevertheless the current image is now this (we hope there aren’t any defenders of pregnant-Nuns out there…)

Is this an appropriate response to a serious issue? Or an understandable reaction to an irrational complaint by the SU?

Bad Taste, or bad call? Tell us your thoughts below…

Further information about the event and tickets can be found at: