Chris

This has been round in so many circles I'm getting dizzy.



The CONTEXT of this item is what makes it damaging. It is an advertisement for ntl's services, and therefore everything contained in it can reasonably be understood to be supporting the general proposition that Ntl's broadband service is excellent and worth subscribing to. That is what an advertisement is.

In the main subheading they say, as I have highlighted, 'have we got an internet service for you!' Then they tell you how great it is. In the sidebar they say, 'Don't just take our word for it'. Take our word for what? That you can do illegal stuff with the internet? Clearly not. They are saying, 'We're brilliant - but in case you don't believe us, here's some third-party endorsement. Spiderman was out on the net before it was in your local Odeon!

It is absolutely crystal clear from the context of this statement that they intend the availability of Spiderman to be a understood as a good thing. They don't have to insist you break the law; to break the ASA code they merely have to 'incite' you.

Timewarrior, you need to look further than the end of your nose to understand this. Just because someone doesn't use the precise words, 'illegal downloads are great' doesn't mean that they are not suggesting that might be the case. And it is not a matter of chasing shadows or reading between the lines; it is a deliberately planned inference taargeted at gullible customers by a professional advertiser who should have known better.

It is not 'grassing' to report NTL for this. 'grassing' is a word used by criminals and schoolboys to try to intimidate others into not doing the right thing. Like it or not, there is a rule of Law in this country and there are people and organisations charged with upholding it. With the greatest of respect to all of you who oppose what I have done by reporting this to the ASA, but you do not have the right to decide whether NTL should get away with this. All I have done is report them to those who do have that right, and from now on the properly appointed people will make the decisions.

It is not shooting myself in the foot because I believe that in the long run if NTL are forced to confront their shoddy practices they will change, and this will be for the better.

Lord Nikon, in your two suggested scenarios, what is the logic behind your suggestion that if ntl are reported for this, they get a big fine, but if the ASA spot it themselves, they get off with a warning? I don't see any difference in the severity of the breach of the Advertising Standards code just because they are caught by the 'police' instead of a member of the public.

As a footnote, I did not join this forum to snipe at ntl at all possible opportunities and I am not on an anti-cap crusade (although I disagree with the cap). I have no agenda to 'get' ntl. However I think they have made a huge cock-up on this occasion and I have taken the appropriate, correct, legally allowed for action as a result.