×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Red Cross Says Nurse Outfit Violates Geneva Convention

samzenpus posted more than 3 years ago | from the fighting-the-good-fight dept.

Idle 16

An anonymous reader writes "The Red Cross apparently takes the sanctity of its 'red cross' symbol quite seriously. The UK branch of the Red Cross has threatened a patomime theatrical production of Robin Hood because one of the actresses, playing a nurse, has an outfit that includes the standard red cross. The Red Cross told the producers of the play that using such a costume, no matter how accurate, is a violation of the Geneva Conventions."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

16 comments

That ship sailed a long time ago (2)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 3 years ago | (#34881004)

Obviously the Red Cross has never bothered to check out the October Fredericks of Hollywood catalog... nasty nurse costumes have been using the ubiquitous Red Cross insignia since, well, forever.

Signatories? (0)

bradgoodman (964302) | more than 3 years ago | (#34881352)

Unless the producers of the play were signatories to the convention, it doesn't apply to them!

Re:Signatories? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34882094)

Unless the producers of the play were signatories to the convention, it doesn't apply to them!

That sentence and your score of 2 at the moment is enough reason for me to go get drunk. Happy friday.

Re:Signatories? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34907702)

They would have to found their own country and have it not sign the convention.

We already discussed the Red Cross TM here (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34885248)

Here's a /. article from 2007 [slashdot.org] . Please recycle all arguments found there.

Disappointed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34887308)

Who else hoped TFA would be about a skimpy nurse dress bearing their symbol?

P.S. A nipple cover made of two strips of crossed red tape would be awesome (and hilarious if Red Cross condemned it).

Re:Disappointed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34903192)

* that would be me and I came here hoping to see an example.

Oh no it doesn't (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34890234)

FFS, this is was a press release put out by a pantomime before Christmas to try and persuade people that seeing Jim Davidson as Robin Hood was not going to be a wrist-slitting experience. It wasn't news then and it isn't now. And anyway,shouldn't Jim Davidson's crimes against humour be considered first?

Defend trademark or lose it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34891334)

Maybe that's the law and they have to act like a total cheneyhead.

Red Cross chooses easy target (1)

wokattack (1961336) | more than 3 years ago | (#34896320)

"We have no desire to be the villains of the pantomime or to appear heavy handed, but we do have a very serious obligation to protect the Red Cross emblem" - protect it from from what? unfunny pantomime? Good thing the knights of the crusades aren't around, by the way. They would be suing the Red Cross for breach of trade mark.

Re:Red Cross chooses easy target (1)

jacks0n (112153) | more than 3 years ago | (#34932618)

This happens every time we run out of earthquake victims and war-zones to keep them distracted.

umm.. no? (1)

apraetor (248989) | more than 3 years ago | (#34908054)

It's not a copyright issue. The Geneva Convention defined the Red Cross, so it's protected by international treaty.

Re:umm.. no? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34910312)

Yep that's all true but its treaty between nations not individuals and if your not a signatory it doesn't apply too you !! This is why the Japanese can fish in Antarctic waters etc the didn't sign the Antarctic Treaty.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...