One of the posters used by Manchester Against Road Tolls (MART) shows a fat-cat style boss with the slogan "£5 a day won't even buy me a cigar. The Toll Tax: Keeps the roads free for the rich."
A second, showing a picture of a pouting blonde in a business suit bears the wording: "STOP MOANING. What's £5 a day. The Toll Tax: Keeps the roads free for the rich."
MART maintains both are fair, because it believes £5 would be a typical charge for a return trip to work if congestion charging is introduced, and it says there is a possibility that many people might in fact pay more.
The Advertising Standards Authority - the ad industry's watchdog - has upheld a complaint however, on the basis that it understands £5 is the current maximum daily charge proposed under the scheme and the posters don't make this clear.
And it says though it could be the average charge in practice, and could also be subject to price increases, it was not possible to determine this yet, because there are no supporting statistics.
Complaints about two other posters used by MART as part of its campaign to get plans for congestion charging scrapped, have been dismissed by the ASA which ruled they were not likely to be misleading.
One poster, showing a picture of an angry circus clown, has the slogan: "Just pay up and keep quiet. We know best. Tagged, Tracked and Taxed. The Toll Tax."
Another showing pictures of professional workers has the wording: "ON YER BIKE. Nurses, Firemen, Teachers. Manchester Motorists. Tagged. Tracked and Taxed."
The clown poster was criticised as misleading as the complainant said it implied that the proposed charge was to be introduced against the wishes of motorists and without their views taken into account, where in fact the complainant believed there had been extensive consultation.
The second poster was misleading it was alleged, because though cars might carry a tag which would register when they entered or left congestion zones, there would be no continuous monitoring of a vehicle's position, which was implied by MART.
Independent surveys
The ASA dismissed the complaint over the clown poster, saying it acknowledged that it was intended to make the point that there had been a number of local independent surveys with results indicating that a majority of the people polled in them, objected to the proposed congestion charge in Greater Manchester.
It noted that the Association of Greater Manchester Authorities had carried out public consultation exercises, including a survey of the general public which found 53 per cent in agreement with the principle of road pricing.
It ruled however that the `partisan nature' of the poster and its image was likely to be clear to viewers who were likely to understand the wording as an expression of MART's point of view on a matter of public controversy.
The ASA said the wording in the second poster referred to both the fact that vehicles would be tracked when leaving and entering the congestion zones, and to the proposed use of continuous satellite tracking of some vehicles as part of the scheme.
It said it noted that a `tag and beacon' system was proposed as the majority initial method of charging, and this was intended to involve the registration and tagging of vehicles and the recording of every passage through a charge point by a beacon.
It ruled: "Because we considered the term `tracked' indicated both that vehicles would be recorded at points where they entered and left the congestion charge zones as well as in some instances being continuously monitored by satellite, we concluded that the ads did not mislead."
Manchester Against Road Tolls maintains that motorists had never been specifically consulted about congestion charging and it believed a `very important voice' had been ignored.
It said AGMA surveyed just 5000 people from a population of 2.5 million across Greater Manchester, and it did not believe this was a large enough sample to be representative.
MART said all information of the toll scheme had consistently referred to inner and outer rings of the city at peak times. It said given the number of people who worked in the city centre and would be unable to change their working hours, £5 would be a typical charge for a return trip to work.
It said the exact boundary location of the proposed inner ring had not been revealed and nor had AGMA answered questions about proposals to expand the charging zones, which it understood to mean that many people might pay more than £5 to journey in and out at peak times.
What do you think? Have your say. Tweet
Comments
Login or Register to comment
Its about time someone put a stop to the trash that MART print in order to scare people into thinking they don't want the congestion charging.
We can make our mind up on our own thank you!
JohnB, Manchester
Congestion charging dosnt work. i have mates who drive through london daily,and theyve said it worked for a few months but its now as bad as ever? but now they have to pay to que in the traffic.All it does is raise money for the council to pay for even more cameras? a stupid idea. Why not ban heavy feight during daylight hours and allow trucks to deliver late at night.
Ace, I never said I agree with the congestion charging. In principal I don't. But its my right to make up my own mind about it without seeing constant attacks from MART on the project. They have been chucking out lies about it for months now and its about time someone knocked them off their high horse.
They are misleading. It could be MORE !
Here is the ASA ruling.
read it and make your own mind up.
www.asa.org.uk/asa/adjudications/Public/TF_ADJ_43972.htm
MART misleading? Well I never!
Read the whole ASA report in its proper context.
and not just what the MEN choose to print.
JohnB,
As 77% of journeys are undertaken by car - it would appear to my limited intellect that there would be a majority agin paying EXTRA for what is now free.
JOHNB we can't make our own mind up thats why agma is forcing it though, with weighted surveys and still no true consultation.
If we had a referendum THEN we could make our own mind up!
From the Evening News last year:
''PICCADILLY Gardens and its adjoining bus station have been named among Britain's worst air quality blackspots.
Readings have shown some of the highest concentrations of the sooty particles linked to asthma and other breathing problems.
The Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs measures PM10 particles, which are emitted by diesel engines, at 61 sites across the country - from city centres to rural locations.
Figures between January and April this year showed Piccadilly as the second-most polluted city centre site, and the seventh worst overall in the country''
Why would anyone want more of these disgusting things with their dangerous drivers?
JohnB
What about all the lies put out by the champions of the Con Charge? Tameside council published a newspaper with an article inin denying that a charging zone would be set up in Ashton, when it is clearly part of the plans (see the AGMA website and leaflet). As for being able to make your own mind up, this is precisely what MART wants you to be able to do - through a proper referendum. Check the Tameside website to see how many people are signing the petition so they can get their say, and make up their own mind!
I must admit piccadilly is badly polluted and i cannot go into manchester in the summer because of the pollutants (i have a lung problem) but congestion charging isnt the answer.All that the charge does is charge people to drive into manchester? but that dosnt help stop the pollution,We need to clean the busses and taxis which spew large amounts of particulates from their exhausts.And stop heavy freight being delivered during the day have it delivered late at night after midnight.
JohnB, I see your point but unfortunately MART are forced to play the council at their own game, if they were mild-mannered and less dramatic the dumb masses would simply see the pro-toll argument, with it's lack of clarity, dubious spin and political double-speak as being the stronger argument. Roger Jones is the master of this stuff. BTW, Kurt were you the complainant?
Of the 3 compliants.
the two big ones
MART belives a proper consulation has not been done.
And that Tracked, Tagged and taxed is their final aim.
MART won.
Well the local councils have been creating a traffic problem, by narrowing roads and introducing stupid bus lanes. Then when they introduce the toll con tax scam they can put the roads back to how they were, and claim it's a success. When is everyone going to wake up to the fact that it's all the fault of the labour party. They just want more of your money to give to the vast numbers of unemployed idle layabouts they have encouraged to sit about drinking cheap lager all day.
Why this obsession that it is 'motorists' only who need to be consulted?
No obsession.
just that Drivers who are going to be paying the charge.
and the business that use vans and trucks who are going to be paying the charge as well are totally ignored.
And I assume Graeme is Graeme Sheriff of CAN.
See you lost the two big complaints with ASA.
Also you have removed the press release on your site anouncing it was CAN who made the complaint.
Simon B
You say that consulation hasn't taken place and therefore you won? So why does the ruling say:
"However, we also noted the Association of Greater Manchester Authorities had carried out public consultation exercises with respect to the proposed charge, including a survey of the general public which found 53% in agreement with the principle of road pricing."?
You can't help yourselves can you? Always trying to mislead the public to get them to your point of view. Why not try stating the facts for once and letting others make up their minds?
I agree with the question as to why we would want more buses given the pollution. Before they do any of this, they ought to take a leaf out of Liverpool's book and fine bus drivers for leaving their engines running when they are on the stand or unnecessarily blocking bus stops. I'm sure the revenue from Picadilly Gardens alone would pay for enough improvements to render the Toll Tax unnecessary. Here's a link to the article in their local paper: icliverpool.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/0100regionalnews/tm_headline=bus-drivers-told-we-8217-ll-give-you-a-ticket%26method=full%26objectid=20465912%26siteid=50061-name_page.html
Enjoy!!
BlueSpeke
Read the whole report.
Misleading well I never!
And who used American actors to portray Mancunians going about their daily lives,
talk about double standards.
Get Roger Jones and his cohorts voted out in the elections, that will put a stop to his visit to the Palace for his gong.
The man is a legend in his own mind.
Can someone explain this to me, perhaps Mr. Jones.
If you drive an eco friendly car you will be exempt from the congestion charge, well surely the word congestion means too many. So how come, as the MEN showed on its motoring page a few weeks ago, you could drive a top of the range eco friendly 6 series BMW into the city and incur no charge. This car is the size of 2 family cars and is taking up twice the room on the road.
Me thinks the clever boys had better come up with a new name, perhaps Mr. Jones`s dopleganger Ken Livingstones fuel emmision charge.
Toll tax wording is not liked.
Remember, you anti-s: You can fool some of the people, some of the time... etc, etc.
For the record, which of you is the 'handsome' chap in the poster? Now he/you? definitely needs to give up cigars... !
Why this obsession that it is 'motorists' only who need to be consulted?
Graeme, Manchester
last time i checked wasn't it motorists that will be paying thr £2080 a YEAR to fund this whole farce?
As the ASA seem to think that because the low paid MIGHT get a 20% reduction - I reckon a poster saying that we might have to pay £25 a day like those in London would be "legal decent and HONEST!