Stick to facts plea on C-charge

Exclusive David Ottewell

November 25, 2008

| Submit Comments | Comments (175) | Previous | Next

DROPPED: A scene from the TV ad

CONTROVERSY over two campaign adverts is threatening to overshadow the start of Greater Manchester's crunch congestion charge referendum.

Granada has pulled a £230,000, prime-time ad about the scheme after complaints about alleged bias.

It was due to be shown during X Factor on Saturday but was pulled after broadcasting watchdog Ofcom launched an investigation into its contents.

It is understood Ofcom acted after complaints questioning the impartiality of the advert which was aired earlier this month - featuring former BBC presenter Martin Henfield.

Granada declined to comment. Ofcom say the results of their investigation will be published `in due course'.

Baffled

A spokeswoman for the bid said she was `baffled and confused' by the decision, pointing out the ad had been cleared by Clearcast, the independent body appointed by ITV1.

The ad was paid for through a grant from the Department for Transport. The M.E.N. understands the GMPTE is yet to try to claim the money back.

Meanwhile a firm has been expelled from the anti-charge Greater Manchester Momentum Group (GMMG) after posting on the internet a film depicting a young girl apparently being assaulted because her father is unable to pay the charge.

The movie, shot as a spoof of hit American drama 24, was billed `repugnant' and `beyond belief' by critics.

Shot at the Trafford Centre, the film shows a young girl ringing her dad after being followed by a menacing figure in a hood.

He refuses to come to pick her up, claiming he `can't afford' the charge, and instead urges her to make for the motorway, outside the proposed charging zone.

Screaming

The footage ends with the sound of the girl screaming as the screen fades to black with the message `Stop this madness! Vote no'.

The company that posted it on YouTube, Manchester-based Sonassi Media, was immediately expelled from the anti-charge GMMG when the film came to light.

A spokeswoman for GMMG said: "We had no knowledge this film was being made and find it deplorable. Sonassi were expelled immediately."

Lis Phelan, chairman of the `yes' campaign, said: "For members of the `no' campaign to use images of violence against women to promote their campaign is beyond belief."

Dave Carlson, director of operations at Sonassi, said the video was entirely the work of himself and a friend operating under the banner 'Free Manchester' and was intended to be humorous.

The rows have sparked fears the postal referendum - billed as the most important decision facing the region in decades - could descend into political mud-slinging.

One source warned: "This has to be a serious debate on the basis of facts."

The region's 10 councils are bidding for more than £2.75bn from the government's Transport Innovation Fund, including £318m to set up the peak-hour, weekday charge. £1.2bn would be in the form of a loan, paid back over 30 years out of profits from the charge.

Watch the Congestion charge debate live from 6pm tonight on Channel M, at Sky 203 or Virgin 878.

For more on this story see:

Robert Ridley: C-charge is highway robbery

Maria McGeoghan: Time to get off road to traffic hell

Will Hutton: Use your vote wisely

You need Flash player 8+ and JavaScript enabled to view this video.

460

275

false

| Submit Comments | Comments (175) | Previous | Next

Showing comments 1 to 25 and replies | View All

MancunianTiger, Radcliffe (25/11/2008 at 07:32)

How anyone can stoop to such depths to try and derail a campaign is beyond me. This will have damaged the reputation of the No campaign for sure. As a daily Metrolink user who rarely gets a seat and has to experience regular "sardine specials" I am in favour and will be voting yes but up to now I thought that the debate has been balanced and fair and somewhat entertaining. It is a democracy and both sides are entitled to state their case but this advert on youtube was below the belt and i hope no campaigners are just as outraged at the attempt to use the theme of rape. Oh, and I don't agree with the involvement of the BNP either.

Gricer, Wigan (25/11/2008 at 07:34)

Will Richard Leese and Liz Phelan be using the 'Improved Public Transport' if the vote is 'Yes' - I very much doubt it

Barney Gumball (25/11/2008 at 07:47)

At least Dick Turpin wore a mask and was upfront about robbing you! VOTE NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Sir Pentest 2, Newton Nr. Hyde. (25/11/2008 at 08:10)

At last someone has seen through the biased propoganda, being put foward via advertising campaigns by the pro lobby ...and at who's expense too, us the local tax payers.
A £230,000 Bill which should be footed, not by the tax payers, but by those who wish to put their yes views foward.
Maybe the vote can go foward on a level playing field now that ofcom has stepped in.
The only sensible vote is a great big astounding 'NO' stop this Con charge, stealth tax in its tracks.

Tameside Blue, Tameside (25/11/2008 at 08:11)

Sounds a bit hard hitting and definately a minority incident however, it is possible that this example could come true.

Nevertheless, still vote NO because this will be the first of many taxes here and there.

Let the 'Privatised' transport companies pay for improvements to the transport system after all, it was them that wanted the licences in the first place to make MONEY

dessie, manchester (25/11/2008 at 08:16)

if we vote yes, then we will have the burden of a huge debt in manchester and surrounding areas for years to come, and what happens if most motorists decide to take public transport??
who actually foots the bill if we cant pay it back?? answer the council tax, which will esculate. so all in all no one is a winner simply because everyone will be paying, a couple of extra carriages on the trams aint gonna make your journey comfortable if the motorists decide to leave their cars at home cos they are the ones filling them up. if you vote yes and it goes wrong just remember you had the chance to say no!!!

Polky (25/11/2008 at 08:27)

But there ARE no facts... just proposals.

VOTE NO

Gramsci (25/11/2008 at 08:31)

Well it's official then, the NO campaign can't sink any lower than this. If you care in any way about the future of our City then you will join the businesses, pensioners, environmentalists, students and trades unionists who are voting YES. Or you could join the muppets who made this film, and the BNP, and the terminally narrow-minded, in voting no.

Viewer of Life, Stockport (25/11/2008 at 08:42)

MancunianTiger, Radcliffe
I have a number of problems here, you write “I thought that the debate has been balanced and fair” - not true. The NO campaign, do not have a central lead, just disparate voices. The Yes group are lead by the councils. If this were an election each group would be given equal airtime.

The more I think about this, the more I am against the proposals. One of the most taxed groups in society (car users - £44 billion/year) are going to pay for another group to travel.
Your comment “As a daily Metrolink user who rarely gets a seat and has to experience regular "sardine specials" I am in favour”. How about my perspective; as a car user who rarely drives in Manchester I think you should pay the full costs of your chosen transport method.

Tidders, Rochdale (25/11/2008 at 08:43)

the only thing the introduction of this rip off charge will do is to bring the M60 to a standstill. At the moment there are two main areas where traffic has to queue on the M60 - Stockport and Eccles interchange. Stockport is due to the inherited number of junctions in the area coupled with the imposed 50 mph section while eccles is due to the confluence of several motorways joining together. If this charge is introduced it will force more people onto the 'free' motorway to avoid entering charging zones and all that will happen is these areas plus others will suddenly grind to a halt - great an anti congestion policy that causes the ring road to be jammed !!!!

Polky (25/11/2008 at 08:44)

"Or you could join the muppets who made this film, and the BNP, and the terminally narrow-minded, in voting no. "

Name calling is the last resort of the desperate.

The YES campaign create an advert full of lies and half truths which is banned, and yet somehow they try and turn the tables against the majority NO campaign.

The problem is that these facts you talk about are subject to change AFTER the vote, so voting NO HAS to be the way to go.

Mad Welsh Scotsman, Cadishead (25/11/2008 at 08:45)

"A spokeswoman for the bid said she was `baffled and confused' by the decision"

Just like we are regarding the 'promises'

I'm waiting for my ballot paper so I can vote a big no

johnnyboy, Ashton-u-Lyne, Lancashire (25/11/2008 at 08:51)

VOTE NO democracy in action preventing propaganda no matter how subtle!

shayla (25/11/2008 at 08:52)

Yes, I do agree we should be sticking to the facts when we vote NO. But there aren't any FACTS available, they are asking us to vote on proposals, which they can change later. They won't promise that what we agree to now won't change!

As for the add, I can see why people found it offensive, but to be fair, there will be people who will tell you to make it to the ring and we'll meet you there. Who will pay to enter? You'll be dropped off and told to make your own way.

This would put people at risk and cause problems around the ring as people will be sat there waiting to collect or drop off.

VOTE NO NO NO NO NO NO

Jay B, oldham (25/11/2008 at 08:56)

i thought it was a little biased towards the pro's.

it showed the oldham and denton lines as part of the TIF expansion which it is not.

and it also worded to sound as if we voted no we got nothing.

it didnt say anything about still receiving standard funding which every other borough and city except for london still gets.

it could have told us other facts but it didnt.

another waste of our money!

and yes it was the tax payers money in this instance.

as for the adverts! pro's have not actually given any information in their propoganda that we really need to know. just drips and drabs.

like the latest on i've seen.

"i cant afford to be late for meetings anymore"

set off earlier then! everyone else does i say!

theres no evidence that the pulic transport improvements will actually speed up you travel on public transport!

it'll just expand capacity on the trains and trams.

irvtheswerv (25/11/2008 at 08:59)

Hmm well the facts are I go to work in Manchester, earn money and pay tax on it. The government takes this money and wastes it. As a result the government wants more money from me. They will get this by introducing a drive to work in Manchester tax. This is a tax on movement, not even Stalin managed that degree of control over its population.

*Gibbo* (25/11/2008 at 09:02)

At tne end of the day it won't be down to us anyway.....doesn't matter what we vote they are still going to go ahead with it. Then we sit back and watch them waste millions of pounds trying to improve transport, which they should do anyway regardless of this charge, completely messing it up and in the end it will all have been a waste of time as the roads / transport will still be rubbish and we will be out of pocket AGAIN !!!!!!!

Mark,Radcliffe. (25/11/2008 at 09:05)

Lis Phelan's comments on using images of violence against women to promote their campaign is beyond belief...Does she feel the same way about Barnardo's, who showed scenes of violence towards a teenage female in an ad shown on ITV last night during I'm a Celebrity...All such scenes are repugnant and should be equally condemned.

Albert J Beancounter, At Home (25/11/2008 at 09:14)

Headline:
"Stick to facts plea on C-charge"

Quote from story:
"The region's 10 councils are bidding for more than £2.75bn from the government's Transport Innovation Fund"

FACT: Government grant £1.441 billion. AGMA Loan £1.151 Total TIF monies: £1.592bn

So Mr MEN where are you getting your "more than £2.75bn " from?

Facts are in very short supply for vested interests on both side - but there again only one side knows all the TRUE facts - but they will not let anyone else see Chapter 10 of the TIF bid.

Chris Green, Chorlton-cum-Hardy (25/11/2008 at 09:14)

A minor player within GMMG has been expelled because they have produced a distasteful video. Whereas, GMPTE and the Yes campaign are “confused” that Ofcom has stopped the broadcast of their advert and no one is to be expelled or punished in anyway for wasting taxpayers’ money. It seems that GMMG is being responsible but GMPTE arrogantly thinks that they can say and do as they please.

Why should the taxpayer finance GMPTE’s and the Yes campaign’s propaganda when we could have the money in a tax cut or to fund vital services?

Vote NO and put an end to it!

AlexisV (25/11/2008 at 09:34)

"Lis Phelan, chairman of the `yes' campaign, said: "For members of the `no' campaign to use images of violence against women to promote their campaign is beyond belief."

And posters of a child wearing an oxygen mask is????

Harry H, Just say NO ( to the CON charge) (25/11/2008 at 09:39)

Deb (25/11/2008 at 09:41)

Gramsci
I am voting no - this despite the fact that I am not, and never have been, a member of the muppets, am certainly not a member of the BNP and am not terminally narrow-minded.

I have done public transport for many years and have been groped, jossled, verbally abused; put up with luggage and umbrellas being rammed into my shins, ribs and other bodily parts.

I work in City Centre Manchester for a salary that only just (JUST) keeps the mortgage men from pounding down my front door and will, therefore, be one of the "10%" who will have to pay ~£25 a week for the priviledge of doing nothing more than continuing to live! I'm nothing special, do not earn megabucks and cannot believe that this will not impact 90% of the Mancunian population.

All I want is to be able to go about my normal, everyday life - in the manner chosen by me, that gives me peace of mind that I'm going to arrive at my destination in the same condition I started the journey.

It is people like you that think they can dictate and enthrust their opinions on freethinking people.

Miss S (25/11/2008 at 09:53)

Lis Phelan, chairman of the `yes' campaign, said: "For members of the `no' campaign to use images of violence against women to promote their campaign is beyond belief."

Other than to cause a stir I'm not sure why Lis said this, it had been made clear that this was nothing to do with the 'official' No Campaign.

For the record the No Campaign has no associate with the BNP at all, that is just another line the Yes people are using to try and discredit the No's. Has anyone else noticed that all the Yes people ever do and what their campaign seems to be based around is to just try and undermine the No people. The No people only ever release stories based on fact and don't get involved with the childish tittle tattle.

Laura Norder, Didsbury (25/11/2008 at 10:05)

""A spokeswoman for the bid said she was `baffled and confused' by the decision"

Just like we are regarding the 'promises'
I'm waiting for my ballot paper so I can vote a big no" - Mad Welsh Scotsman, Cadishead

It could be in six-foot high type and it would still only count as one (lonely) vote...

Vote 'YES' for progress!

()

Report

News