Jump to content

London Rippers


Dexter Morgan

Recommended Posts

I think time is the difference here and that's why I don't understand the uproar.

And Andrew mentioned, the Chicago Fire is fine (at least I've never heard anything about it). There aren't any survivors or anyone who lived through it to be truly offended. (You insensitive bastards! My great great grandfather died in the fire!)

But this event which took place a long time ago, in Europe is as offensive as "San Francisco Zodiacs" or "Milwaukee Dahmers?" (I'd prefer Chicago Gacey's with a Clown Logo but I digress...) Come on! Those events happened in the last 25-30 years. there are millions of people still alive that lived through that. This is a completely different situation.

The thing you guys keep missing or choosing to ignore is that this name with the mascot glorifies a serial killer. Period. THAT is why people are in an uproar.

It's not a faceless and unfortunate city wide disaster like the Chicago Fire that was started by a cow that the city is now proud for having survived. It's not a generic group of less than reputable sailors that robbed and looted in the Caribbean in the 1700's like the Pirates, Raiders, Bucs, that have been romanticized to death (and frankly who were not all bad as many had letters of marque to do what they did) and it's not group of people who have been the subject of racist misconceptions for centuries like Braves and Vikings. It's a single man, who murdered 5 or more women. Period. That's what they chose as their mascot, a cold blooded sicko killer. Doesn't matter if it was 5 years ago, or 500 years ago. It's going to get some flak and it's justified. I can't think of any other team off hand that is named for a serial killer, and with good reason... it glorifies what that sicko killer did. Time doesn't change that. Remember there is no statute of limitation on murder so what he did was very wrong and prosecutable then and remains very wrong and prosecutable now.

There are thousands of books, movies, museums and news stories and documentaries that glorify serial killers! I'm not saying Jack the Ripper was a model citizen or that what he allegedly did wasn't wrong. What I'm saying is that there have been countless other examples of people making money off the stories of serial killers and other deplorable people. This just happens to be the first example of a sports team. It's probably not the right move, but the owners have a right to do it if they think they'll be supported by a fanbase who likes the team and identity.

How is this any different than pirate-themed teams or Disney using imagery based on Edward Low, one of history's most brutal pirates who savagely tortured victims before killing them?

It's different because Disney doesn't have Edward Low of the Caribbean as a ride. They have Pirates of the Caribbean and utilize romanticized version of pirates. It would be different if they had Edward Low of the Caribbean or some other ride named specifically after a murderer and featuring said murderer. I'm not denying that it is their right to do so, everyone has the right to be a dumbass if they so choose like these guys did. But by the same token it's everyone else's rights to be angry and get them to reconsider (or in the city's case force them to change it).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 76
  • Created
  • Last Reply

I think time is the difference here and that's why I don't understand the uproar.

And Andrew mentioned, the Chicago Fire is fine (at least I've never heard anything about it). There aren't any survivors or anyone who lived through it to be truly offended. (You insensitive bastards! My great great grandfather died in the fire!)

But this event which took place a long time ago, in Europe is as offensive as "San Francisco Zodiacs" or "Milwaukee Dahmers?" (I'd prefer Chicago Gacey's with a Clown Logo but I digress...) Come on! Those events happened in the last 25-30 years. there are millions of people still alive that lived through that. This is a completely different situation.

The thing you guys keep missing or choosing to ignore is that this name with the mascot glorifies a serial killer. Period. THAT is why people are in an uproar.

It's not a faceless and unfortunate city wide disaster like the Chicago Fire that was started by a cow that the city is now proud for having survived. It's not a generic group of less than reputable sailors that robbed and looted in the Caribbean in the 1700's like the Pirates, Raiders, Bucs, that have been romanticized to death (and frankly who were not all bad as many had letters of marque to do what they did) and it's not group of people who have been the subject of racist misconceptions for centuries like Braves and Vikings. It's a single man, who murdered 5 or more women. Period. That's what they chose as their mascot, a cold blooded sicko killer. Doesn't matter if it was 5 years ago, or 500 years ago. It's going to get some flak and it's justified. I can't think of any other team off hand that is named for a serial killer, and with good reason... it glorifies what that sicko killer did. Time doesn't change that. Remember there is no statute of limitation on murder so what he did was very wrong and prosecutable then and remains very wrong and prosecutable now.

There are thousands of books, movies, museums and news stories and documentaries that glorify serial killers! I'm not saying Jack the Ripper was a model citizen or that what he allegedly did wasn't wrong. What I'm saying is that there have been countless other examples of people making money off the stories of serial killers and other deplorable people. This just happens to be the first example of a sports team. It's probably not the right move, but the owners have a right to do it if they think they'll be supported by a fanbase who likes the team and identity.

How is this any different than pirate-themed teams or Disney using imagery based on Edward Low, one of history's most brutal pirates who savagely tortured victims before killing them?

It's different because Disney doesn't have Edward Low of the Caribbean as a ride. They have Pirates of the Caribbean and utilize romanticized version of pirates. It would be different if they had Edward Low of the Caribbean or some other ride named specifically after a murderer and featuring said murderer. I'm not denying that it is their right to do so, everyone has the right to be a dumbass if they so choose like these guys did. But by the same token it's everyone else's rights to be angry and get them to reconsider (or in the city's case force them to change it).

I baited you into that one, as Edward Low is, in fact, depicted inside the Pirates of the Caribbean ride, proving that they do use real criminals as inspiration and not just this 'romanticized version of a pirate' you keep obsessing over. I just don't understand why we can't let dumbasses be dumbasses. When someone has a bad idea, let them face the consequences instead of getting all worked up about it. If it's offensive to you, then don't go to the games and don't buy a London Rippers cap and windbreaker.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

bosrs1, sure you can say that "braves" and "vikings" have been misinterpreted, but they still did kill people. Pirates might have been romanticized, but they still killed people. Heck, we have teams named after soldiers from specific wars (Patriots, Cavaliers), military leaders and army regiments (Blackhawks), military vehicles (Jets), missionaries who played a hand in the destruction of natives cultures (Padres), and ethnic groups that plundered an entire continent (Vikings).

No one's saying that Jack the Ripper wasn't a monster. Of course he was. To get bent out of shape about a minor league team naming themselves after him while being ok with the Tampa Bay Buccaneers using an actual skull and crossbones as their logo just comes off as silly. Either every team nickname that can be tied to murder is ok, or they're all off limits.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think time is the difference here and that's why I don't understand the uproar.

And Andrew mentioned, the Chicago Fire is fine (at least I've never heard anything about it). There aren't any survivors or anyone who lived through it to be truly offended. (You insensitive bastards! My great great grandfather died in the fire!)

But this event which took place a long time ago, in Europe is as offensive as "San Francisco Zodiacs" or "Milwaukee Dahmers?" (I'd prefer Chicago Gacey's with a Clown Logo but I digress...) Come on! Those events happened in the last 25-30 years. there are millions of people still alive that lived through that. This is a completely different situation.

The thing you guys keep missing or choosing to ignore is that this name with the mascot glorifies a serial killer. Period. THAT is why people are in an uproar.

It's not a faceless and unfortunate city wide disaster like the Chicago Fire that was started by a cow that the city is now proud for having survived. It's not a generic group of less than reputable sailors that robbed and looted in the Caribbean in the 1700's like the Pirates, Raiders, Bucs, that have been romanticized to death (and frankly who were not all bad as many had letters of marque to do what they did) and it's not group of people who have been the subject of racist misconceptions for centuries like Braves and Vikings. It's a single man, who murdered 5 or more women. Period. That's what they chose as their mascot, a cold blooded sicko killer. Doesn't matter if it was 5 years ago, or 500 years ago. It's going to get some flak and it's justified. I can't think of any other team off hand that is named for a serial killer, and with good reason... it glorifies what that sicko killer did. Time doesn't change that. Remember there is no statute of limitation on murder so what he did was very wrong and prosecutable then and remains very wrong and prosecutable now.

There are thousands of books, movies, museums and news stories and documentaries that glorify serial killers! I'm not saying Jack the Ripper was a model citizen or that what he allegedly did wasn't wrong. What I'm saying is that there have been countless other examples of people making money off the stories of serial killers and other deplorable people. This just happens to be the first example of a sports team. It's probably not the right move, but the owners have a right to do it if they think they'll be supported by a fanbase who likes the team and identity.

How is this any different than pirate-themed teams or Disney using imagery based on Edward Low, one of history's most brutal pirates who savagely tortured victims before killing them?

It's different because Disney doesn't have Edward Low of the Caribbean as a ride. They have Pirates of the Caribbean and utilize romanticized version of pirates. It would be different if they had Edward Low of the Caribbean or some other ride named specifically after a murderer and featuring said murderer. I'm not denying that it is their right to do so, everyone has the right to be a dumbass if they so choose like these guys did. But by the same token it's everyone else's rights to be angry and get them to reconsider (or in the city's case force them to change it).

I baited you into that one, as Edward Low is, in fact, depicted inside the Pirates of the Caribbean ride, proving that they do use real criminals as inspiration and not just this 'romanticized version of a pirate' you keep obsessing over. I just don't understand why we can't let dumbasses be dumbasses. When someone has a bad idea, let them face the consequences instead of getting all worked up about it. If it's offensive to you, then don't go to the games and don't buy a London Rippers cap and windbreaker.

If he's depicted in there you'll have to point him out. But the fact that it's that hard to find is the point I was making which you chose to ignore. It's not Edward Low the Ride.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

bosrs1, sure you can say that "braves" and "vikings" have been misinterpreted, but they still did kill people. Pirates might have been romanticized, but they still killed people. Heck, we have teams named after soldiers from specific wars (Patriots, Cavaliers), military leaders and army regiments (Blackhawks), military vehicles (Jets), missionaries who played a hand in the destruction of natives cultures (Padres), and ethnic groups that plundered an entire continent (Vikings).

No one's saying that Jack the Ripper wasn't a monster. Of course he was. To get bent out of shape about a minor league team naming themselves after him while being ok with the Tampa Bay Buccaneers using an actual skull and crossbones as their logo just comes off as silly. Either every team nickname that can be tied to murder is ok, or they're all off limits.

Again, it's because it's a specific murderer who did specific heinous acts that some people (not me mind you) have their panties in a bunch. There is no denying it. And it's never been done before. And it won't be done this time either since the city is already working to force them to change. So it'll all end up being a moot point anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's brilliant marketing. Great name!

I think those who criticize it are likely not their target demographic. Gimme a break, do you think it will make some kid want to grow up and be a murderer? No. How is it any different than a cartoon villain?

Who is their target audience? Just a single male age 18-34 demo who loves booze moves all ratings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

bosrs1, sure you can say that "braves" and "vikings" have been misinterpreted, but they still did kill people. Pirates might have been romanticized, but they still killed people. Heck, we have teams named after soldiers from specific wars (Patriots, Cavaliers), military leaders and army regiments (Blackhawks), military vehicles (Jets), missionaries who played a hand in the destruction of natives cultures (Padres), and ethnic groups that plundered an entire continent (Vikings).

No one's saying that Jack the Ripper wasn't a monster. Of course he was. To get bent out of shape about a minor league team naming themselves after him while being ok with the Tampa Bay Buccaneers using an actual skull and crossbones as their logo just comes off as silly. Either every team nickname that can be tied to murder is ok, or they're all off limits.

Again, it's because it's a specific murderer who did specific heinous acts

Using your own logic "London Serial Killers" would be ok because it doesn't reference a specific individual.

that some people (not me mind you) have their panties in a bunch.

Could have fooled me. Look, if this name offends you, that's fine. You're certainly entitled to that opinion. Don't spend pages arguing that it's in bad taste only to say "but hey, I don't have a problem with it."

There is no denying it. And it's never been done before. And it won't be done this time either since the city is already working to force them to change. So it'll all end up being a moot point anyway.

Take it from someone who lives here. The City of London is one of the most hilariously run municipalities this side of Glendale. This is a city that, after finding out that municipal employees took more sick days then the national average, created a position specifically tasked with verifying sick day claims to the salary of $50,000 a year. The road repair also sucks.

More to my point though, the city can't really do anything when it's all said and done. I'm certainly open to being proven wrong here, but I don't believe a municipal government can just order a private business to change its name. Nor can the London Abused Women's Shelter, which isn't helping its case by calling the name "a major fail." When the head of a respectful non-for-profit organization uses net-speak in real life, I tune out to whatever else they have to say.

If enough people don't like the name, and refuse to go to games and buy merchandise, then they'll change it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

After reading that the team claims they didn't have the serial killer in mind when they created this, but rather a disgruntled hockey player who could "rip" the cover off a baseball, (*cough cough...sure it is) I thought they could put their money where their mouth is and alter the logo to back up said claim.

Why not change the logo so that "Jack" isn't wearing a hat but rather a goalie mask (make it Friday the 13th Jason Voorhees's style if you like) a hockey stick in place of the bat and be sure the ball has a torn...err..."ripped" cover on it. This way you can say your logo reflect the explanation, and you still have the implied serial killer in the logo, only know he's fictitious... or maybe he's just a hockey player playing baseball.

I'm sure one of the many wizards in here can make those alterations in their sleep. By the way, would that make this the first time a logo for one sport is actually a represented by another sport?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What's next?

Boston Stranglers?

L.A. Nightstalkers?

Tallahassee Bundys?

Milwaukee Dahmers?

D.C. Snipers?

Waco Branchers or Dividians?

And people could add to it like the, "We all are..." death mentions.

L.A. Nightstalkers would be a really awesome name for a new NFL team in Los Angeles. (Despite the negative connotations with that name).

What's next?

Boston Stranglers?

L.A. Nightstalkers?

Tallahassee Bundys?

Milwaukee Dahmers?

D.C. Snipers?

Waco Branchers or Dividians?

And people could add to it like the, "We all are..." death mentions.

Yeah I'm not outraged... but at the same time I totally understand the criticism and agree with it. Suppose in 50 years we'll have the Oklahoma City Bombers, LA Riots, Montana Unabombers, and Penn State Sanduskys.

The video game Blitz: The League, which was pretty much a walking parody of the NFL, had a team called the LA Riots.

~~~~

I think the logo is solid and I didn't even realize the name was referring to the "Jack the Ripper" murders that happened in London, ENGLAND, not London, ONTARIO. I'd probably say it's inappropriate if this team was in London, England, but seeing as how it's in Canada, a completely different country on a completely different continent, I don't see it as inappropriate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

bosrs1, sure you can say that "braves" and "vikings" have been misinterpreted, but they still did kill people. Pirates might have been romanticized, but they still killed people. Heck, we have teams named after soldiers from specific wars (Patriots, Cavaliers), military leaders and army regiments (Blackhawks), military vehicles (Jets), missionaries who played a hand in the destruction of natives cultures (Padres), and ethnic groups that plundered an entire continent (Vikings).

No one's saying that Jack the Ripper wasn't a monster. Of course he was. To get bent out of shape about a minor league team naming themselves after him while being ok with the Tampa Bay Buccaneers using an actual skull and crossbones as their logo just comes off as silly. Either every team nickname that can be tied to murder is ok, or they're all off limits.

Again, it's because it's a specific murderer who did specific heinous acts

Using your own logic "London Serial Killers" would be ok because it doesn't reference a specific individual.

that some people (not me mind you) have their panties in a bunch.

Could have fooled me. Look, if this name offends you, that's fine. You're certainly entitled to that opinion. Don't spend pages arguing that it's in bad taste only to say "but hey, I don't have a problem with it."

There is no denying it. And it's never been done before. And it won't be done this time either since the city is already working to force them to change. So it'll all end up being a moot point anyway.

Take it from someone who lives here. The City of London is one of the most hilariously run municipalities this side of Glendale. This is a city that, after finding out that municipal employees took more sick days then the national average, created a position specifically tasked with verifying sick day claims to the salary of $50,000 a year. The road repair also sucks.

More to my point though, the city can't really do anything when it's all said and done. I'm certainly open to being proven wrong here, but I don't believe a municipal government can just order a private business to change its name. Nor can the London Abused Women's Shelter, which isn't helping its case by calling the name "a major fail." When the head of a respectful non-for-profit organization uses net-speak in real life, I tune out to whatever else they have to say.

If enough people don't like the name, and refuse to go to games and buy merchandise, then they'll change it.

You should probably run for mayor of London on the back of your deft skills in the art of debate. Definitely among the best I've seen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

bosrs1, sure you can say that "braves" and "vikings" have been misinterpreted, but they still did kill people. Pirates might have been romanticized, but they still killed people. Heck, we have teams named after soldiers from specific wars (Patriots, Cavaliers), military leaders and army regiments (Blackhawks), military vehicles (Jets), missionaries who played a hand in the destruction of natives cultures (Padres), and ethnic groups that plundered an entire continent (Vikings).

No one's saying that Jack the Ripper wasn't a monster. Of course he was. To get bent out of shape about a minor league team naming themselves after him while being ok with the Tampa Bay Buccaneers using an actual skull and crossbones as their logo just comes off as silly. Either every team nickname that can be tied to murder is ok, or they're all off limits.

Again, it's because it's a specific murderer who did specific heinous acts

Using your own logic "London Serial Killers" would be ok because it doesn't reference a specific individual.

that some people (not me mind you) have their panties in a bunch.

Could have fooled me. Look, if this name offends you, that's fine. You're certainly entitled to that opinion. Don't spend pages arguing that it's in bad taste only to say "but hey, I don't have a problem with it."

I'm a lawyer mate, I argue other people's positions for a living ;). It's not mine, I couldn't care less what some irrelevant team in some small town in Canada does with their marketing.

There is no denying it. And it's never been done before. And it won't be done this time either since the city is already working to force them to change. So it'll all end up being a moot point anyway.

Take it from someone who lives here. The City of London is one of the most hilariously run municipalities this side of Glendale. This is a city that, after finding out that municipal employees took more sick days then the national average, created a position specifically tasked with verifying sick day claims to the salary of $50,000 a year. The road repair also sucks.

More to my point though, the city can't really do anything when it's all said and done. I'm certainly open to being proven wrong here, but I don't believe a municipal government can just order a private business to change its name. Nor can the London Abused Women's Shelter, which isn't helping its case by calling the name "a major fail." When the head of a respectful non-for-profit organization uses net-speak in real life, I tune out to whatever else they have to say.

If enough people don't like the name, and refuse to go to games and buy merchandise, then they'll change it.

If the city owns the stadium, in theory couldn't they kick the team out? Particularly if they have some clause in their contract regarding ethics? Not saying they do, but there are plenty of ways a municipality with a team in a public stadium can force a change.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You should probably run for mayor of London on the back of your deft skills in the art of debate. Definitely among the best I've seen.

Ah shucks. Thanks man.

I may do it one day. Once the hatchlings have matured and I can begin the attack.

I'm a lawyer mate, I argue other people's positions for a living ;). It's not mine, I couldn't care less what some irrelevant team in some small town in Canada does with their marketing.

You just seem overly passionate about it, is all. Which is fine, but it just comes off as odd when paired with "but ultimately I don't care."

To the point though, one can never tell in the internet, where mountains are often made out of molehills. People make a big deal about stuff that doesn't effect them all the time. In fact I'm pretty sure that, aside from porn, that's the reason people use the internet.

If the team's just an insignificant club in an insignificant city, then why keep this whole thing up?

If the city owns the stadium, in theory couldn't they kick the team out? Particularly if they have some clause in their contract regarding ethics? Not saying they do, but there are plenty of ways a municipality with a team in a public stadium can force a change.

You're the lawyer, you tell me ;)

The city does own the stadium, yes. I doubt they can kick them out because they don't like the name, because that could easily be interpreted as the city, essentially, forcing a private company to change its name, which it does not have the right to do.

There would have to be some clause the city has with the team as it relates to the team's use of Labatt Park. Like, as you said, an ethics clause. If there's nothing in that contract that would limit the team's choice of name, however, then the city can't do anything . It would also be par for the course for London's municipal government that they wouldn't have a clause like that set up in the first place.

Really the only people who have an issue with this are the city, which needs to be very careful in how they try and force a name change, and the London Abused Women's Shelter, an organization that expressed their disapproval with the name and logo by using net-speak in the real world.

A point I want to address though. You say that the name "Pirates" is ok because it's not glorifying a single individual. So would "London Serial Killers" be ok?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They can B.S. all they want, but the logo and name says "Jack the Ripper".

It doesn't matter whether JTR was real, imaginary, convicted, not convicted, or was a flying monkey;

He/she/it is synonymous with murder and mutilation. This is a terrible idea that should have been slashed (:))

at the concept stage, and not only for moral reasons.

I would think that their target market would be the family unit, and how can they connect with families with this concept?

Will their mascot be a warm and fuzzy Jack?...How about a slobbering Whitechapel drunk?...Or maybe a disembowelled hooker?

Imagine the promotions; Fog night; Free rubber scalpel night; Bobblehead Mary Kelly night.

It's actually a pretty decent logo, for a stupid concept.

Having said all of the above...

Where can I get a Ripper t-shirt?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What's next?

Boston Stranglers?

L.A. Nightstalkers?

Tallahassee Bundys?

Milwaukee Ohio Dahmers?

D.C. Snipers?

Waco Branchers or Dividians?

And people could add to it like the, "We all are..." death mentions.

FYP. As someone who was living seven blocks from him when he was caught, I've taken it upon myself to let folks know whenever possible that he was not native to Milwaukee.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.