How about...
Products, services and contractual disputes
Companies' trading practices, contractual matters, the quality of goods and services, claims on packaging and trade names are all dealt with by trading standards.
Is packaging the only place that they make the claims?
Do they not make it in brochures?
Do they not make it on websites?
Do you really think that companies can avoid their advertising claims being subject to investigation by the ASA by
also making the claims in ways which are outwith the ASA's remit?
I am simply disagreeing with your assertion that the ASA is the right place to go when I know from experience that it is not.
But why?
My assertion is not that their products are dangerous.
My assertion is not that their products fail to meet any standards which apply to them.
My assertion is not that they are falsely claiming standards compliance for any of their products.
My assertion is not one of a Trading Standards offence.
My assertion is that they make false claims in their advertising for these products.
My assertion is that they make these false and misleading claims in leaflets and brochures, a matter which is
explicitly within the remit of the ASA. They make them in advertisements on the Internet, a matter which is
explicitly within the remit of the ASA.
I have absolutely no idea what you thought you could credibly achieve by trying to make out that Blagdon's false and misleading claims about the Building Regulations and the discriminatory nature of 25mA vs 30mA RCDs were only to do with credit advertising, financial advertising, medicines, political advertising, or any of the other categories which are identified as being outside the ASA's remit.
You may be right in thinking that the ASA will end up doing nothing.
At least you are now coming around to accepting the ASA route is wrong route whereas Trading Standards is the right route.
No - please try to read properly, it makes things so much easier.
I said that you might be right in thinking that the ASA will
end up doing nothing. That is not remotely the same as thinking that making false claims in advertisements is a matter for Trading Standards rather than the ASA.
It would be interesting to know what you think the ASA
will investigate if they won't investigate false and misleading claims in advertising media which
they explicitly say
are in their remit.
BAS - I did a search on the internet yesterday and found that, in the past, someone else was using your alias on the
Screwfix website. I know it wasn't you because this person seemed to respect the views of others
I respect other views which are worthy of respect.
When you try to make out that a false and misleading claim in a brochure on a company's website is not in the ASA's remit because of a list of things not in their remit which does not include brochures on a company's website and when a list of things
in their remit
does include brochures on a company's website then you've not really expressed any views worthy of respect.
When you try to make out that it is silly to regard a cable cleated to a wall as being a fixed electrical cable then you've not really expressed any views worthy of respect.
This person also recognised that there could be two possible right answers to the same question
So are there two possible right answers to the question
"Are false and misleading claims made in brochures available on a company's website within the remit of the ASA to investigate?"?
You might like to refer to these pages before answering that.
http://www.asa.org.uk/Regulation-Explained/What-we-cover.aspx
http://www.asa.org.uk/Regulation-Explained/Online-remit.aspx
and that others are entitled their opinion without be shouted down or asked to the explain the reasons for their statements in what can only be described as a diatribe.
You have refused to explain why a cable cleated to a wall could reasonably be said to not be a fixed electrical cable.
You have refused to explain why, when the Building Regulations say that "“electrical installation” means fixed electrical cables or fixed electrical equipment located on the consumer’s side of the electricity supply meter" that it's only my personal view that a fixed electrical cable qualifies as an "electrical installation".
You have refused to show where Part P says that it only applies to notifiable work.
You have refused to show where Part P says that it only applies to permanent installations.
You
have said "BAS certainly has his nickers in a twist over this one and the more he comments the more silly he seems", and you have tried to prove that you were right to tell me that the ASA would not investigate any complaint because of a list of exclusions which anyone with an IQ bigger than their shoe size can see is irrelevant.
If you think that I'm not going to forcefully take issue with you over omissions and commissions like that then you are sadly deluded.
Sometimes others know more than you BAS
Then it is your duty to properly expound your superior knowledge, in order to help those less knowledgeable than yourself.
You could start by explaining why a cable cleated to a wall is not a fixed electrical cable.
You could then explain where non-notifiable and non-permanent electrical installations are exempt from the provisions of Part P.
You could then explain how a 25mA RCD will always trip before a 30mA one.
You could then explain why false and misleading claims made in brochures available on a company's website are not within the remit of the ASA to investigate.
Strange as it seems, BAS, I do agree with most of what you say - it is the way you say it that I fundamentally disagree with.
So does that justifying you writing complete b****cks saying that I'm wrong?
Do you dislike
how I say things so much that you're prepared to try and make out that
what I say is wrong even though you agree with it?
How old are you?
