Morning:
8°c
Campaign for third runway told not to repeat misleading advert
Nicholas Cecil, Deputy Political Editor26 Aug 2009
Campaigners for a third runway at Heathrow have been found to have misled the public over its impact on noise and pollution.
Future Heathrow has been ordered by the advertising watchdog not to repeat an ad which claimed "a third runway won't make Heathrow any noisier or dirtier".
The lobby group was also found to have made a second misleading statement in the advert when it claimed another runway "won't get the green light unless local air quality meets stringent EU standards on concentrations of nitrogen dioxide".
The findings will be seized on by opponents of a bigger Heathrow who have accused the Government of colluding with airport operator BAA over the expansion plans. They will also raise fresh questions over the impartiality of the Government's public consultation ahead of its decision this year to back a third runway.
BAA, which responded on behalf of Future Heathrow to the complaint by an MP to the Advertising Standards Authority, argued that the advert was justified given reassurances and safeguards on noise and pollution being demanded by the Government.
But the ASA rejected these claims and found the ad had breached its code on truthfulness, substantiation and environmental claims.
"We considered that the evidence we had seen was not sufficient to justify an absolute claim that noise and pollution would not increase.
"We concluded that the claim 'A third runway won't make Heathrow any noisier or dirtier' was likely to mislead."
Reader views (5)
Give it up lads, stop wasting time and go build your airport somewhere else.
- Rich, London, 28/08/2009 00:57
Report abuse
More of the silent treatment from our misleader I suspect know the truth is out and lies are exposed as just that by BAA and the lobby groups. It beggers belief that any politician could collude with such a thoroughly wicked approach to public health and safety - namely to lie, decieve and generally treat human beings with utter utter contempt
- Christian Ball, London, UK, 27/08/2009 10:53
Report abuse
"Misled" = telling fibs = lying.
- Austen, London, 26/08/2009 17:37
Report abuse
Bob, you forgot to include 'benefits in kind' in your list of ways that Mr Brown, Lord Mandeleson etc. are incorruptible.
- Jim, London, 26/08/2009 14:46
Report abuse
The government colluding with BAA? Never! Mr Brown and his minions are utterly uncorruptable, unless of course it involves money, in which case it all starts to head South.
- Bob, Cheam, 26/08/2009 11:27
Report abuse
