Ben Pile

I pointed out the very obvious lie that the @guardian were telling to flog their rag to the @ASA_UK. But they weren't interested.

.@ASA_UK: "we did not take your complaint further because we considered that the Advertising Code had not been breached. While we noted your concerns, we did not think that most readers would interpret the claim in the way you suggest."

.@ASA_UK: "When assessing the complaint, we considered the ownership model adopted by Guardian Media Group, including independence of financial and editorial interests alongside reader contributions, would be seen by most people to be consistent with the claim made in the ad."

In other words, what the @ASA_UK meant to say was "we read the Guardian, and we love them, so we're not going to take any action against their clear breach of the rules."

The last words from the @ASA_UK were: "We regret we are unable to correspond further in this matter". So, porkie-pies are fine and dandy... The ASA, says so.

Just as the @ASA_UK is not going to hold the @Guardian to account, The Guardian is definitely not going to hold the powerful to account. Because if it did, it would sink. It would exhaust its bank account. The Guardian works FOR billionaires.