Advertising Standards Authority – no jurisdiction over own name

Following my complaint about the Advertising Standards Authority Society misrepresenting themselves as an authority the ASS has ruled that it can not consider a complaint about its own name because it has NO JURISDICTION.

It’s an ironic ruling. My complaint is that they claim authority when they have no authority i.e. the ASS have no jurisdiction at all, however this would be the one occasion where the ASS actually have authority because the complaint is about their business – they own it – they have complete authority over themselves. They just don’t have authority over anybody else.

The ruling is now on the ASS website.

26 thoughts on “Advertising Standards Authority – no jurisdiction over own name”

  1. The ASA is an example of Libertarianism 101. Not being a libertarian, Reed’s complaint is simply *that it is not authoritarian enough* – he would prefer what he euphemistically calls a ‘proper’ justice system ie a government regulated one as opposed to industry self regulation. He’s consistent I’m this I suppose, even I disagree with it.

  2. Daniel
    I think we agree that if the ASS were an actual authority that would be worse than the ASS fraudulently claiming to be an authority.

    Why do you think the ASS is a good thing?

  3. No, we didn’t agree, because earlier you clearly preferred what you euphemistically called “a proper justice system” to the ASA’s philosophy of self-regulation. This is clearly more a more authoritarian approach. If you have changed your mind, well and good. This is a case of the lesser of two evils, and the perfect being the enemy of the good.

  4. It’s a good thing because in principle self-regulation is preferable to state regulation wherever this is possible. This also answers your second question.

    So if you don’t like the ASA, could you clearly outline what your preferred option is and how you think it would work?

  5. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

  6. The problem with the ASA is the ‘Authority’ part Daniel… and it’s perniciousness at calling its decisions ‘Rulings’.
    There is nothing wrong with associations expressing their opinions… but not pretending to be an authority.

  7. @reed, perhaps Richard and Tim can answer that one.

    @tim, ok so you are in favour of the ASA in principle, and you only take issue with its name as you don’t think we are sufficiently authoritarian for it to be really appropriate. Well that’s a criticism I can live with!

  8. Daniel
    You claim you don’t gain financially from the ASS – you must have some other reason for opposing state regulation of advertising.

    What do you think is wrong with state regulation of advertising?

    Or perhaps you are for state regulation of advertising and simply want to be the state.

  9. LOL! This is about as good as when you accused me of making thousands of dollars out the ASA, when in fact it was just that you didn’t know how to read an annual report! Now you’re making nutty accusations that I “want to be the state” and that I’m somehow “a fraud” – you really are getting weird on it.

    Really, the basic problem is that you just don’t know what you’re talking about. If you had even half a clue about the subject you’d know, for example, that the state does regulate a fair chunk of the content of advertising already. But of course you don’t. In fact, you expect me to provide you with some kind of continuing education course in your own cause, while you busy yourself harass a voluntarily funded organisation with your timewasting crankery. What next? Are you going to ring up and ask if the ASA’s fridge is running, or if Seymour Butz works there?

    So here’s a question for you, Reed: If someone went around advertising that they knew how to cure cancer when in fact their claim had no medical evidence to support it, would that be “fraud” as far as you were concerned?

  10. This just gets dumber by the minute.

    Reed, you are making a bigger idiot of yourself with every post. Having been caught out as a know-nothing already you’re now just digging yourself deeper. This is the second – third? – time you’ve made a laughably false accusation against me. I can’t even take offense it’s so daft. Don’t you ever learn? Once again, you just don’t even have the faintest idea what you’re talking about.

    Do 5 minutes actual research you dingbat, instead of sitting around with your thumb up your posterior, and you’ll soon find out you’ve embarrassed yourself yet again…;-)

  11. What did I get wrong?
    Is that not your company’s ad?

    Also, if I answer your question re the state regulation of advertising, will you answer mine about claiming to cure cancer?


  12. Weren’t you going to answer a question?

    What do you think is wrong with state regulation of advertising?
    Are you opposed to state regulation of advertising?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *