Virgin Media next then...

"Furthermore, the watchdog considered that the claim 'truly unlimited',
in combination with the other claims in the ad, was contradicted by the
fair usage policy qualification in the small print and that the ad was
likely to mislead customers.

The ASA ruled that the Orange ads should not be repeated in their
current form, and told the company not to repeat the claim 'truly
unlimited' unless there were no restrictions on their service."

http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/news/21...ge-talk-claims

"Gonz" <T o p @ S e c r e t . c o m> wrote in message
news:luUKi.419$(E-Mail Removed)...
> "Furthermore, the watchdog considered that the claim 'truly unlimited', in
> combination with the other claims in the ad, was contradicted by the fair
> usage policy qualification in the small print and that the ad was likely
> to mislead customers.
>
> The ASA ruled that the Orange ads should not be repeated in their current
> form, and told the company not to repeat the claim 'truly unlimited'
> unless there were no restrictions on their service."
>
> http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/news/21...ge-talk-claims

Muppet by name?

"max" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:KlVKi.21699$(E-Mail Removed). uk...
>
> "Gonz" <T o p @ S e c r e t . c o m> wrote in message
> news:luUKi.419$(E-Mail Removed)...
>> "Furthermore, the watchdog considered that the claim 'truly
>> unlimited', in combination with the other claims in the ad, was
>> contradicted by the fair usage policy qualification in the small
>> print and that the ad was likely to mislead customers.
>>
>> The ASA ruled that the Orange ads should not be repeated in their
>> current form, and told the company not to repeat the claim 'truly
>> unlimited' unless there were no restrictions on their service."
>>
>> http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/news/21...ge-talk-claims
>
> Muppet by name?

And by nature.
What's your excuse?