Monday, May 21, 2012

ASA v. Coalition for Marriage Ltd (2012)


His Grace has today responded to the ASA in their investigation of the Coalition for Marriage advertisement.

Dear Investigations Executive,

Further to His Grace’s previous email of 14th May, to which you responded answering none of his questions because, you aver, they ‘go beyond (his) involvement in this case’. And further to his subsequent email of the 16th, to which you responded with an apology for the ‘confusion or upset’ you have caused, and an admission of error for failing to mention that you had no authority to make any demands upon him, he is pleased to respond to your investigation thus:

It appears that the Advertising Standards Authority is no longer solely concerned with sales promotional advertising. Further, you now manifestly push a standard which ranges from mediocre to middling, and you fail to realise that you are an ordinary limited company with absolutely no legal authority whatsoever. In light of this, you ought to initiate a formal investigation into your own harassing misrepresentation of your powers and misleading trade description.

By choosing to investigate a promotional campaign which sought merely to uphold the traditional view of marriage, it is clear that you have expanded your remit to incorporate the promotion of political causes and ideas, which the CAP Code states specifically is excluded from the scope of your competence, except where they are ‘direct solicitations of donations for fund-raising’. That is manifestly not the case with the Coalition for Marriage advertisement: the only direct solicitation was for people’s signatures upon a petition. That the campaign is political is in no doubt, because HM Government have decreed it so by their decision to investigate those schools which advocate support of the marriage petition, which a minister has referred to as ‘political campaigning’. Your decision to investigate the complaint with threats and menaces, contra your own online remit, constitutes bullying, harassment and intimidation, which amounts to censorship of the cause for the retention of traditional marriage and the idea that marriage is a union of one man and one woman.

By sending out ‘complaint’ papers which demand responses with such phrases as ‘We require you to respond...’ and ‘we will need to see robust documentary evidence to back the claims and a clear explanation from you of its relevance’; and by doing so with demands to answer your questions by a certain deadline with threats of punitive action for non-compliance, you fraudulently convey an excess of power and claim an authority which you do not, in law, possess. You impress upon the recipient that you are the superior moral agent, and that submission and obeisance are the only appropriate response. Authority which is exerted without right is an illegitimate use of power; illegitimate authority is tyranny; and tyranny leads to injustice, which can have no authority at all. By abusing your self-certified power and self-authenticated authority for the perpetuation of an image of your self-integrity, you deny all authority. You ought to rename yourselves the Political Substandard Tyranny.

Your treatment of His Grace has been mendacious, oppressive, and partisan. This has only become apparent as he refused to comply with your demand to keep all correspondence confidential. How many others have been intimidated, harassed and bullied into submission by you as they suffered in silence, fearful of the consequences of disclosure?

Your treatment is mendacious because you now know that your one identified complainant, the Jewish Gay & Lesbian Group, did not register any complaint at all. Yet you chose to validate that alleged complaint by disseminating it without exercising due diligence, and so your lie is deliberate. Your claims of other unnamed complainants are thus tainted. Your recent claim (published on 15th May upon your website) that you were seeking His Grace’s voluntary assistance and ‘have made clear’ that he is ‘not compelled to respond’ is not supported by the facts. Not least because this was only ‘made clear’ in your second email to him (which was received at 5.40pm on 15th May). Indeed, it appears that your second email was sent solely to permit you to be able to claim publicly on your website on the same day that you ‘have made clear’ that there is no compulsion to respond. This is not merely mendacious; it is manipulative, which is further harassment.

Your treatment of His Grace is oppressive because you appear to claim the authority of the British Government, the Office of Fair Trading and of the Courts to demand his personal reasons for supporting the English laws regulating marriage. You selected him alone from the blogosphere for this intimidation when larger and more powerful entities had also promoted the same advertisement. And your treatment of His Grace is partisan because, through your decision to escalate to ‘formal investigation’ sundry vexatious and invented complaints, and by your unlawful threats made with reference to the Courts and other available sanctions, you have sought to punish his support of a cause, which has become political, and his commitment to an idea, which is moral. Your Agency is charged with ensuring truth in advertising, not with advancing a political agenda by suppressing the free debate that underpins our democracy.

That your Chairman is also Vice President of the Campaign for Homosexual Equality is not without significance in this case. If Lord Smith of Finsbury were (permitted to be) on the Board of Sainsbury’s, and the ASA had taken the decision to investigate Tesco over scurrilous allegations of some ‘offence’ caused to 10 anonymous complainants, one of whom was the Jewish Gay & Lesbian Friends of Sainsbury’s, the impartiality, reliability and validity of your investigation would be fatally undermined, and justice could not result. Since you are determined to enter into the political arena and make judgments about advertising which seeks simply to uphold the tradition view that marriage is heterosexual, Lord Smith must either resign as Chairman of the ASA or as Vice President of the Campaign for Homosexual Equality. There can be no actual and must be no apparent conflict of interests in his functioning, because it is increasingly evident that certain people desire to prevent others from voicing reasonable moral and moderate political opinions and are prepared to use state and quasi-state agents to achieve their illiberal ends.

Finally, to your specific questions relating to the Coalition for Marriage advertisement which is deemed by 10 people, including (you insist) The Jewish Gay & Lesbian Group, is ‘offensive’ and ‘homophobic’. You attached four screenshots taken from His Grace’s blog, apparently from his post of 12th April. You have specified that he is not required to respond to any allegations of ‘inaccuracy’ which relate to the poll research, and, presumably, since the final frame is merely an invitation to sign a petition, there is nothing to respond to or justify on that frame either. So, you are concerned to hear from him on the allegation that this:

and this:


are ‘offensive and homophobic’, despite your unreasonable refusal to respond to his utterly reasonable request to know how the term ‘homophobia’ is being used in this context, which request you insist goes ‘beyond (his) involvement in this case’. His Grace responds as follows:

The first of these frames, as you observe in your Complaint Notification and is evident above, ‘featured photos of couples on their wedding day’. His Grace is at a loss to understand how a montage of (apparently) happy couples of (apparently) complementary genders on their wedding days may be in any sense ‘offensive and homophobic’. Since such scenes are played out at hundreds of churches and registry offices all over the country throughout the year every year, and since the BBC was free to broadcast the wedding of HRH Prince William (male) to Catherine Middleton (female) without incurring allegations of ‘homophobia’, it is difficult to discern how this frame may be considered in any sense ‘offensive’. Further, taking ‘homophobia’ in the vernacular (that is, an expression of ‘hatred’ towards homosexuals, lesbians, bisexuals and the transgendered, as opposed to the fear of man or the same gender), if it may constitute ‘hatred’ of homosexuals to publish and distribute images of heterosexual couples on their wedding days, His Grace would like to know how the 10 complainants even know that all these couples are, in fact, the gender they appear. It is eminently possible that some of these brides are men in drag, and he would have thought that the LGBT community (especially the Jewish Gay & Lesbian Group) really ought to be admiring of the quality of transexualism and/or transvestitism which may be evidenced.

The second frame of ‘evidence’ you adduce simply states ‘I do’. On this point, His Grace concurs wholeheartedly, for this is indeed a term most offensive. His Grace was author of the Anglican marriage liturgy approved by Parliament and he specifically employed the phrase ‘I will’, not ‘I do’. ‘I do’ is an inadequate affirmation of the present instant and quite inferior to the emphatic future continuing ‘I will’. So, yes, this frame is most offensive. But, again, His Grace is at a loss to discern how it may be construed as ‘homophobic’.

And yet he is 'required' to respond to these allegations under CAP Code (Edition 12) rule 4.1 (Harm and offence).

It ought to be obvious to any objective, reasonable person, and also to any rational, impartial organisation, that a set of wedding photographs and a quotation from the marriage liturgy cannot possibly be offensive to any reasonable or rational person. They are only deemed to be so by those whose agenda is acutely political. The fact that you subjectively and unreasonably chose to escalate their complaints to the level of ‘formal investigation’ constitutes an intimidating attempt to encroach on the freedom of speech. That you identified the specific (non-)complaint of The Jewish Gay & Lesbian Group suggests deficiencies in your due diligence and inadequacies in your judgments. These complaints ought to have been summarily dismissed as frivolous, vexatious and malicious.

The conduct of the ASA in this matter has been unreasonable and unjust. You need to develop a considerably higher threshold as to what may be reasonably considered sufficiently offensive to warrant any investigative effort on your part, especially when that offence is allegedly ‘homophobic’.

His Grace hopes you find the above response more beneficial than that received from Private Eye in the case of Arkell v. Pressdram.

Yours sincerely,

60 Comments:

Blogger David Vance said...

Well said.

21 May 2012 12:18  
Blogger Michael said...

Before you submit: typo. First paragraph: caused, not cause.

21 May 2012 12:21  
Blogger FrankFisher said...

You know, I reckon your name is going on their list...

Great rant. 10/10.

21 May 2012 12:22  
Blogger Derek T Northcote said...

More ramblings from the goon.

21 May 2012 12:33  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Derek T Northcote slurred @21 May 2012 12:33...

More ramblings from the goon.

You really are a fool and an idiot of gold medal winning standards.

Pleazzzzzzzzzee do not let us detain you from carrying out your duties and treasured role within the 'village' Bully Hole Bottom!.

E S Blofeld

21 May 2012 12:40  
Blogger Berserker said...

This is not the first cock up Chris Smith, Lord Smith of Finsbury has been responsible for as I well remember the fiasco of Mary Allen's appointment at Covent Garden. Mary Allen (ex repertory actress and Cambridge educated like Lord Smith started spending money on refurbishment of CG that it had not got!

So I think Lord Smith should be taken and dropped into the nearest 'memory hole'!

Mary Allen is now I believe working at the BBC. About her level.

21 May 2012 12:41  
Blogger Michael said...

But well said all the same.

Next phase: like Ezra Levant did with the Alberta "Human Rights" Commission, take down the ASA.

The best defence is often offence.

21 May 2012 12:41  
Blogger Flossie said...

Now, having demolished that lot of pompous, posturing, preening popinjays, how does Your Grace feel about taking on the Law Society over their cancellation of Wednesday's Marriage Colloquium, due to take place at their London headquarters, because it does not fit with their diversity policy?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/9260335/Storm-as-Law-Society-bans-conference-debating-gay-marriage.html

21 May 2012 12:48  
Blogger Anoneumouse said...

So satisfying and definity worth a post coital fag

21 May 2012 12:51  
Blogger martin sewell said...

They are surely regretting the day they chose to mess with an intellectual giant.

As I read about these fools, scarcely capable of sequential thought, the name of that old play came to mind.

" Little Malcolm and his stubble against the eunuchs."

21 May 2012 13:20  
Blogger Jon said...

Cranmer, did anyone complain to you directly about the adverts? If they did, perhaps you could blog about them, and your responses (with names redacted).

I'm just wondering, because if they didn't contact you directly, I think what I find most distasteful is that rather than expose the argument being made by C4M, the complainants have sought to enlist a body which would bully those who speak their mind.

However, it's not so long since the machinery of the UK state was enforcing religious uniformity of some kind or other, or persecuting those of other races or sexual orientation. In some places, they still are. At least you've got lawyers. Young gay people in Iran don't even get that.

In the UK, we have a long history of debating ideas rather than suppressing them, of which we should be justifiably proud.

I think you're wrong about marriage, Cranmer, but I support your right to make your argument, and I don't support those who would enlist the mechanisms of the pseudo-state to suppress your speech and writing.

21 May 2012 13:36  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Mr Jon,

As His Grace has previously made clear in his original post on this matter, absolutely no-one has ever complained to him directly.

21 May 2012 13:40  
Blogger Atlas Shrugged said...

Your Grace

As you rightly allude to, how many other organizations or individuals have fallen foul of our masters ever more over reaching Thought Police?

This country along with a few other westernized nations including The USA, Canada and Australia are known around the world as bastions of free speech in particular and all other aspects of freedom in general.

How did we come to this frightening situation?

Why are our owners picking on cultures that have up to recently acted as examples to the world of how liberty works for the benefit of all of Gods conscious creations?

Answers.

Because our owners hate freedom as exemplified by the teachings of Jesus Christ, and long since decided to utterly destroy both.

Because if our owners can successfully destroy freedom in these particular parts of their planet, continuing to do so around the rest of the despotically ruled world, will be made that much easier.

21 May 2012 13:51  
Blogger bluedog said...

'It is eminently possible that some of these brides are men in drag, and he would have thought that the LGBT community (especially the Jewish Gay & Lesbian Group) really ought to be admiring of the quality of transexualism and/or transvestitism which may be evidenced.

Your communicant nearly exploded with mirth on reading this. Thank God for His Grace's sense of humour.

Thinking of cause and effect, your communicant recalls an interview on TV earlier this month with a defeated politician, who announced his retirement from politics at the same time while standing outside his substantial residence in a leafy north London suburb.

Now, Your Grace will no doubt be aware that Lord Smith of Finsbury is a protege of Ken Livingston, the defeated politician in question.

Purely hypothetically, one can imagine the scene in the conservatory of the Livingston residence one week later, say Sunday 12th May. Let us speculate that the great man has invited his inner circle, those who have nost loyally supported him in his career, to a comemorative luncheon. Lunches like these are always opportunities for an exchange of conspiracy theories, prejudices, gossip and slander, after all, what else is conversation? Over desert and coffee, the lubrication is usually sufficient for some uninhibited 'scoping' and/or flirting to take place. Inevitably the names of the guilty who had been influential in the victory of the Tory buffoon Boris would be discussed. Amongst them of course may have been His Grace, whose call to arms in support of Boris must have rankled. Did a Livingston loyalist declare, 'Not much point in suing or pursuing Charles Moore at the DT, too well financed, but Cranmer, well, leave him to me.'?

Of course, all this is just idle speculation on the part of your communicant. But the letter arrived on May 15th, did it not?

And stranger things have happened.

21 May 2012 13:51  
Blogger Gnostic said...

It's good to see mission creep stopped in its tracks.

Heh

21 May 2012 14:00  
Blogger Hereward said...

Your Grace

Congratulations on such a comprehensive and blistering response. It will serve as a blueprint and letter template for the downtrodden and linguistically challenged during their next brush with officialdom.

21 May 2012 14:00  
Blogger Owl said...

YG, you certainly have a way with words.

My hat is off and my knee is bent.

21 May 2012 14:02  
Blogger Kinderling said...

Archbishop Cranmer: It ought to be obvious to any objective, reasonable person,..

Uhm, can I stop you right there...

21 May 2012 14:51  
Blogger thestreetman said...

Terrific stuff YG.

Is there anything more enabling than punching a bully in the nose?

21 May 2012 14:51  
Blogger Mr Integrity said...

Your Grace,
I am at one with all the support given to yourself over the brilliant riposte to the ASA.
I would say however that I don't trust these organisations and as my granny used to say, don't count your chickens until the fat lady sings.
I'm not a Thomas, but I will be relieved when their judgment is pronounced.
PS Have you sent it to the Business Secretary?

21 May 2012 14:55  
Blogger Elby the Beserk said...

Magnificent. For all of us, our answer to all these self-defined "authorities" should be, ever and always, a resounding

.................NO.................

21 May 2012 15:10  
Blogger Nicodemus said...

A scholarly and robust defense, I stand in awe, may truth prevail. Jesus likewise demolished the arguments of his enemies ...

21 May 2012 15:10  
Blogger Elby the Beserk said...

@Derek T Northcote...

Northcote. Your head is SO far up your arse it is sticking out of your mouth. If you have nothing of use to say, why not just shut up?

21 May 2012 15:11  
Blogger Elby the Beserk said...

@Flossie said...

Indeed. As Ms. Odone noted, they refuse to host a conference regarding something that is lawful, yet happily hold one on something that is not, i.e. assisted dying.

21 May 2012 15:12  
Blogger Elby the Beserk said...

@martin sewell said...

"struggle", not "stubble". Though it makes an interesting idea...

21 May 2012 15:13  
Blogger Naomi King said...

We need the Lord to raise up an apostolic church, one which is built upon biblical truth.

Psalm 12:1 Help, LORD; for the godly man ceaseth; for the faithful fail

21 May 2012 15:14  
Blogger Oswin said...

I take off my hat to you, Your Grace.

21 May 2012 15:33  
Blogger tory boys never grow up said...

The response to Private Eye in Arkell vs Pressdram was not from the ASA as stated above. But I would heartedly recommend that the ASA use the same respone to the original complaint and all the silly replies it has received from Cranmer as it is likely to be the most cost effective way of dealing with the matter.

21 May 2012 16:00  
Blogger Flossie said...

Elby the B, one wonders just how diverse the Law Society's 'diversity' policy is when they will not countenance a conference on marriage.

Their website states that 'The Law Society represents solicitors in England and Wales. From negotiating with and lobbying the profession's regulators, government and others, to offering training and advice, we're here to help, protect and promote solicitors across England and Wales'.

What has this to do with promoting gay marriage? (Which is what their 'diversity policy' is REALLY all about.) What about solicitors who are opposed to gay marriage? Does it protect them too?

It is time some of these overweening puffed-up organisations were cut down to size.

As our present Archbishop of Canterbury doesn't seem too enthusiastic about protecting marriage, I hoped that a Phoenix-like resurrection from a former incumbent might do the biz.

21 May 2012 16:06  
Blogger William said...

TBNGU

I'm sure that the ASA are indeed looking for the most cost effective way of dealing with the matter. However, I suspect that your recommendation that they tell Cranmer to f-off will end up with them in even deeper hot water than they are already. Let's hope that they take your advice!

21 May 2012 16:17  
Blogger tory boys never grow up said...

William

I agree - I'm sure that they could think of a suitable euphemism. You should note that I suggest they take a similar line with the original complaint.

You perhaps should note that the ASA received over 3000 complaints from those with political and religous objections to abortion advisory services - so this is far from being a one sided issue. Perhaps if the ASA took a tougher line in dealing with those looking to play politics then they might actually be rather more effctive in dealing with the rather more obvious abuses of their code e.g. How often is something described as free when it clearly isn't?

21 May 2012 16:26  
Blogger Roy said...

Have there been any statements from Lord Smith on this issue yet, or is he still keeping his head down?

21 May 2012 16:32  
Blogger William said...

TBNGU

"You should note that I suggest they take a similar line with the original complaint."

I'm afraid it's rather too late for that! They are now conducting a formal investigation into the offensive nature and homophobia of the Coalition For Marriage advertisement.

21 May 2012 16:35  
Blogger Flossie said...

Maybe not on this issue, Roy, but he's not keeping his head down either.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=NBy2bLeNq0w

21 May 2012 16:37  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

"Have there been any statements from Lord Smith on this issue yet, or is he still keeping his head down?"

Far from keeping his had down. See new post above...

21 May 2012 16:48  
Blogger tory boys never grow up said...

"I'm afraid it's rather too late for that!"

I doubt it - a pretty simple response along the lines of having looked into your response we find that there are insufficient grounds for the complaint would be enough.

21 May 2012 16:54  
Blogger Elby the Beserk said...

Lord Smith was our local councillor when I lived in South Oxford in the early 80s. Dealt with the dog shit problem in the local park well. Suspect that is about his limit, but I also suspect he is a brown noser of the highest order, hence his rise to Lordship etc.

21 May 2012 17:30  
Blogger Nicodemus said...

Lord Smith wants to marry his boy friend, but he can't have children with his boy friend, he can't become 'one flesh' with his boy friend, so what sort of marriage is that? It's not marriage. The gays are stealing the word marriage for something which is manifestly not marriage. Apples are not oranges, red is not blue. If they succeed, how can we distinguish heterosexual marriage to avoid confusion in the general population, and especially for our children. Can we invent a new word?

21 May 2012 17:41  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

A sterling riposte Archbishop, worthy of one who is wise, and versed in the ways of the law.

The Inspector is particularly concerned with waste in the public service. By the very ability of ASA to turn its head to matters political indicates an obvious over manning in the organisation. We all know that public agencies are playing their bit in reducing public expenditure, indeed, many have vanished, or will vanish, with any good they were doing absorbed by another QANGO.

Through His Grace, the Inspector calls for an immediate investigation into ASA manning levels. That a reduction is necessary is beyond doubt, the question is how much. The going rate seems to be in the order of 25%. He challenges the ASA to make clear any objection they have to this. Furthermore, the Inspector wishes to know the savings 25% will achieve, expressed as millions of pounds.

Let this be a warning to other QANGOs.. You abuse your powers at your own risk. You WILL be identified, and you WILL suffer the consequences. Let no one be in any doubt about that !

21 May 2012 17:46  
Blogger tory boys never grow up said...

Elby

I think you will find that one of the reasons why Chris Smith's political career came to a fairly abrupt end was that he wasn'r a brown noser of the highest order.

21 May 2012 17:47  
Blogger tory boys never grow up said...

Office of the Inspector General

One small problem the ASA isn't a public body!

21 May 2012 17:48  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Tory Lad

Recipients of a public grant though. Public enough in your man’s book. And of course, grants can be reduced to voice displeasure...

21 May 2012 17:54  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

I'm interested in finding out what the complainers thought was offensive and homophobic about the advert. The claim is bizarre to me. One might wonder if the motives of the C4M members are homophobic but that's a different ballgame altogether. I'd doubt that very much too, myself. They're almost certainly just religious.

21 May 2012 18:03  
Blogger Little Black Sambo said...

"I do."
I have often wondered where that comes from. When Charles was marrying Diana the television commentator outside was saying, "And now the couple are saying their 'I do's," and of course they weren't. Is that what they have to say in registry offices?

21 May 2012 18:05  
Blogger Mark In Mayenne said...

"Your recent claim (published on 15th May upon your website) that you were seeking His Grace’s voluntary assistance and ‘have made clear’ that he is ‘not compelled to respond’ is not supported by the facts. Not least because this was only ‘made clear’ in your second email to him (which was received at 5.40pm on 15th May). Indeed, it appears that your second email was sent solely to permit you to be able to claim publicly on your website on the same day that you ‘have made clear’ that there is no compulsion to respond. "

Did they really? That was a neat maneuver on their part. I will be even more distrustful of civil service speak in future.

21 May 2012 18:17  
Blogger tory boys never grow up said...

Office of the Inspector General

Nope - wholly funded by a levy on advertisers.

21 May 2012 18:17  
Blogger Naomi King said...

Well said Archbishop, a stand for rationality and sound judgment.

21 May 2012 18:19  
Blogger martin sewell said...

Thanks for the correction Elby, dammed auto-correct!

21 May 2012 18:21  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Tory Lad

So they’re untouchable !

Absolutely scandalous the way they approached the Archbishop with their implied authority on behalf of the state. Have to sit down now and think about this. Inspector stumped !

21 May 2012 18:25  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Tory Lad

The Inspector’s considered opinion is that the Archbishop should pass the file to the Director of Public Prosecutions. There is a case to answer, just can’t define it !!!

21 May 2012 18:41  
Blogger Naomi King said...

How about a hate crime against law respecting supporters of the biblical view of marriage ? The ASA are certainly "offensive" as prohibited by S5 Public Order Act and we, as well as His Grace, are offended by their remarks and conduct.

I expect his Grace's excellent legal team will suitably advise.

21 May 2012 19:19  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

Excellent response Your Grace - a veritable Tour de Force

21 May 2012 19:50  
Blogger tory boys never grow up said...

Officer of the Inspector General

I don't think you can refer things direct to the DPP (rather than via the Police) asking them to look into a crime that you cannot specify. I suppose Cranmer could claim threatening behaviour - but somehow my guess he isn't feeling too threatened and is rather enjoying this - and anyway the Police have better things to do.

21 May 2012 20:51  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Tory Lad, the sheer unBritishness of the ASA rankles, but your point taken. His Grace is a respected right wing Christian blogger. Lets just sit back and wait for one or two right wing Christian MPs to come to his side. Then we’ll see some action...

21 May 2012 21:57  
Blogger Thomas Gibbon said...

Perfect!

If they mess you about any more, you might send a copy of this response to the CEOs of their main funding sources and suggest they consider their positions. Copy to the tabloids of course, all being fair...

21 May 2012 22:07  
Blogger bluedog said...

Mr Inspector, there is no doubt in this communicant's mind that ASA Limited should be investigated.

Please see bluedog's post @ 12.36 on 19th May following His Grace blog 'Further ASA response - an admission of error'. Information relating to ASA Ltd can be found on the Companies House website, and to some extent on the ASA's own website.

As an earlier poster has noted, the exact role of the ASA is probably a matter for the Business Secretary.

And who is the Business Secretary? Well, it's Dr Vince Cable.

Back to square one.

21 May 2012 22:31  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Bluedog, the Inspector remembers the “Cable myth” as perpetrated by the BBC prior to the last election. what a disappointment he turned out to be...

21 May 2012 22:43  
Blogger jimbo78 said...

My prayers with you as every. Difficult to remain loving and prayerful for our opposition and yet robust in our defence.. but His Grace manages it, (just about) as ever.

God be with you!

James

22 May 2012 02:34  
Blogger Nick said...

Even the Equality Monster, er I mean Minister and her Thought Police will be taken aback by such an eloquent response

26 May 2012 14:43  
Blogger Nick said...

I'm no legal expert but it seems to me the ASA definitely has a case to answer over the way they misrepresented themselves. As His Grace says, they may have done the same thing with others, so they should be investigate (not by themselves though). When I lodged a complaint on their website I was told to complain to their CEO or my local MP. I did both. I wish someone would bring them to book. It would do no harm to give these reprobates a dunking in their own cesspool

28 May 2012 12:24  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older