ASA in sensible ruling?
Discussion
dazren said:
If you want to see jet propelled low flying pork have you considered coming to VMAX at Bruntingthorpe on the 31st October?
DAZ
>> Edited by dazren on Tuesday 7th September 19:33
Yep, will aim to be there, could you e-mail details? And thanks d-angle for a second sniff of that classic
See update from MMC in separate posting
Edited to add URL
[url]www.asa.org.uk/index.asp[/url]
follow NEW ADJUDICATIONS PUBLISHED, then ADVERTISER NAME
and see London Safety Camera Partnership entry. Also on the same page, Performance Products get a botty slap for Snooper ad claims.
>> Edited by turbobloke on Wednesday 8th September 08:56
Edited to add URL
[url]www.asa.org.uk/index.asp[/url]
follow NEW ADJUDICATIONS PUBLISHED, then ADVERTISER NAME
and see London Safety Camera Partnership entry. Also on the same page, Performance Products get a botty slap for Snooper ad claims.
>> Edited by turbobloke on Wednesday 8th September 08:56
Looks like the ASA got the first complaint spot on. The second one was weakly argued and I think a better approach would have been to accept that accidents fell by up to 30% at scam sites but to challenge whether the speed cameras caused the reduction as claimed in the ad. That would require control data from the SCP, which as we all know doesn't exist...
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff