Quote:
Originally posted by towny
[snip]
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.
[snip]
|
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