February 10, 2017
\\ The CEO of tech giant Apple
says “fake news” needs to be tackled as one of today’s “chief problems.”

That’s according to an interview Tim Cook gave Good Morning Britain Friday, //

Sorry that lost comment seems off topic.
Ah no it's directly connected to Golf's comment onn page1 ..it's just a pity the way the new page broke

Here's a new post via "@IDAU

As MoneySuperMarket's research shows, a big barrier is the lack of understanding of what renewable energy actually means.
People know what a wind turbine or solar panel is, but our own recent research found 52 per cent of people expect a green tariff to mean their supplier will send electricity direct from these renewable sources to their homes, showing a major lack of understanding of how green tariffs or the National Grid works.
'This problem isn't helped by a number of suppliers offering cheap greenwashed tariffs which do effectively nothing to encourage more renewable electricity generation,
by purchasing low cost renewable energy certificates but not the power they relate to, in order to label their brown power 'green'.

Emperor David of Attenborough "Do you like my Green T-shirt"
small boy "but it's coal black"

Emperor David of Attenborough "Yes, but it's got a renewable energy certificate in the pocket, so to me it looks 100% GREEN"

Today SmartEnergyGB faking stuff again screenshot
Centre of Times Weekend section : page title : Smarter Britain
Much bigger title : Keep your home as safe as houses
bylined Times' style with a headshot photo MIKE PATTENDEN Investigative journalist
Below the title it says "..We challenged our reporter to find out"

Masses of text often using purple or purple background
Yet tucked away top right in plain black on white it says "PROMOTED CONTENT"
that normalish print is the only indication that it's an advert

.. I don't think that meets the moral that you should be able to tell from first glance that an article is really an advert

Ha I like the way the same guy’s latest tweet gives you a reason not to accept smartmeters.
Just say you are boycotting Japanese components like he is.

Boycott Japanese products #retaliate https://t.co/mX63OOFyJR .... June 1, 2018

He has a previous tweet gathering evidence about smart meter gas leaks

HaThey admitted the font was too small cos two weeks later their next advert
has "Promoted Content" written in bigger bolded font

Ovo have gone further now
"Ditch coal for 100% Renewable Electrcity"
they splatter all over Telegraph page
Yet on some windless nights night Ovo customers will likely be getting leccy from coal
ASA don't care
I tweeted screenshot

Yet see how the ASA can suddenly be tough when advert jokes about avocado !
\\ The ASA said: “We considered that, although the ad was light-hearted, it nevertheless suggested avocados were a poor breakfast choice, and that a bacon roll or egg muffin would be a better alternative, and in doing so discouraged the selection of avocados.”

It ruled that the ad must not be broadcast again, adding:
“We told Costa to ensure future ads did not condone or encourage poor nutritional habits and that they did not disparage good dietary practice.” //

Now I know Paul Homewood has written on the topic
and I see first he has news
\\Adverts for the Government’s smart meter roll out have been wrongly claiming the meters are "free", advertising regulators have said. //

He did this post also a year ago about Ovo
2018/04/04/ovos-fake-renewable-claims

I note one change the boss of the ASA used too be that Labour Green-blob man Chriss Smith, but 1 year ago he was replaced by Prof David Currie (now Lord Currie)

If you search Paul's site

You find other stories of the way the ASA usually just slaps the wrists of Greens like Greenpeace and FoE
ie they tell them not to make the claims in future, but lets them get away with leaving the claims on their Facebook pages etc.
eg Greenpeace agrees

Just as HarryP complained about Ovo
Sarah Pumfrett complained about Good Energy

See how the Response from ASA is almost the same

"Thank you for contacting us with your concern. The complaints we receive are very important, because they help us to build a picture of the types of issues that affect both consumers and businesses.

Your complaint
I understand that you have challenged whether the Facebook post is misleading. We’ve considered your complaint carefully and looked at all the issues raised. On this occasion, our view is that the ad is acceptable under the advertising rules. Please see below for further details about this decision.

Our rules
Advertising is considered to be misleading it is likely to deceive its audience in a way that might affect economic behaviour.

Our decision
We considered that the Facebook link that you provided would be interpreted as encouraging consumers to move away from fossil fuels towards greener sources of energy. We did not consider that the lack of information on the issues you raised in relation to the infrastructures would affect the consumers decision in this instance.

In addition you stated that not all energy from the grid In 2015, the ASA formally investigated a claim of this type made by another “green” electricity firm (the full ruling can be found here).

In that case, we determined that all the energy that firm contributed to the national grid derived from renewable sources, and that consumers would generally understand that the claim related to that aspect, rather than the electricity they directly received to their home.
As you pointed out we are already investigating the issues in relation to the Vegan claims and as such have added your comments to this ongoing investigation.

While we won’t take further action this time, we will keep a record of your complaint for reference in our future assessments. We will also take your complaint into account in our regular, proactive ‘intelligence gathering’ sweeps, where we analyse a range of information – including complaints made to us – to spot significant or emerging issues.
We hope this helps to explain our decision, and thank you again for contacting us."

Sarah Pumfrett says I've written back as follows

"Thank you for the update XXXXXX.

However, I understand that you are basing the dismissal of complaint on an assumption that this constitutes a “move away from fossil fuels towards greener sources of energy”.
My concern is that some “greener sources of energy” as you put it, are more harmful to the global environment than some fossil fuels and therefore your assumption on this point may be flawed thereby biasing your investigation into my complaint.

I’m basing my concern on the total carbon lifecycle of some renewable energy sources and the failure to accurately reflect their impact in the statements.

As specific examples, energy sources such as wind turbines have a massive environmental impact in relation to rare earth mining and concrete production as well as adverse and permanent impacts on the geology relating to their construction, and the construction of support infrastructure (examples not only include where they are sited on peat bogs, but also the impacts of transmission turbulence on soil compaction, and the effects on sediment plumes as viewed from space in relation to offshore turbines).

The widespread acceptance of “green means clean” is based on this false assumption and failure to disclose the true impact of renewable rather than sustainable energy generators and you seem unwilling to investigate the failure to accurately disclose these facts, when organisations are claiming to be “greener”; a claim I believe to be false and therefore the basis of my complaint.

Furthermore, there is an adverse impact on the traditional energy sources that are designed to run in steady state (such as gas turbines) and therefore the fluctuating production of technologies (let’s stick with the example of wind turbines) has a direct and adverse impact on environment by forcing these facilities to operate outside of their design specification thereby also increasing the maintenance (a significant element of pollution relates to overhaul, maintenance and part replacement) that is occurring more frequently as a direct consequence of these “green” technologies. I believe these impacts should also be recognised and recorded against the “green” claims as without them, these consequences would not exist.

Because these renewable energy sources are intermittent and unreliable generators, there is a requirement for full capacity backup, some of which is being provided by diesel generator bank farms which must also be periodically run to ensure availability and reliability in a crisis. These backups would not be required in the absence of the “green energy” and therefore also contribute negatively – in terms of duplication of infrastructure, pollution, maintenance etc and therefore also ought to be calculated in the “green” factor.

Finally there is the inability to recycle significant elements of the structures, including the blades, resulting in an impending decommissioning crisis for landfill. Couple this with evidence that the structural elements do not last as long as originally thought, and that they are massively polluting if they break up in situ during operation thereby spreading contamination across vast areas, including potentially outside of the boundaries of the source landowner, and again we see the absence of true information biasing the perception that these structures are less harmful than traditional energy sources. Furthermore, the fact that the concrete bases can neither be reused for future turbine structures nor removed, results in permanent damage to the hydrology and geology of the site and again, environmental harm is being ignored in the promotion of switching to this technology.

Encouraging people to switch to “clean green energy” is misleading if the impacts of switching are more harmful to the global environment than remaining with traditional energy generators. It is the equivalent of encouraging people to smoke whilst ignoring the carcinogenic effects of the tobacco!

I would therefore ask you to reconsider if your investigation has taken account of bias and assumptions, and looked at the scientific evidence to support the claims made by these companies, or if the ASA is falling into the trap of believing the industry propaganda by excluding significant elements of the calculations to provide a flawed impression of the actual position in determining that the adverts are not misleading. For years claims were made that there was no definitive link between smoking and human health... and yet the scientific facts have not changed but our perception has. Is ASA really not willing to look at whether the claims on which these companies are basing their marketing are complete, accurate and valid? That’s the perception that’s being given by the dismissal.

I look forward to hearing back from you in due course."

Despite ASA ruling that SmartEnergyGB are not allowed to say that smart meters are free
@Pcar logged this
Channel4 19:49 5 Nov 2018
"...Smartmeter.....At no extra cost"
Implies "free".

news today tells us something
#1 Adverts are not allowed to have a political campaigning message, even if non-party.
#2 Its @Clearcast who first apply laws , and ASA only deal with complaints after broadcast

Strange news story : Iceland says their Christmas advert made by Greenpeace and about the rainforest has been banned for being too political.

but ASA_UK tweeted a reply
\\ Simple answer: We had no role in this matter. We don’t pre-clear ads. Many thanks.//

Ah the org who refused the advert is @Clearcast
( Ad agencies, advertisers & broadcasters use us to conceptualise, develop and broadcast great adverts. Our core service is clearing ads for broadcast in the UK. )

Their statement : http://www.clearcast.co.uk/press/iceland-advert
“Clearcast and the broadcasters have to date been unable to clear an ad for Iceland because we are concerned that it doesn’t comply with the political rules of the BCAP code. The creative submitted to us is linked to another organisation who have not yet been able to demonstrate compliance in this area.”
next page
“The Communications Act 2003 prohibits political advertising. The term “political” is used in the Code in a wider sense than “party political”. The prohibition includes, for example, campaigning for the purposes of influencing legislation or executive action by local or national (including foreign) governments. “

Hmm interesting
I see on Twitter some call her a crank who sells diet books
.. whilst others defend her and say, vested interest drug companies are against her.
..but her points about the ASA seem well founded

Jan 2nd ASA Uphold a complaint against Good Energy' website.
... despite that GE haven't corrected their website.

\\ At Good Energy, we ensure that all the electricity we sell to customers each year is matched 100% with electricity sourced from renewables”.

Text underneath the heading “Greenhouse Gas Emissions and nuclear waste” stated “An average unit of electricity in the UK (a kilowatt hour or kWh) results in 360g of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions and 0.007g of radioactive waste. But the electricity we supply contains 0g of CO2 and no radioactive waste. This will never change”.

Issue
The complainant, who understood that Good Energy made use of biomass energy, which they understood produces more CO2 than coal when burnt, challenged whether the claim that the electricity supplied by Good Energy contained 0 g //

see https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2019/01/02/asa-uphold-complaint-against-good-energy

SmartMeterGB using its Twitter account for advertising
Their tweet shows the latest BBC XR story of protesting kids
\\ Smart meters can’t solve climate change on their own but with the smarter, more efficient energy grid they help to create, they’re a start.//
The photo* is a "think of the kids" emotional blackmail angle.

A tweeter said
"Isn't that a political message in your photo? Does that break ASA rules?"
.. He's right , Harra has made a news story which uses kids and political placards as its preview graphic
SmartEnergyGB have then, used that same graphic in their PR/advertising ..therefore it is political advertising.

Clearcast ad-selling agency previously refused to carry the Iceland palm oil advert
.. cos since it was based on Greenpeace material, it was political.
And they knew they could get in trouble with the ASA for it.

Clearcast ad-selling agency previously refused to carry the Iceland palm oil advert
.. cos since it was based on Greenpeace material, it was political.
And they knew they could get in trouble with the ASA for it.

=======
* blow me the tweet pic has magically changed
It's now the Natural History lie down protest with no placards.
The BBC must have stealth edited their page.

new screenshot
Wayback would show us the edit times for that photo change
I wonder if there was collusion.

Are you bored yet ?
..cos it gets more complex
..I tweeted screenshots

Indeed today May 5th the Tweet preview link has changed
however that was NOT due to the guy noticing and complaining on May4th
I was astonished to find that the BBC change was made on May 2nd between 9:01am & 11:46am
but seems Twitter doesn't fetch images directly it uses a cache
So when we looked on May 4th it was still using the POLITICAL placard kids graphic
as it did Thursday afternoon, Friday, Saturday

Today on Sunday May 5th Twitters cache had updated and it now uses the Natural History lie down protest
(which by the way was in Scotland , not London)

======================

There was another strange thing
Strange difference is, after they changed image over
later they re-edited the Twitter/Facebook link titles to be different to the page's
page title :
They dropped "by 2050"

Climate change: UK 'can cut emissions to nearly zero' by 2050 - BBC News
Twitter Link title :
UK 'can cut emissions to nearly zero'