RT campaign posters banned in London, REDACTED Second Opinion

originally posted by: SkepticOverlord

originally posted by: Tucket
Have those sources ever been banned before?

Banned from what/where? Not sure what you mean.

Well, like you, Im wondering what the difference is. I dont follow Fox or MSNBC; dont have a TV.

You are suggesting similarities so Im wondering: Does Fox actually do the same type of adverts and have they ever been banned for doing them?


Having said that, Stumason mightve provided an explanation.

a reply to: theabsolutetruth

In fact, it just occurred to me whilst on the toilet, their now "redacted" adverts with the QR code thing for the "real" advert now actually means they fall under the domain of OFCOM as they are now on a electronic broadcast medium (the internet), yet they clearly are not banned as they are being used, so the excuse of the Comms Act 2003 doesn't wash.

Again, it seems like individual organisations simply didn't want to carry the advert or that RT is making a mountain out of a molehill for political reasons.

a reply to: stumason

The ad is tied to the RT website and to their TV channel.

Local authorities can ban advertising also, it appears some did as did London Underground platforms citing ''political undertones'' and ''provocativeness'' as their excuse. However the ASA didn't ban them and is aware of them, which suggests they aren't too ''political'' or ''provocative'' for public viewing and aren't in breach of any ASA codes.

Simply, if they aren't in breach of ASA codes then they should have been allowed.

Even if they were in breach of ASA codes, and it appears they weren't, there is a valid point to be made that the truth is very much needed and a ''second opinion'' is something the UK and many other nations has lacked to it's detriment for decades if not centuries, and that making the public aware of the need for transparency of our nation's' policy makers and populus influencing media should be a prerogative.

The irony of the whole thing is astounding on so many levels.

a reply to: theabsolutetruth

Local authorities do not have the power to "ban" an advert. They can, however, refuse to carry an advert on their property, so for example bus shelters they may own, the same as any private organisation can. Again, that is not the same as a ban and a total misrepresentation of the facts.

And in actual fact, in their previous form, they would have been in breach of the very codes I pointed out earlier. Political advertising by a commercial business is not allowed, nor is any advertising by any political entity which cannot be backed up with the facts.

The fact you seem to think that RT is the "truth" though is disturbing. All media is biased, some more so than others, but RT takes the cake every time. It's Russia's version of FOX. It seems, however, they are "fashionable" amongst some simply because they have a differing viewpoint - it matters not if it is the truth, just simply that it isn't the "Western MSM"...

Here is an example of how the UK population have been duped by government, security services etc and more and more each day these things are being revealed. Complacency has to stop.

I know personally of a rape attempt and a violent attack on a MINOR in a school that was reported to the police, recently and they:

a. wrote the report wrongly, got the names messed up.

b. lied on the report saying the parent of the victim had talked to the parent of the perpetrator, they didn't.

c. got a social worker to call the victims parents and ask if they wanted them to talk to their child.

d. closed the case because the parents of the victim didn't want social services talking to their child

e. omitted the case from stats

These people are there to protect the population and instead they have done the opposite, it is disgusting and the complacency of the general public in the UK is despicable.

In places where people give a damn about the truth being reported there would be national action. Posters like RT's are much needed.

www.telegraph.co.uk...

Almost a million crimes a year are disappearing from official figures as chief constables attempt to meet targets, a study by the police watchdog has disclosed.

Its report exposed “indefensible” failures by forces to record crime accurately, and said that in some areas up to a third of crimes are being struck out of official records.

Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary said violent crimes and sex attacks were particularly vulnerable to being deleted under “inexcusably poor” systems.

Although the report stopped short of accusing police of widespread “fiddling” it said there was an “undercurrent of pressure not to record a crime across some forces” and “wrongful pressure” by managers.

It means violent criminals and even rapists are not investigated, potentially allowing offenders to strike again.

In all, the report estimated 800,000 crimes reported by the public every year are wiped out of official figures.

Overall, almost a fifth of crimes failed to appear in the figures for England and Wales, the inspectorate concluded, but in some forces the proportion was as high as a third. Overall, police failed to record a quarter of rapes and a third of violent crimes across England and Wales.

Tom Winsor, the chief inspector, said: “There is a material risk of the victim and the community not receiving justice.

That would mean that in some cases it is impossible for us to determine what proportion of people who should be locked up are still on the streets.”

a reply to: theabsolutetruth

What a wierd post....

First, what has that alleged rape got to do with the topic? Nothing, is the answer.

But then you post a link to a "Western" outlet carrying a story highlighting the failures you say need to be highlighted....

Confused much?

a reply to: stumason

Firstly do not presume my opinions on RT, actually read the comments on this thread as they are.

Secondly, I never said nor implied any ban by the ASA.

They were banned by local authorities etc and seeing as they aren't contrary to ASA codes regarding politics, local authorities banning them under such an excuse is rather lame.

Thirdly, this thread isn't a debate on opinions on RT as an organisation in general.

a reply to: stumason

RT put out a poster about media and governments being less than truthful.

I gave an example of police stats being made public that aren't truthful.

Hence highlighting the need for public awareness of the lack of transparency and the need for truthful reporting of such things as stats and media.

You might prefer being blinkered and duped by governments and the police etc but for many it is personal as well as the recognition that is is a responsible society that expects such truth from it's very infrastructure and hierarchies.

'Seek the truth' poster should be everywhere IMO. Perhaps you just don't comprehend that.

originally posted by: theabsolutetruth
Firstly do not presume my opinions on RT, actually read the comments on this thread as they are.

I have and it is clear you feel that RT is somehow "needed" when it is the worst one out there for peddling BS.

originally posted by: theabsolutetruth
Secondly, I never said nor implied any ban by the ASA.

The thread title quite clearly says "RT campaign posters banned in London". The only people who can ban ad's are the ASA.

originally posted by: theabsolutetruth
They were banned by local authorities etc and seeing as they aren't contrary to ASA codes regarding politics, local authorities banning them under such an excuse is rather lame.

You don't read, do you? LA's cannot "ban" adverts. They can refuse to carry them on their property though, like Plymouth Council refusing to have payday loan ad's on their bus stops, for example.

And yes, the adverts could have been in breach of the ASA rules because they stated opinions, not facts and carried a political message by a commercial entity.

You're doing a bang up job ignoring the facts here.

originally posted by: theabsolutetruth
Thirdly, this thread isn't a debate on opinions on RT as an organisation in general.

Nope, but then portraying this as a "ban" serves RT very nicely.

a reply to: stumason

I could pick apart your comments but I already have and the truth is I have better things to do.

Obviously you do not agree to RT's poster message about ''second opinions'' being good, nor able to comprehend that organisations other than the ASA can ban things.

Furthermore, I expect you to appear on my threads attempting 'denouncing' anything I say, there is a history of you doing that. Yawn.

www.google.com...=b an+definition

ban1
ban/
verb
1.
officially or legally prohibit.
"he was banned from driving for a year"
synonyms: prohibit, forbid, veto, proscribe, disallow, outlaw, make illegal, embargo, bar, debar, block, stop, suppress, interdict; More
antonyms: permit
officially exclude (someone) from a place.
"he once was banned from a casino in Reno"
synonyms: exclude, banish, expel, eject, evict, drive out, force out, oust, remove, get rid of; More
noun
noun: ban; plural noun: bans
1.
an official or legal prohibition.
"a proposed ban on cigarette advertising"
synonyms: prohibition, veto, proscription, embargo, bar, suppression, stoppage, interdict, interdiction, moratorium, injunction
"a ban on soliciting"

originally posted by: theabsolutetruth
I could pick apart your comments but I already have and the truth is I have better things to do.

Oooh, go on, please! Thing is, you can't "pick apart" anything, because that is the plain and simple truth of the matter. The reason why "you have better things to do" is because you know this to be true and are simply stating it to display machismo.

originally posted by: theabsolutetruth
Obviously you do not agree to RT's poster message about ''second opinions'' being good, nor able to comprehend that organisations other than the ASA can ban things.

On the contrary, I have never said anything about "second opinions". I wholeheartedly agree there should be as many opinions as possible. What I am disagreeing on is the premise these adverts were "banned". They were not, but it is RT making hay out of it to portray the "evil Westerners" in a bad light.

originally posted by: theabsolutetruth
Furthermore, I expect you to appear on my threads attempting 'denouncing' anything I say, there is a history of you doing that. Yawn.

Oh, I do apologise. There I was thinking that ATS was for debate and discussion, not posting stuff only people who agree with you should respond to. Grow up.

from when our family had a shop many moons ago, you have to get council permission to have an advertising spot with the main concern being it doesn't distract people and cause accidents, also we could if we wanted not have whatever the guy turned up with as his first choice so if they turned up with a pro-labour poster and we didn't like it he'd go back into his van and fetch something less controversial, normally also most advertising campaigns go through the ASA as a matter of course as a sort of extra check but its not technically required but they've got the big fine-hammer so most people do to save a large bill and some controversial newspaper space.

We're heading into election time so the showing of a former labour leader and PM along with two adverts for american politicians since a lot of americans like to visit the UK would show a lot of bias at a time when politics are becoming more important and quite a few public spaces like to stay as neutral as possible when it comes to politics or if they have to like the major TV companies they give everyone the same time to which most people moan and switch over anyway

a reply to: theabsolutetruth

RT should be thrown out of any "real" democracy
and their vile propaganda blocked from broadcast!