Are You A ‘Person Of Reasonable Firmness’..?

Test your response here:

Hawkins Bazaar and Keston Gifts, both in Ely Court, have been accused of failing to protect children from the X-rated stock, which includes rudely-shaped toys and novelty sex gifts.

If you said ‘Yeah? So?’, then congratz! You are indeed reasonably firm!

On the other hand…

Parents and clergymenhave condemned the shops.The Reverend Giles Walter, from St John’s Church in the town, said: “There will always be a market for so-called ‘adult toys’ but I was frankly astonished to find them right next to puzzles for three and six-year-olds.

“It’s very sad that a shop in our town can sink so low.”

Parent Sara Bird, 29, of London Road, who was shopping with her four-year-old son, said: “It’s very strange and sad that shops are allowed to do this.

“Just because they are novelty items doesn’t mean it’s OK to put them out next to the toys.”

The Hawkin’s Bazaar manager apologised; the other shop didn’t. I know where I’d go next time…

Trading Standards said the police was the only authority with the power to remove the items.

Nice sidestepping there! Whew, dodged a bullet, eh?

Inspector Adrian Allen of Kent Police revealed that police had received no complaintsfrom the public.He added: “We apply a common-sense approach to sensitive issues like this and ask whether a ‘person of reasonable firmness’ would find it offensive.”

Thank god for common sense, but perhaps a ‘Really madam? Don’t you think we’ve got better things to do with our time?’ approach would benefit you more?

17 comments for “Are You A ‘Person Of Reasonable Firmness’..?

  1. January 5, 2012 at 11:31 am

    I suspect if you were a ‘person of reasonable firmness’ you wouldn’t be needing the toys in the first place πŸ™‚

    • Frankie
      January 5, 2012 at 1:10 pm

      LOL!! And since Hawkins Bazzar appears to have been nobbled by the economic woes of the country, should we be concerned?

    • January 7, 2012 at 7:02 am

      Badum-tish! πŸ˜†

  2. January 5, 2012 at 1:35 pm

    I hope they never go to Greece. They have hardcore porn right by the till in all the gift shops.

    • Maaarrghk!
      January 5, 2012 at 3:26 pm

      This was also the case in France when I first went there back in 94. No-one seemed to mind.

    • nisakiman
      January 5, 2012 at 4:13 pm

      That’s because the Greeks are “people of reasonable firmness”. πŸ˜‰

      What a very odd expression, though. It’s no wonder there is a lack of communication between the police and the general public when they couch their statements in such quaint language.

      Leaving aside Richard B’s take on it, what on earth is a “person of reasonable firmness”? Conjures up images of a dominatrix, who I guess wouldn’t be offended as I would imagine she’d probably be in the shop for the sex toys anyway. 😯

      • January 7, 2012 at 7:03 am

        It was the clumsiness of that phrase that drew me too!

  3. January 6, 2012 at 12:54 am

    What authority do the police have to order vendors to arrange the display of their, not illegal, goods?

    Sounds like a PCSO making it up as they go along kinda ‘law’.

    • January 7, 2012 at 7:03 am

      Wouldn’t be at all surprised, but it never got that far (this time).

  4. Tattyfalarr
    January 6, 2012 at 12:45 pm

    Ok Julia I usually follow your logic as it tallies with my own but you’ve got me stumped on this one. I’m not sure precisely what the “unreasonable” part is here ?

    1) That parents object to sex toys being peddled alongside children’s toys ? (Reasonable, IMHO)

    2) That someone actually complained to the store about it ? (Not something I would personally bother to do but still perfectly reasonable)

    3) That anyone expects a something to be done about it…like maybe compromise on product placement? (Again, reasonable, if unrealistic given the proliferation of sex-obsessed advertising these days)

    No one had complained to the police about it and if they had then that’s the only bit I would have found unreasonable.

    Soooo…. πŸ˜•

    • January 6, 2012 at 3:56 pm

      I think the fact that someone saw fit to go running to the newspapers and the trading Standards…

    • January 7, 2012 at 7:07 am

      What LR said, mainly.

      This time the police didn’t get involved, but there have been so many cases in the past that a) I thought it was worth mentioning and b) I wouldn’t be surprised to see someone take this further now they’ve got their publicity and it hasn’t cowed the other shop into bending to their whim.

      Yes, if parents object to sex toys, that’s their right (though it’s a damned precocious four-year-old who’d even look twice) but all they have to do is shop elsewhere.

      • Tattyfalarr
        January 7, 2012 at 2:17 pm

        Well yes LR I’d agree with that if that,s what actually happened but since the article doesn’t make clear who did the running it could also be just as easily assumed that… once the newspaper became aware of the issue by whatever means… it was they who contacted clergymen, TS and the police for comment to try and beef up a non-story. Cranking up the “outrage” for their readers leaves the parents in a position of ridicule which I don’t think is entirely fair.

        Julia .. I’m going to guess that the sentiment behind this post is along the lines of “stop relying on impotent (pun intended) authority to deal with your “offence” issues and sort it out yourself”. That’d be my stance on most things really and especially in this instance since it was them who ended up being the pr*cks discussed.

        • January 7, 2012 at 3:32 pm

          It doesn’t really matter who did the running to the paper – someone did otherwise there wouldn’t be a story.

          • Tattyfalarr
            January 7, 2012 at 6:07 pm

            Heh,true, and just about the only thing about it all that’s not open to interpretation.

            • January 8, 2012 at 6:14 am

              And now it seems the permanently-outraged have bigger game in their sights:

              “Families said they were β€˜shocked’ and β€˜disgusted’ that the sex aids were on show, removed from packaging.”


              • Tattyfalarr
                January 8, 2012 at 11:50 am

                Ah yes this refers to “sexual health aids” being sold in Boots in a manner that would apparently make even Ann Summers customers blush.

                Is a company only recently accused in the media of prioritising the needs of drugs addicts cashing in their methadone prescriptions really going to give a sh*t what anyone thinks in this instance either ?

                Inference in the sales pitch that people are somehow “sexuallly unhealthy” and “unwell” without one made me laugh though. πŸ™„

Comments are closed.