Tuesday, 15 June 2010

Trafigura Advert: Calum Makes No Comment

Having published online an English translation of the Dutch Advertising Authority and posted key points I have decided to make no more comments.  I do make one additional point which I’m certain is nothing but a massive coincidence. 

I have referred to the decision of the Advertising Authority as the DACA report because that was the acronym used by Dr Busch.

The translated decision sent to me by Trafigura had the title,

“ENGLISH translation of FULL DACA [my emphasis]decision 03.06.10”

I have seen no-one else use “DACA”.

 

I got my file from Trafigura. 

Dr Busch couldn’t have received his from them too, could he? 

No!  That WOULD be too much of a coincidence.

2 comments:

  1. You really are as slimy a toad as the rest of the ecofreaks. The reason I used DACA is because that is their name. A simple Google would have told you that:
    Dutch Advertising Code - Procedure
    Dutch Advertising Code Authority. Address: Buitenveldertselaan 106, 1081 AB ...
    Advertising Code Authority. 1. Association of Dutch Advertisers (BvA) ...
    http://www.reclamecode.nl/bijlagen/dutch_advertising_code.pdf

    Because I looked it up myself I was able to work back to the original Dutch (which I read) and sent you the citation. It is a base accusation you make about me and you should be ashamed of yourself. Your ignorance does not cast suspicion on me.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Gary

    Had I known that DACA stood for "Dutch Advertising Code Authority" then a Google search would have shown the information you suggest but had I known what DACA stood for I wouldn't have needed to do a search.

    I searched Google for DACA and came up with a blank. A Google search for "DACA advertising netherlands" does not show the Dutch Advertising Code Authority in the top 100 hits. There was no reason to look beyond this.

    That only you, Trafigura and I had used DACA in relation to Trafigura / Greenpeace as far as I was aware; that you had meeting(s?) with Trafigura in 2006; that your line has been anti-green / pro-Trafigura (a line which you are perfectly entitled to hold), does raise the perfectly reasonable question, "Did you receive the report from Trafigura or was it a coincidence?

    That I said what I did does not cast suspicion on you. Why should it?

    However, I do accept that you did NOT receive the report from Trafigura and I apologise for the hurt caused.

    I am not ashamed of myself and your first sentence I will wear as a badge of honour.

    ReplyDelete