Hacked Off's 'Leveson' advert banned after watchdog rules it was misleading

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Hacked Off's 'Leveson' advert banned after watchdog rules it was misleading

Post  candyfloss on Wed 31 Dec 2014, 8:48 am

Hacked Off's 'Leveson' advert banned after watchdog rules it was misleading 




  • Advert by Hacked Off has been banned on the grounds it was misleading
  • Implied proposals were endorsed by judge who led press standards inquiry
  • Ruling will embarrass lobby group which wants tougher press regulation
  • Watchdogs found Hacked Off advert was 'confusing' and 'ambiguous' 

Published: 01:18, 31 December 2014  | Updated: 07:52, 31 December 2014





Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2891988/Hacked-s-Leveson-advert-banned-watchdog-finds-misleading.html#ixzz3NSmIFZTh



Oh dearie me, now there's a turn up Laughing Laughing

Here are a couple of comments under article...





L.G. EUSSR, Soon a Guest in my own Country, United Kingdom, 31 minutes ago

So "hacked off" intentionally lie - what a surprise from a bunch of hypocrites.






MacDuff, London, United Kingdom, about an hour ago

Press freedom is a lot more important than this bunch of here-today-gone-tomorrow lefties.












Anon, Uk, United Kingdom, about 7 hours ago
Oh dear, it's not just the advert that a shambles the whole organisation and the campaign it waged is too. We don't need the press being shackled, we need a free press

_________________
  
 

  


Sometimes you will never know the true value of a moment until it becomes a memory.......... Dr Seuss
avatar
candyfloss
Admin

Posts : 10640
Join date : 2014-08-18
Age : 65

Back to top Go down

Re: Hacked Off's 'Leveson' advert banned after watchdog rules it was misleading

Post  Andrew on Wed 31 Dec 2014, 9:39 am

So hacked off will be... err... hacked off by this.

Good.
avatar
Andrew

Posts : 13085
Join date : 2014-08-29

Back to top Go down

Re: Hacked Off's 'Leveson' advert banned after watchdog rules it was misleading

Post  Guest on Wed 31 Dec 2014, 10:41 am

Well, didn't Mr Gerry say "confusion is good"? And pretendy Court judgements have the McCann pawprints all over them. Look at the picture of the Tapas 7 on the Court steps after the Express payout, implying that they'd been awarded it by a real Judge.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Hacked Off's 'Leveson' advert banned after watchdog rules it was misleading

Post  Marky on Wed 31 Dec 2014, 10:55 am

no surprises there then. Very Happy

_________________
"The bag or the bat?"
avatar
Marky

Posts : 170
Join date : 2014-09-03
Location : Southie

Back to top Go down

Re: Hacked Off's 'Leveson' advert banned after watchdog rules it was misleading

Post  Cristobell on Wed 31 Dec 2014, 12:43 pm

Considering their chief spokesman Gerry McCann has been lying and distorting the truth imo for over 7 years, its hardly surprising they tried to pull a fast one with a misleading advert.  I have no sympathy for the ejits who lined up alongside him, and that they are now tarred with the same brush is well deserved.


Last edited by candyfloss on Wed 31 Dec 2014, 12:55 pm; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : imo)
avatar
Cristobell

Posts : 672
Join date : 2014-08-26

Back to top Go down

Re: Hacked Off's 'Leveson' advert banned after watchdog rules it was misleading

Post  Guest on Wed 31 Dec 2014, 12:49 pm

Not only that, their poll will accept any name and email, so in fact one person can vote as often as they like. 

Apart from that, weren't the images of thefounders/beneficiaries of Hacked Off projected on the parliament buildings? 

By now that's as close as Gerry  will ever get to parliament.  Very Happy

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Hacked Off's 'Leveson' advert banned after watchdog rules it was misleading

Post  Guest on Wed 31 Dec 2014, 12:55 pm

Just as a reminder: Dr. Roberts in an unusually foul mood and who can blame him? 

Thanks to McCannfiles.com



By Dr Martin Roberts

13 February 2013




NOT IN MY CHILDREN's LIFETIMES...

...would I wish to see Dr Gerry McCann's, or for that matter his wife's voice influence the legislation of this land. And no, I am not just an envious forker. I'm forking angry. Angry that anyone should attempt to gain social or other advantage at the expense of a child's life (see Shakespeare's Henry V, Act 4 Scene 7). Let it not be forgotten that Gerry McCann the orator is one and the same person as he who, since early May 2007, has done more to ensure that his missing daughter stays missing than he has ever done to repatriate her.

For the benefit of those who might need reminding:



Action

PJ instruction – 'No media!'

Portuguese legal requirement – judicial secrecy.



Early reports of sighting in Malta

Co-operate fully with investigating authorities



Appeal for information via a web site

McCann response

Alert UK broadcasters

Disclose details to David James Smith

Embark on campaign of 'phone calls home on 07/09/2007

Visit Spain

Illegally deploy private investigators

Fly home after questioning and appoint an extradition lawyer

Incorporate a faux contact button

Etcetera, etcetera.

Gerry McCann has, it seems, spoken of his fears that David Cameron might be prepared to water down the proposals of the Leveson enquiry. "If our testimony was in vain it would be a permanent stain on the reputation of this government," he said.

As permanent a stain, no doubt, as once appeared on a pair of child's pyjamas six years ago. Almost. Still, it would be on this government's reputation. Unlike the previous administration of arrivistes, who have the McCanns personally to thank for the stain on theirs; not one but two Labour prime ministers saluted the McCann flag. Small wonder then that the campaigning doctor is tilting at the other side. He obviously knows on which side his bread has been buttered.

Apparently Dr Gerry McCann and his wife Kate have been harassed by newspapers which made "profit from misery." Unlike Kate McCann's novel, Madeleine, which, as much a work of fiction as anything else, largely excludes the subject it purports to discuss and proudly announces via a 'flash' on the book's jacket, 'All royalties donated to Madeleine's fund.' (That's the fund which has been paying for those two 'searchers' long since given their P45s). Strange, but there appears to be no itemisation of 'author's royalties' within the company (i.e., the fund) accounts. As others have pointed out, 'book income' (after publication) doesn't seem quite the appropriate definition. Perhaps someone should break it gently to Transworld publishers that, should any or all of these royalties have actually gone elsewhere, then they could find themselves to have been party to mis-representation, since the inducement to purchase was clearly printed by them and not affixed to the product subsequently.

But we are considering profit from misery are we not? Would anyone care to weigh the misery of the McCanns against that of their missing daughter, who benefits not one iota from book sales, who never got to tour Europe, holiday in Canada, visit the USA or Scandinavia? And never will.

He said: "To keep his promises all he (Prime Minster David Cameron) has to do is follow what Leveson said and put the Leveson recommendations into law through parliament without meddling in back door dealing and without checking that the press is happy with it."

All he has to do? Sounds a tad more complicated than posting a letter to the Portuguese Justice department requesting they re-open the investigation into Madeleine's disappearance. Whatever happened to 'We would be more than happy for the case to be reopened?' 'More than happy' is clearly not happy enough for some. And what’s all this about 'back door dealing?' Is Dr McCann speaking from experience here?

Referring to the Parliamentary Select Committee on the media (2010) Dr Gerry, who believes his 'phone has never been hacked, told his audience at the Hacked Off Conference:

"Three years later, I see little remorse, no contrition. Sections of the press are still in denial. The sick culture has not changed, and they can't be trusted to change it of their own accord.

"If you look at the reporting of the Leveson Inquiry and the behaviour of some newspapers since then, it's clear that they aren't sorry and they still think they should not have to answer to anyone when they publish harmful lies and distortions."

This coming from someone who clearly took the hypocritic oath.

Six years after the McCanns as good as admitted child abandonment, but nothing else, there is little remorse, no contrition. It's clear that they aren't sorry and they still think they should not have to answer to anyone when they publish harmful lies and distortions (such as resulted from their joint performance before the Leveson inquiry - see 'Digging Beneath the Surface,' McCannFiles 28.11. 2011, and that poor excuse for a 'tear jerker' written by Kate).

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum