Last week, Matthew Offord provoked a Twitter spat with
fellow Conservative MP, Mike Freer. Offord told a constituent that he would not
be voting in support of a bill to legalise same sex marriages. In response,
Freer called Offord “misguided”. This is typical of Freer who has never been
able to accept the fact that there are people in the world who dare to hold a different
opinion to him. Regular readers will recall a charming interview given by Freer
in 2009 in which he suggested that his opponents masturbated whilst writing
about him.
The debate about gay marriage has featured prominently in
the blogosphere recently following the dishonest and vindictive inquisition by the
Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) of the self-styled Archbishop Cranmer, a private individual with deeply held religious convictions. Cranmer’s blog carried an advertisement
on behalf of the Coalition for Marriage which the ASA decided worthy of investigation
on the grounds of alleged homophobia. Don’t Call Me Dave reproduces the advertisement
below in support of the right of citizens not to be vilified merely for taking
a contrary view to the liberal metropolitan elite now ruining running the
country.
Quite separate to the gay marriage debate, DCMD has his own reason
to hold the ASA in contempt. Many years ago, he used to run a mail order
company. One of the products sold was a device which, when affixed to a car’s
fuel line, was reputed to improve fuel efficiency. The advertisement carried a no
quibble guarantee. If customers were not entirely satisfied that the product
worked, they could return it for a full refund, no questions asked.
A member of the anorak fraternity complained to the ASA
about the advertisement, who in turn launched an investigation. DCMD provided
the ASA with reams of statistical evidence produced by an independent
laboratory which supported the ad's claims. This was
summarily rejected by the ASA. They did not provide any counter evidence to
refute the data provided by DCMD. Indeed, the person conducting the
investigation, who appeared to have no mechanical engineering experience or
qualifications, simply decided that he was not minded to accept it. The idea
that you can reject independent scientifically based evidence simply because
you don’t like the sound of it is, as Cranmer has discovered, the behaviour of
a tyrant and a dictator.
The ASA took it upon themselves to ban the advertisement.
DCMD did not have the means to challenge their decision. It did not matter to
the ASA that no customer ever returned the device for a refund. As Cranmer has
discovered, the ASA are a law unto themselves. They are a jumped up band of self-appointed
half wits - nay, quarter wits - who have no experience or understanding of the
real world; a bunch of misbegotten turds
- jobsworths of the highest order - looking for a means to justify their
existence.
Teenage magazines are full of gratuitously offensive and
demeaning advertisements featuring sexualised imagery of young children. Do
the ASA investigate these advertisers? Of course not, because they haven’t got
the balls to stand up to the big corporations with their expensive lawyers, who
could crush them into the ground as soon as look at them. How much easier it is
to pick on the small guys who will succumb in awe to their perceived greatness.
Except now, thanks to the publicity surrounding Cranmer, the
ASA are receiving the opprobrium they so richly deserve. It transpires that the
ASA’s ‘powers’ are not quite as extensive as they would have you believe. DCMD
wishes he knew then what he knows now about the limits of the ASA’s actual
legal authority. If he had, he would not have wasted time and money producing
evidence worthy of a high ranking Q.C. . Instead he would have simply invoked
the established defence of Arkell v Presdram.
2 comments:
So how, technically, did it improve fuel efficiency, DCMD?
Or did people minded to buy it also then start to drive in a more fuel-efficicient manner?
I have absolutely no idea how it worked. The advert contained technical blurb provided by the manufacturer but it was beyond my level of comprehension (I can just about fill the tank with petrol). The public were protected by our full money back guarantee. In those days mail-order companies were bonded, so customers were doubly protected.
Perhaps the device did have a psychological affect on the way people drove their cars. If so, then this proves that it worked. It didn’t matter how it worked as long as it did.
Post a Comment