Can this go in another thread? I think it would be a good idea to keep this subject clean and unbiased.

And you need to stop reading between the freakin lines at words thast simply just are not there. I also doubt highly that you are more professional than the people designing this advertisement. therefor you are condemning NTL before ALL facts are made clear.

As for the text I have made bold.
what gives you the right to decide this warranted reporting?
Why did you need to interfere and not simply let the relevant people investigate it anyway?
Had BT made the same advertisement would you have done the same?
Are you going to stop here, or are you going to get a lynch mob arranged for every slight mistake made by EVERY company?

Then why are you victimising NTL, that sadly is what this whole episode does amount to.
I have a passionate dislike for people that insist on "interfereing" yes my choice of word, but it seems to me they just coudnt wait to get one over on NTL.

Let it be noted, None of the people reporting incidents to the ASA in relation to this advertisement speak for neither myself nor my family I/we can not and will not condone such actions.

The difference lies not in the severity based on who reported it, but in whether or not the matter has been given significance in the public eye.

The legal system in the UK is such that matters in the public eye are dealt with much more severely than one which has an element of discretion.

Had the matter gone no further than the leeds weekly news, and the ASA had dealt with it then the chances are a warning would have been deemed acceptable.

Should it become mainstream UK news then the ASA will feel more obliged to make an example.

I shall quote the persecution of Gary Glitter as an example of this. (but I am in NO WAY comparing the 2, merely the treatment based on public knowlege)


Gary glitter took his PC in for repair, as do thousands of people daily. Child porn was found on his computer and the matter was reported to the police, he was prosecuted.

This has happened since with people who were not formerly media icons. Their names haven't been placed in the paper and they haven't been pursued ever since.

There was no evidence that he had been involved in the taking of the photos, yet he has been pursued ever since by the media around the world because of it.

Had he not been a media icon before this then the matter would probably not have been pursued as it was.

I am not saying NTL fall into the category of "media icon" but I AM saying that the more publicity a matter gets, then the more severe the penalties tend to be to make an example of them

Any member of the public may report something that they consider illegal.
Revelant people only investigate after a report is made
If it had come to my attention - yes
As a community dedicated to NTL who else should we be watching???

sorry guys, some horrible family news, my cousin died at 5:15pm.

Please excuse me whilst I leave to be with my family at this time.

In that case you prolly won't be here to read this but my thoughts are with you.

Take care mate, we're thinking of you.

Where in the Advertisement,for that is what it is-Not an article,does it say that downloading movies like Spiderman is illegal?
I showed that advert to a friend who is,shall we say,"not too bright when it comes to computers & the internet".She was impressed that films like Spiderman were freely available.
Had NTL left it at the bit that would have been OK,but by mentioning Spiderman they give the impression that it is legally available to download.
Some of us know what is & what is not legally available.It is our choice if we wish to download those movies that we shouldn't.
Some people don't know.Some believe that because they own an album on CD they are entitled to store a copy,in mp3 format,on their PC or mp3 player.Why not,we did the same with LPs & cassettes.But,you only own a copy of the music.You are not legally entitled to make copies.
But,I digress.
NTL left themselves open to criticism by mentioning Spiderman.Someone within NTL is going to get his/her ar$e kicked over this.

The meaning of the advert is the whole point of contention and the proper, legally appointed body is now looking in to it. I will be happy to be proven wrong in my interpretation, and I hope you will be happy if you are proven wrong.

I am a fully qualified journalist with three years experience at a regional newspaper and a further 4-and-a-half years experience of Corporate Communications at an international hotel company. I am perfectly professional and experienced enough to come to my own conclusions, thank you. I am not, however, qualified to condemn, and you are not qualified to exonerate. Those with the jobs at the ASA are, and they will decide.

I don't have that right, and neither do you. The ASA has that right. I have the right, granted me by UK law, to ask the ASA to decide. That is what I have done. If ntl get a fine, it will be because the ASA decide they have committed an offence, not because I have judged and condemned ntl.

The relevant people areinvestigating it. I don't understand your point here. In what way am I 'interfering'?

Had BT made the same advertisement would you have done the same? as an ntl customer I feel a sense of affinity with the company and its practices that is stronger than that which I have for those with whom I have no such relationship. Every brand desires a relationship with its customers ... that's what builds brand loyalty. I would imagine that BT, about which I care far less, would have had to do something far more heinous before I would complain about them.

Your attempt to make this issue seem trivial by drawing ridiculously extreme conclusions is transparent and quite silly. I have tried to keep my comments on this subject confined to the narrow legal issue of whether ntl have committed an offence or not. I hope you can try to do the same.

That is so plainly not my intent to anyone who has actually read my posts, that I see no point responding to you on this.

Great, someone who would rather walk on by than actually be bothered whether what they're seeing is acceptable or not. How community spirited of you.

Again, I am not going to wear out my keyboard any further re-stating my position on this.

Firstly, ntl's action is offensive to me. With the greatest respect to your family, this is nothing to do with them.
Secondly, who do you think you are that you need to 'condone' my action in using a legitimate, legal process for its correctly intended use?

I can tell, I've said what you said in just 4 lines:D

(just kidding);)

edit withdrawn comment, I misread what towny said.

russ thanks for your kind words at this time.


But in reply to some of the comments made:-

:upyours: I am not going to explain my thoughts and my actions at this time I quite frankly have more things to think about right now.

With all due respect, why are you still here then?

This has been a very interesting thread with good arguments from both sides but theres no need to get personal. Have a rest guys. :)

I'm glad you think so, we all try our best to entertain:p

shall we all go and get lives now?