Friend & King |
Dear Mervyn King President of the Advertising Standards Authority,
As a former Judge I thought
you would be the best person to explain how your Authority (ASA) can come
to two different decisions on virtually identical facts.
BAT's billboard - sorry wrong pic |
Your ASA
sidestepped the real issue and latched on to the bit about hijackers and robbers. It ordered that the ads should be
pulled because BAT could not prove that this was true.
Fast forward to this year and it had a
complaint from Charles Maggs, myself and Tom Kallis.
A small point perhaps, but both these gentlemen were given the title of Mr while
I was just plain Jon with both my first and surnames spelt
incorrectly
I suppose you can’t expect Watchdogs to be given a title can you?
Great minds evidently
think alike as we all felt that BAT was at it again (see Smoke & Mirrors – cigarette adverts by
another name on my blog); this time by putting an advert, similar to the
billboard ones, in newspapers.
BAT did
its best to spread alarm once more by telling readers that over R3-billion was lost in tax revenue (it forgot to mention the
billions lost through the devastation cause to people’s lives by smoking)
because people bought contraband cigarettes.
It then warned: But the price you could pay when smuggled
cigarettes bring crime syndicates into your neighbourhood may be far, far
higher.
No, of course it couldn’t.
Yet this time your
ASA didn’t bother about this aspect in dismissing our complaint completely.
It made matters worse by waffling on about having
taken into account its Code of Conduct which stipulates
that Advertising should not contain
anything which might lead or lend support to criminal activities, nor should
they appear to condone such activities.
It
then pathetically revealed that as it was not its job to decide on the legality
of adverts of this kind it was best to pass the buck to the Department of Health that administers the Tobacco Products Control Act.
Dying for a fag |
What’s the point of such a week kneed ASA if it can’t even make a ruling in accordance with
its own Code of Conduct?
Surely at the very least the BAT newspaper ad might have
supported illegal activities (advertising
cigarettes) and it certainly appeared to
condone such activities otherwise the three of us would not have complained.
So didn’t the ad fall well within the ASA’s definition of what Advertising should not contain?
Just asking,
Just asking,
Yours faithfully,
Jon, Mr to the ASA,
the Consumer Watchdog who doesn’t win them all,
but that doesn’t stop him snapping at heels CONTINUOUSLY.