Advertising Standards and DeLorean and Ling - THANKS

[Devil2575]

r11co said:

Stuart said:

Whereas in the opinion of others, it is. As I've said already, reading is not compulsory.

That doesn't really cut it though, does it? You are leaving PH wide open to accusations of double standards. As someone else has already said, would anyone other than Ling have got away with linking a drivers' rights group (that PH used to wholeheartedly support) to Nazism if they weren't 'quirky and amusing' in someone's opinion?

To be honest the similarity of the SS symbol crossed my mind too when I first saw it. More from the point of "WTF were they thinking"

The issue here as far as I can see is that you don't like Ling. That isn't a reason to delete a topic.

[sc0tt]

Devil2575 said:

How astute, you are correct, I have generally excelled in my academic studies

At least one of us did

[krunchkin]

This thread, much like the one where people rant and rave about garage customers having the temerity to buy things in the shop, doesn't do much to dispell the general impression that this website is largely populated by balding, overweight middle managers in badly cut Marks and Spencers jeans, full of simmering rage and sexual frustration.

[delmatt]

krunchkin said:

This thread, much like the one where people rant and rave about garage customers having the temerity to buy things in the shop, doesn't do much to dispell the general impression that this website is largely populated by balding, overweight middle managers in badly cut Marks and Spencers jeans, full of simmering rage and sexual frustration.

I would suggest that a lot of people here who actually think about what you just said would conclude that you are just as insulting and obnoxious in your own way as many of the others on here! Well done.

[daveenty]

delmatt said:

krunchkin said:

This thread, much like the one where people rant and rave about garage customers having the temerity to buy things in the shop, doesn't do much to dispell the general impression that this website is largely populated by balding, overweight middle managers in badly cut Marks and Spencers jeans, full of simmering rage and sexual frustration.

I would suggest that a lot of people here who actually think about what you just said would conclude that you are just as insulting and obnoxious in your own way as many of the others on here! Well done.

I actually thought about what he said and realised he'd described me perfectly.

Obviously apart from the middle management bit as to be here I must be at least a company director. (albeit not powerfully built )

Runs off to change badly cut jeans to something more suitable

[delmatt]

daveenty said:

delmatt said:

krunchkin said:

This thread, much like the one where people rant and rave about garage customers having the temerity to buy things in the shop, doesn't do much to dispell the general impression that this website is largely populated by balding, overweight middle managers in badly cut Marks and Spencers jeans, full of simmering rage and sexual frustration.

I would suggest that a lot of people here who actually think about what you just said would conclude that you are just as insulting and obnoxious in your own way as many of the others on here! Well done.

I actually thought about what he said and realised he'd described me perfectly.

Obviously apart from the middle management bit as to be here I must be at least a company director. (albeit not powerfully built )

Runs off to change badly cut jeans to something more suitable

Exactly! I dont have the Jeans and do have a full head of hair..no balding...but I did not get any last night and I am very annoyed at the neighbours dogs constantly howling...so yep a pretty good description... better get down to M and S today then.

[TangerinePool]

I understand what those against Ling and her behaviour are saying but I have to agree with those who wish for more people like her having a voice. Albeit a little less recklessly if you're deciding policies please Ling.

I had a 'minor misinderstanding' with her when buying a car last year over somet trivial and it was surreal - no laying down and taking it from the indestructible customer. Instead got called names and had documents removed etc. until we finally agreed, laid (dao) swords down and I bought the damn thing (a C1 for me mother).

Will I be using again? YES. It was surprisingly good to hear a spade being called a spade for a change, though I would recommend you don't go OTT with the wrong folk (like I need to tell you) and 'keep it real innit'.

[CoolHands]

delmatt said:

krunchkin said:

This thread, much like the one where people rant and rave about garage customers having the temerity to buy things in the shop, doesn't do much to dispell the general impression that this website is largely populated by balding, overweight middle managers in badly cut Marks and Spencers jeans, full of simmering rage and sexual frustration.

I would suggest that a lot of people here who actually think about what you just said would conclude that you are just as insulting and obnoxious in your own way as many of the others on here! Well done.

That's the first step!

Entrée..

[delmatt]

CoolHands said:

delmatt said:

krunchkin said:

This thread, much like the one where people rant and rave about garage customers having the temerity to buy things in the shop, doesn't do much to dispell the general impression that this website is largely populated by balding, overweight middle managers in badly cut Marks and Spencers jeans, full of simmering rage and sexual frustration.

I would suggest that a lot of people here who actually think about what you just said would conclude that you are just as insulting and obnoxious in your own way as many of the others on here! Well done.

That's the first step!

Entrée..

Your kind of right! It was the second step...but yes I should have just let it ride. In my defence it was too early to have my thinking head on!

[daveenty]

hora said:

Do you know anyone who wears M&S jeans? I don't. Maybe when I hit my 70's? The only thing I buy from M&S are socks, maybe I'm on the path to a full wardrobe?

Anyway, I still wont be buying anything from Ling after publishing the email exchange.

May I refer you to my earlier post?

daveenty said:

I actually thought about what he said and realised he'd described me perfectly.

I actually have a pair on now <shame>. Badged as Blue Harbour and cost a tenner a couple of years back.

The reason that they're on is that I've been cleaning the car today due to an unexpected lull at work. They don't get worn for many other purposes, though I have wandered out for a pint in them before now... Oh, and you'll be buying the underpants soon, and so it starts.

As for the Ling bit, if I was in the market, I'd certainly keep my options open, but I prefer to buy than lease.

[Agent Orange]

Ling Valentine said:

I need to be VERY VERY afraid:

The ASA has a range of sanctions at its disposal. Unfortunately, it is a non-statutory body so cannot impose fines or take advertisers to court.

---

Sanctions include:

The weekly publication of ASA adjudications which attract media attention. (ohno, free SEO!)

Request the removal or amendment of an advertisement. But has no power to demand that. (I refuse)

Ask the traditional media to consider the withdrawal or removal of trading privileges (Adverts are on my own website, so are not subject to this).

Pre-vetting, in which persistent offenders must have their materials vetted prior to publication. (Only applies to paid adverts in a traditional environment)

The ASA can refer non-broadcast advertisers that refuse to work within self-regulation to the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) for misleading or unfair advertising. (I would love them to try that. I don't think the OFT would touch this with a bargepole.)

---

It's very scary, eh?

Ling

Ling Valentine said:

Yes, the whole premise of the ASA is that their censure is something companies would regret to have associated with themselves. Traditionally, that would always be the case.

But I have been amazed to find that the ASA is a complete paper tiger, staffed by idiots. They are a busted flush if you actually ask them what they can do to people who self-publish on their own websites. They have no actual power. You look them in the eye and call their bluff and ask what they can do...

Answer is: ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.

Firstly I'll admire anyone who can setup and run their own business and for what it is worth I can easily see your advert was quite clearly a joke. I also mean no disrespect with any comments below but Ling step back and think about what you are saying about the ASA.

The ASA is a self regulatory body paid for by the industry ie. You or if not you directly the advertising industry as a whole. Of course the ASA have no power. But the idea is if the industry plays fair you can continue with self regulation and therefore have greater freedom.

Take two cases as examples
Vauxhall v ASA
http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?t=126...

and your case. Ling v ASA.

If I were an MP in Parliament defending the ASA I'd look to the Vauxhall argument that the ASA is working and the industry is regulating itself perfectly fine.

If against the ASA I'd present your case as an example of the industry having scant regard for the ASA and no longer capable of self regulation. I'd therefore recommend the ASA be disbanded and a proper independent regulatory body setup with rules potentially enshrined in law.

So you seem to be saying to me you would rather the ASA be given more power? Is that what the industry would want? An independent regulator like the new press complaints committee or, until recently, the FSA with the power to fine and ban?

As annoying and unbelievably petty as the ASA can appear sometimes, and believe me they are, the alternative is worse.

[Mojooo]

The ASA strength is really against big companies and for exposing issues where maybe the criminal law wouldn't succeed as quickly or at all.

For example, they can expose relatively quickly questionable advertising like this from Sainsbury's - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-19810119

Little businesses like the OPs have less to lose by disobeying ASA rulings unless their business relies on trust and they are exposed as a liar. In any case if you ignore the ASA then you could also be prosecuted by Trading Standards - though they are unlikely to touch the issue discussed here.

[chr15b]

Agent Orange said:

Ling Valentine said:

I need to be VERY VERY afraid:

The ASA has a range of sanctions at its disposal. Unfortunately, it is a non-statutory body so cannot impose fines or take advertisers to court.

---

Sanctions include:

The weekly publication of ASA adjudications which attract media attention. (ohno, free SEO!)

Request the removal or amendment of an advertisement. But has no power to demand that. (I refuse)

Ask the traditional media to consider the withdrawal or removal of trading privileges (Adverts are on my own website, so are not subject to this).

Pre-vetting, in which persistent offenders must have their materials vetted prior to publication. (Only applies to paid adverts in a traditional environment)

The ASA can refer non-broadcast advertisers that refuse to work within self-regulation to the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) for misleading or unfair advertising. (I would love them to try that. I don't think the OFT would touch this with a bargepole.)

---

It's very scary, eh?

Ling

Ling Valentine said:

Yes, the whole premise of the ASA is that their censure is something companies would regret to have associated with themselves. Traditionally, that would always be the case.

But I have been amazed to find that the ASA is a complete paper tiger, staffed by idiots. They are a busted flush if you actually ask them what they can do to people who self-publish on their own websites. They have no actual power. You look them in the eye and call their bluff and ask what they can do...

Answer is: ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.

Firstly I'll admire anyone who can setup and run their own business and for what it is worth I can easily see your advert was quite clearly a joke. I also mean no disrespect with any comments below but Ling step back and think about what you are saying about the ASA.

The ASA is a self regulatory body paid for by the industry ie. You or if not you directly the advertising industry as a whole. Of course the ASA have no power. But the idea is if the industry plays fair you can continue with self regulation and therefore have greater freedom.

Take two cases as examples
Vauxhall v ASA
http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?t=126...

and your case. Ling v ASA.

If I were an MP in Parliament defending the ASA I'd look to the Vauxhall argument that the ASA is working and the industry is regulating itself perfectly fine.

If against the ASA I'd present your case as an example of the industry having scant regard for the ASA and no longer capable of self regulation. I'd therefore recommend the ASA be disbanded and a proper independent regulatory body setup with rules potentially enshrined in law.

So you seem to be saying to me you would rather the ASA be given more power? Is that what the industry would want? An independent regulator like the new press complaints committee or, until recently, the FSA with the power to fine and ban?

As annoying and unbelievably petty as the ASA can appear sometimes, and believe me they are, the alternative is worse.

I dont think Ling is saying she'll do what the hell she likes, stuff the ASA.. i think she's saying the ASA looking at this is pointless, a waste of time and effort, especially with the reasoning "what can they do"

take that one step further, ASA doesnt exists and its a government body who can and do take companies to court, hand out fines etc.. would they take this case on?