ASA Watch

A banner ad, which appeared to a guest member on the dating site www.gaydar.co.uk, featured various images of naked men engaged in sexual acts. One showed a man with an erection. Text stated BAITBUS.COM and STRAIGHT GUYS TRICKED INTO GAY SEX .

A complainant challenged whether the ad was offensive and unsuitable for a dating website.

BangBros.com.Inc, trading as Bait Bus (Bait Bus), stated that the website www.gaydar.co.uk was an adult dating site on which gay men and couples sought to find sexual partners. They pointed out that the site allowed members to post explicit photos on their profiles, while noting that the most explicit of these could only be seen by those who had paid a subscription fee. They said the profiles on the site also included space for members to list their preferred sexual positions and whether or not they had been circumcised, and there was a mobile phone dating application which allowed members to find nearby men interested in meeting up while they were travelling. They submitted a number of screenshots of the site and the mobile phone application. Bait Bus considered that the ad was more than appropriate for display on the website, given the adult content available on the rest of the site. They stated that, although they did not agree that the ad was unsuitable for the medium, they had since removed it from the Gaydar website.

QSoft Consulting Ltd, trading as Gaydar (Gaydar), pointed out that the ad would only have been shown to registered users of the site, who according to their terms and conditions would have to be aged 18 or over. They questioned whether, in that context, the ad was offensive or simply distasteful in nature. They explained that non-paying, guest members were not shown XXX rated content within user profiles, but that all members would see the same banner advertising. They said they had a set of creative specifications to which advertising on the site should adhere. Owing to the volume of advertising they ran, ads which did not meet those specifications were occasionally accepted in error, but when a user brought such a case to their attention they would remove it from the site. Their specifications precluded images of erections or penetration. Gaydar said they had now taken down the ad for Bait Bus because it did not conform to their specifications, but stressed that those specifications were designed to ensure that advertising met with their users' tastes and did not mean that the ad was indecent.

ASA Decision: Complaint Upheld

The ASA noted that the ad contained overtly sexual content. We therefore considered that it required very careful targeting to avoid causing offence to those who viewed it. We acknowledged that the ad was only shown to registered users of the website, and that the website contained content of an adult nature. However, we noted that the site offered both free guest and payable member account types to its users, and that those with guest accounts were not able to see explicit photos or videos, rated by the site as XXX , on other users' profiles unless they upgraded to a full, paying, membership. We understood that the ad had appeared to both types of user on the Gaydar website. We also noted that advertising on the site would not generally display images of the nature seen in the ad, because of Gaydar's internal policies.

Although we accepted that the site made provision for user profiles to contain information of an adult nature, we understood that the general user experience of a guest member of the site would not include exposure to images of the explicit nature shown in the ad. We also considered that the text STRAIGHT GUYS TRICKED INTO GAY SEX , because it implied non-consensual behaviour, carried threatening and violent undertones and for that reason would be likely to cause serious offence.

We viewed the images in the ad as being sufficiently explicit to be likely to cause serious offence, and we understood that they did not appear against an established context of similar content on the site for guest users. Because of that, and because we considered the text to be also likely to offend, we concluded that the ad was likely to cause serious offence to some guest users and that it had been inappropriately targeted to appear to guest members of Gaydar. We welcomed the assurances from both Bait Bus and Gaydar that the ad had been removed.

The ad breached CAP Code rules 1.3 (Social responsibility) and 4.1 (Harm and offence).

A promotion on studentmoneysaver.com's Facebook page, featured an image of a woman wearing knickers and a vest pouring beer from a bottle into her mouth so that it spilled down her body. She was surrounded by several crates of branded beer. Text alongside stated We're giving away 20 crates of beer to one of our lucky fans ... Anna Watts not included! SHARE this photo to enter! (Ends midnight Sunday) .

A complainant challenged whether:

1. the promotion linked alcohol to seduction, sexual activity or sexual success;

2. the image was likely to cause serious or widespread offence to women;

3. the promotion showed alcohol being handled irresponsibly;

4. the promotion encouraged excessive drinking; and

5. the promotion made alcohol available to under 18-year-olds.

Student Money Saver Ltd (SMS) said they had not intended to cause offence or breach advertising standards. They noted that out of 1.7 million people who had viewed the ad, only one had complained about it. They said that although they could not accept the points raised by the complainant, they would be paying close attention to the Code in future to reduce the risk of further complaints about their advertising.

Facebook said the ad violated their guidelines and policies. They had removed it and age-gated the page so that it could only be accessed to over 18s. They said advertisers were responsible for ensuring compliance with the advertising code.

ASA Assessment

1. Upheld

The ASA noted that the woman in the promotion was wearing a white vest rolled up to expose her mid-riff and knickers. She was seen pouring beer into her mouth seductively so that it spilled over and ran down her body, soaking her vest. We considered that her body language was provocative and sexually suggestive. We also noted that text in the ad stated Anna Watts not included! which we considered was a tongue-in-cheek reference to the idea that Ms Watts was available sexually. For these reasons, we concluded that the promotion linked alcohol to seduction and sexual success.

On this point, the promotion breached CAP Code rule 18.5 (Alcohol).

2. Not upheld

We noted that the promotion featured on SMS's Facebook page and was likely to be seen by women and men who were university students. We noted that the accompanying text Anna Watts not included! was a tongue-in-cheek reference to her not being part of the prize and considered that although Ms Watts was wearing only a vest and knickers, she was not dressed indecently. We understood that 385 comments were made about the promotion and only one was negative. We also understood that 1,629 Facebook users had liked the promotion. We considered that although the image was likely to be considered tasteless by some Facebook users, it was unlikely to cause serious or widespread offence.

On this point, we investigated the promotion under CAP Code rule 4.1 (Harm and offence) but did not find it in breach.

3. Upheld

We noted SMS's comment about the size of the bottle of beer but we disagreed. We considered that it was a large bottle of Stella Artois and we noted that the woman was pouring the beer into her mouth continuously so that it spilled down over her chin, rather than drinking it from the bottle in the usual manner. We noted that the bottle was part-empty and that she had already consumed about a third of the bottle. The woman was surrounded by approximately 20 boxes of beer and we considered that her casual and careless style of drinking, with the implication that there was plenty more alcohol to drink, portrayed a style of drinking that was unwise and showed alcohol being handled irresponsibly.

On this point, the promotion breached CAP Code rules 8.5 (Sales promotions), 18.1 and 18.11 (Alcohol).

4. Upheld

We considered that the way in which the woman was drinking the beer, together with the crates surrounding her, gave the impression that there was plenty more alcohol to drink and that the image alone encouraged excessive drinking. We noted the promotion stated We're giving away 20 crates of beer to one of our lucky fans and there was no suggestion that the prize could be shared with others at a social gathering. We therefore considered that the text added to this impression and concluded that the promotion condoned and encouraged excessive consumption of alcohol.

On this point, the promotion breached CAP Code rules 8.5 (Sales promotions), 18.1 and 18.10 (Alcohol).

5. Not upheld

We understood that SMS's Facebook page could be accessed by Facebook users of any age and although most visitors to the page were university students, it did not necessarily follow that all university students were aged 18 or over or that younger people could not access the page. We understood that SMS had not intended to award the prize to anyone under 18 and they had taken steps to ensure the winner was over 18 by e-mailing them and checking their Facebook profile. They provided copies of their e-mail correspondence with the winner and the winner's date of birth as displayed on their Facebook page, which indicated that they were 23 years of age. We concluded that because SMS had taken steps to verify the winner's age and had determined they were over 18, the promotion had not made alcohol available to under-18s. However, we welcomed SMS's assurance that if they were ever to run a similar promotion in future, they would make clear that it was only open to over 18s.

On this point, we investigated the promotion under CAP Code rule 8.4 (Sales promotion) but did not find it in breach.

Two TV ads for the cinema release of Oliver Stone's film Savages :

• a. The first ad showed a variety of scenes from the film punctuated with black screens with on-screen text stating the names of the director and cast. The baseline and chorus from the Eminem and Nate Dogg song Till I Collapse played in the background. The scenes included: armed men in balaclavas breaking down a door; Blake Lively blindfolded and being forcibly led by a group of men, Taylor Kitsch saying aggressively to another man you took our girl ; Blake Lively being punched in the face while men in balaclavas looked on; a masked man running with a raised rifle; a car exploding; Taylor Kitsch punching a man in the face; Aaron Taylor-Johnson with his hands behind his head as if at gunpoint; a close-up of a revolver being loaded; a man running towards another and attacking him; and a shot of John Travolta walking with a raised pistol. In the following three disjointed scenes Benicio Del Toro was shown wielding a gun then shooting it at the floor before a man was shown dragging himself on the floor as if screaming in pain. The last scene showed Blake Lively firing a gun before large on-screen text, on a black background stated SAVAGES .
   

• b. The second ad featured the same music and many of the same scenes as in ad (a). In addition to those scenes, it began with a female voice-over saying, It started with three people in love ... . The scenes showed a car arriving at a large house; Blake Lively hugging and kissing Taylor Kitsch and then, in a separate scene, kissing Aaron Taylor-Johnson. The voice-over then said, ... then things just got out of control . Aaron Taylor-Johnson was shown saying We want out of the dope business . It also showed a close-up of a pistol being fired at a floor and a man dragging himself along a floor, audibly screaming in pain. The following scenes showed a helicopter in flight, Benicio Del Toro firing a pistol and two shots of a masked man with a raised rifle. The following scene showed a close-up of a woman's lips saying stop and the music and action scenes stopped. Salma Hayek said, There's something wrong with your love story baby and Taylor Kitsch was then shown looking angry before firing a gun. Large on-screen text, on a black background stated SAVAGES . Issue

The complainant, who had seen the ads before 8pm, challenged whether they were suitable for broadcast at a time when children would be watching.

Clearcast said they felt that a post-7.30pm restriction was necessary to avoid children viewing the ads and which would also ensure that they would not be broadcast around programmes watched by young children. They believed that, whilst the ads did show interpersonal and aggressive behaviour shots, they were brief and did not linger. They did not believe that the scenes were graphic or long enough to justify a post-9pm restriction.

ASA Assessment: Complaint Upheld

The ASA noted that the ads were for a crime thriller and that the cinematic release of the film itself had been passed by the BBFC with a 15 certificate [after BBFC advised cuts]

Both ads featured a number of scenes from the film in quick succession and almost all of the scenes in ad (a) and the majority of the scenes in ad (b) featured physical violence or the suggestion of it. When combined with the strong hip hop song, we considered that the ads conveyed a menacing and aggressive tone. We were particularly concerned that, in one scene, Blake Lively was shown being punched in the face while seemingly unable to defend herself and, in another scene, a man was shown, again defenceless, screaming and dragging himself across the floor apparently having been shot.

Although the ads had been given a post-7.30pm restriction by Clearcast, we considered that the general tone of the ads and those scenes in particular were still likely to cause distress to some younger viewers watching after that time. We considered that the ads should have been given a post-9pm timing restriction to keep them away from times when younger children would be watching. Because they had not been we concluded that the ads breached the Code.

The ads breached BCAP Code rules 4.1 (Harm and offence) and 32.3 (Scheduling). Action

The ads must not be broadcast again before 9pm.

A video ad for the horror film Rec: Genesis played before a teaser video for the film Man of Steel on a film news website. The Rec: Genesis ad showed brief clips from the film, including a man pushing an industrial hand blender into a male zombie's mouth and a woman cutting into a female zombie's head with a chainsaw. Voice-over stated, On September 3rd bring home the action-laced, gore-lovin' horror. Rec: Genesis on DVD and Blu-ray September 3rd. Issue

A complainant challenged whether the ad was:

1. irresponsible, harmful and offensive, because it was excessively violent and gory; and

2. unsuitable for a medium where it might be seen by children.

Entertainment One (eOne) responded that the ad was for an 18-rated horror film and contained clips from that film. They acknowledged that some of the scenes were of a gory nature. However, they did not agree that the ad was excessively violent or gory and stated that the target market would not have been offended or upset by its contents.

eOne submitted with their response a data extract showing the demographic for the website's audience. That information demonstrated that 99% of people who used the website were aged 18 or over, and that almost 60% were men. They therefore considered that the film had been appropriately targeted, and said they had not felt it was necessary to place any age restrictions on the ad, because it was highly unlikely it would be viewed by a child.

Empire Magazine responded that the ad had been placed on their site as part of a network agreement with a third-party company which sold some of their advertising. They said they had never had to censor film trailers in the past, but having reviewed this ad, agreed that it was not suitable for the website. They stated that as a result of this complaint they had implemented new procedures whereby trailers for 18-rated films now had to be submitted for editorial review to ensure that similar ads did not appear on the site.

ASA Assessment: Complaints Upheld

1. Upheld

The ASA recognised that the ad contained scenes of a violent and gory nature. Although the scenario depicted, whereby zombies had attacked the earth, was removed from reality, the style and setting of the ad was nevertheless realistic and we considered that that amplified the violent nature of the acts shown. We noted in particular that during the scene with the hand blender the camera focused on the character's face and bulging eyes as he was being attacked, and that the final scene showed a chainsaw cutting through the centre of another character's head. We considered that the ad showed particularly graphic violence and, because of that, was likely to cause fear and distress and serious offence to some who viewed it. We therefore concluded that it breached the Code.

On that point, the ad breached CAP Code rules 1.3 (Responsible advertising) and 4.1 and 4.2 (Harm and offence).

2. Upheld

We acknowledged that in placing the ad eOne had attempted to target a market of 18- to 34-year-olds in a horror and sci-fi environment, and that the statistics provided showed that most users of the Empire Magazine website were adults. However, we noted that the ad had appeared before a trailer for the upcoming Superman film Man of Steel . We considered that information about that film would appeal to family audiences and as such it was likely to generate interest from younger readers. We also understood that the ad had not been preceded by a warning as to its content, which could have given parents an opportunity to make an informed decision as to whether to show their child the Superman trailer.

We considered that the ad contained a level of violence which would not be suitable for viewing by under-18s, but that no mechanism had been put in place to ensure that it was not shown to them. We further considered that the placement of the ad before a trailer for a Superman film made it particularly likely to attract a younger audience. We therefore concluded that the ad had been inappropriately shown in a medium where it might be seen by children. We welcomed eOne's assurance that they would not use the ad again, and the steps taken by Empire Magazine to ensure that trailers for 18-rated films would in future be more closely scrutinised before publication.

On that point, the ad breached CAP Code rule 4.2 (Harm and offence).

A press ad for American Apparel appeared on the back cover of Vice Magazine and pictured a girl sitting on an office chair wearing a jumper, knickers and knee-length socks. She was posed with her legs up on the chair and her knickers were visible.

Two complainants, who believed the ad appeared to sexualise a child, objected that the ad was offensive and irresponsible.

American Apparel did not believe the ad was offensive or irresponsible. They said the model featured was over 18 years of age and was shown wearing products that were meant for adult consumers. They said they placed the ad in Vice magazine, which was a publication written for adults. They said the model wore clothes which were available for sale in their stores and online, in this case underwear and a sweater.

Vice Magazine did not believe the ad was offensive or irresponsible. They said the ad featured a woman wearing socks, underwear and a top and there was nothing to suggest anything overtly sexual or inappropriate was being portrayed. They also pointed out it contained no nudity. They believed that in the wider context of fashion and underwear advertising the image was tame and tasteful. They did not believe the average person would find the image offensive. They did not believe the model appeared to be underage. American Apparel had since confirmed to them that the model was over 18 years of age.

ASA Assessment: Complaint Upheld

The ASA considered that the model pictured appeared to be young and potentially under the age of 16. Whilst we acknowledged the image did not contain any explicit nudity, we considered that the amateur style of the photo, the posing of the model with her legs up on an office style chair with her knickers showing and the unsmiling expression on the model's face meant the photo would be interpreted as having sexual undertones and a voyeuristic quality. We concluded the ad inappropriately sexualised a model who appeared to be a child and was therefore irresponsible.

We had not seen demographic data for Vice Magazine but understood it was intended for an adult audience. However, we concluded that because it appeared to sexualise a child the ad was likely to cause serious or widespread offence in a magazine that was untargeted and freely available.

The ad breached CAP Code rules 1.3 (Social responsibility) and 4.1 (Harm and offence).

Update: The Age of PC Extremism

15th December 2012. See  article from  nydailynews.com

The New York Daily News kindly reports that the model featuring in the ASA censured American Apparel advert was in fact 23 years old when the photo was taken.

It is interesting to note that although the ASA surely were aware of this fact, it would have been one of the first things that would have been asked, yet they decided not to include this pertinent figure in the censorship justification. No doubt it would have made claim that she looked under 16 appear somewhat foolish.

An American Apparel representative said in a statement:

It's unfortunate that the ASA has made this ruling as our models are of age and were featured in VICE magazine, a publication clearly intended for mature, fashion forward audiences.

We'll abide by this ruling as we have in the past with similar ASA decisions, but American Apparel will not be altering our classic advertising aesthetic which is internationally recognized for its artistic and social values.

Chris Smith, the ASA chairman, the Guardian columnist and ex-Times editor Simon Jenkins and Lord Phillips, the former president of the supreme court, have been appointed as the special advisers who will help set up a new press regulator.

The trio have been asked by Press Complaints Commission chairman Lord Hunt to assist him establish an independent appointments process which will satisfy critics who have said appointments to the PCC has been too biased in favour of powerful newspaper figures.

The shape of the new regulator to replace the PCC has yet to be decided but Hunt said he did not want to waste time waiting for the government to decide whether establishing the new watchdog would require legislation.

Hunt said a group representing 120 newspaper and magazine editors would meet next Thursday to discuss a way forward. At this meeting he wants to present a draft contract which would bind all publishers to the decisions made by the new watchdog, including possible fines of up to £ 1m for breaches of its revised code of practice.

Hunt also announced that members of the public will be asked to make suggestions for a revised code of practice for journalists. The public will have until 17 February to make suggestions for changes to the current code, which covers issues ranging from privacy and accuracy to guidelines on the use of subterfuge in the public interest. They can write to ianbeales@mac.com or the Editor's Code Committee, PO Box 234, Stonehouse GL10 3UF.

A blog entry titled RASPBERRY HEAT WAVE stated Colour blocking is the hot clothing trend of 2011. Everyone from Chezza to Nicole Scherzinger to Leona Lewis are getting their bright colour game on. As a very brightly coloured bunch, we're bang into it too! We've been seing [sic] loads of pink, which we LOVE - as it's totally an homage to our new Sourz Raspberry flavour ;) Pink is not just for girls either ... lads have been getting in on the trend too with raspberry skinny jeans, shirts, belts and ties. Don't believe us? Check out this lot, who were more than happy to strike a pose and show off their latest colours on Threadz . Images showed male and female models in various outfits, with each photo including glasses of brightly coloured pink (and in one case green) drink. Issue

Alcohol Concern, on behalf of the Youth Alcohol Advertising Council (YAAC), challenged whether:

1. the models shown were under 25 years of age, because they believed some of them appeared to be under 18 years of age; and
2. the references to celebrities and the use of an emoticon winking smiley face were likely to appeal to people under 18.

Maxxium UK Ltd provided photographic ID for each of the models, including their dates of birth and their ages. They said the five models were aged 29, 27, 26, 25 and 25 at the time of the launch, but acknowledged that one of the models was just short of her 25th birthday at the time of the shoot.

2. They said the Sourz blog was hosted on a website which could only be accessed once a date of birth was provided and which stopped anyone under the age of 18 from legally seeing any content on the website, including the blog. They considered that all the website content appealed to and was exclusively consumed by people of a legal drinking age and if anyone under the age of 18 attempted to access the site they were re-directed to drinkaware.co.uk in line with their commitment to responsible marketing of alcohol.

They referred to Yahoo Survey research, which found that respondents from the ages of 19 to 25 were the most avid emoticon users, with 68% in this age group using emoticons on a daily basis, but that it was not just the younger generation who embraced emoticons, with nearly half (48%) of respondents over the age of 50 using emoticons in their everyday communication.

ASA Assessment: Complaints Upheld

1. Upheld

We noted that the Code required that marketing communications for alcoholic drinks should not show people who were, or appeared to be, under 25 years of age in a significant role. Although we noted that the models were all over 25 when the shoot was published, we nonetheless considered that some of the models in the fashion shot, namely the girl featured in the pink dress and turquoise cardigan and the girl in the hat, would be considered to be some years under the age of 25 by many consumers, and could be seen by some consumers as being under 18. Although the models were not featured drinking, we noted that the shoot appeared to have taken place in a bar and that Sourz drinks appeared in some of the images. We also understood that one theme of the shoot was homage to our new Sourz Raspberry flavour .

Because we considered that two of the models, who featured prominently in the images, were likely to be seen by consumers as under 25, we concluded the ad breached the Code.

On that point, the ad breached CAP Code rules 1.3 (Responsible advertising) and 18.16 (Alcohol).

2. Upheld

We noted that the blog used informal, colloquial language, including the use of a winking emoticon, and considered that that tone and approach were youth-orientated and likely to appeal to young people. We also noted that one aspect of the fashion shoot was to promote brightly coloured, fun fashion, which the ad claimed was likely to be worn by celebrities like Cheryl Cole, Nicole Scherzinger and Leona Lewis, and we considered that the ad associated that fashion style with the alcoholic Sourz drink. We noted that the celebrities mentioned were pop singers, associated with the X-Factor, who were popular with under 18s. We also considered that the models looked very young, with some models appearing to be around 18 years old, and, in light of that, considered that the fashion shoot would appeal to young people, rather than an older readership.

Because of the colloquial language, young-looking models and the references to X-Factor celebrities in the ad, we considered that it would have particular appeal to young people and concluded, in an ad promoting an alcoholic drink, that that approach was irresponsible and in breach of the Code.

On that point, the ad breached CAP Code rules 1.3 (Responsible advertising) and 18.14 (Alcohol).

A TV ad for an online holiday website, kayak.co.uk, featured an operating theatre where a surgeon was conducting brain surgery. The surgeon said, Let's see what we got here and began to operate on the patient's brain.

The patient had a laptop on his lap and as the surgeon poked around the patient's brain, he lifted his hands and began to type on the laptop. A nurse then said to the surgeon, This is completely unethical to which he replied, My hours are unethical; I don't have time to sit around searching tonnes of travel sites looking for flights and hotels. The nurse replied, Just use Kayak. It compares hundreds of travel sites in seconds and the surgeon replied sarcastically, Well, I guess you're the brains of this operation . The surgeon then moved the patient's arms as if he were punching the nurse; he then lifted the patient's arm and high-fived him. A voice-over stated, Go to Kayak.co.uk and you could save up to 20% on your next flight. Kayak. Search one and done.

The ASA received 441 complaints.

1. A number of complainants challenged whether the theme of the ad was offensive.
2. Some complainants, which included people who either themselves or had family members who were about to undergo or had undergone brain surgery and people who had lost family members to brain tumours and other neurological conditions, challenged whether the ad was distressing and deeply upsetting.
3. Twenty-five complainants, who were concerned that the ad could be distressing to children, challenged whether it was appropriate for broadcast during the day when children might be watching.
4. Sixteen complainants challenged whether the ad was offensive because it was insulting to surgeons and the medical profession in general.

Kayak said they chose humour in their ads for a number of reasons and acknowledged that humour could offend at times. They said they tested their advertising for clarity, entertainment value and acceptability but they did not see any abnormal research findings for the ad.

Kayak believed the ad was so obviously a parody that it was not offensive. It portrayed a situation that was completely absurd in an attempt to make a point about the misguided lengths to find travel deals when, instead, they could have contacted Kayak.

Clearcast agreed with Kayak's comments. They felt the ad was a very obvious parody and was much too far removed from real life to cause widespread offence. They said the ad was not intended to portray a real life event and that instead, it portrayed a completely absurd and exaggerated situation. For those reasons, they did not apply a timing restriction.

ASA Assessment

1. Not Upheld

The ASA noted the ad depicted the surgeon's desperation at having insufficient time to search for his holiday and that he was prepared to behave in an unethical manner to find his holiday, which both he and the nurse appeared to acknowledge was inappropriate. We understood that some viewers may have found the depiction of an operation unpleasant and the idea of a surgeon manipulating a patient in that way distasteful. However, we considered that most viewers were likely to understand that it was a farcical situation which was not intended to reflect or depict real life. We therefore concluded that the ad was unlikely to cause widespread offence.

On this point, we investigated the ad under BCAP Code rule 4.2 (Harm and Offence) but did not find it in breach.

2. Upheld

Although the ad was an unrealistic portrayal of what happened during an operation, we considered that for those viewers who had either personally experienced brain surgery, had family members who had undergone or were about to undergo that type of surgery the theme was likely to provoke a strong reaction.

The surgeon appeared to be taking advantage of a patient's immobility, while undergoing a serious major operation, by using him to search for a holiday. We considered the ad's treatment of a serious and delicate medical procedure could be seen as flippant, and as such, the theme of the ad was likely to be difficult to watch for those viewers who had been affected by brain surgery in some way. Although we understood the ad was intended to be a humorous depiction of someone pressed for time searching for a holiday, we noted a number of complainants had found it distressing and some had found it sickening and deeply offensive because of their personal experience. We considered the ad's flippant treatment of a serious and recognisably real situation was likely to cause distress and serious offence to those viewers who had been affected by the type of operation depicted in the ad. We considered the ad was likely to cause distress without justifiable reason and serious offence to some viewers and therefore concluded it breached the Code.

On this point, the ad breached BCAP Code rules 4.2 and 4.10 (Harm and Offence).

3. Not Upheld

Clearcast did not apply a scheduling restriction which meant the ad could be shown at any time, including children's programmes; some complainants reported seeing the ad during the children's programme, Peppa Pig . We considered, however, that younger children were unlikely to understand the scenario or that the surgeon was using a helpless patient to search the internet for cheap holidays. While the scene where the surgeon inserted the probes into the patient's brain was found unpleasant by some older viewers, we considered that it was unlikely to cause distress to younger children. We also considered that while it was possible that older children might understand the intended comic effect of the scenario, they were unlikely to interpret the ad as being a realistic scenario of what happened during a surgical operation. We therefore concluded that the ad was unlikely to cause harm to those children who saw the ad and was not inappropriately scheduled.

On this point, we investigated the ad under BCAP Code rules 4.1 (Harm and Offence), 5.1 (Children) and 32.3 (Scheduling) but did not find it in breach.

4. Not Upheld

We noted the viewers' concerns that the scenario was insulting to surgeons and the medical profession generally. However, the nurse told the surgeon that his behaviour, was unethical, which the surgeon appeared to acknowledge. We considered viewers would understand the comic intention and that it was not a realistic portrayal of an operation and was unlikely to damage the reputation of doctors or the medical profession.

On this point, we investigated the ad under BCAP Code rule 4.2 (Harm and Offence) but did not find it in breach.

The Stockings & Hosiery section of the website www.americanapparel.co.uk showed images of the products for sale and included images of models wearing the tights or stockings.

• a. The first showed a black and white photograph of a woman and her mirror image. She was lying on her back with her legs raised in the air, wearing shoes and patterned tights but nothing else. One of her breasts was visible.
• b. The second showed several small photographs of women wearing tights but nothing else. One woman had her back to the camera and was bending over, touching her toes and looking back at the camera.
• c. The third showed three identical photographs of a woman sitting on a window sill sideways to the camera wearing stockings and a long, flowered shirt.
• d. The fourth showed three different photographs of a woman in pink tights and a blue top standing sideways to the camera.
• e. The fifth showed five women wearing bras and different coloured tights lying on their stomachs but looking back towards the camera.
• f. The sixth showed three pairs of women's legs raised in the air wearing different coloured stockings.
• g. The seventh showed a woman lying on her stomach, sideways to the camera but turning her face towards it, wearing black, cut-out tights with the bottom exposed.
• h. The eighth showed a woman on her hands and one knee, with her other leg raised in the air, sideways to the camera but turning her face towards it, wearing tights, shoes and a top.
• i. The ninth showed a black and white photograph of a woman wearing sheer black tights and a top. She was sitting with her bottom facing the camera.
• j. The tenth showed a woman on her hands and one knee, with her other leg raised in the air, sideways to the camera but turning her face towards it, wearing pink, footless, high denier tights and a bra.
• k. The eleventh showed five pairs of women's legs wearing different coloured, high denier tights.
• l. The twelfth showed the lower halves of four women wearing patterned or coloured tights. Three were sideways to the camera and one faced the camera.
• m. The thirteenth showed a black and white photograph of two women wearing black, patterned tights but nothing else. One stood with her back to the camera and one stood sideways to the camera, but both had turned their heads to face the camera. One woman covered her breast with her hand.
• n. The fourteenth showed a photograph of a woman lying on her stomach on a bed with her face turned towards the camera. She was wearing white stockings, knickers and a bra and was cuddling a pillow.
• o. The fifteenth showed the lower halves of four women wearing coloured, high denier tights. Three were sideways to the camera and were bending over.
• p. The sixteenth showed a black and white photograph of a woman wearing high denier tights but nothing else, bending forwards with her back to the camera.
• q. The seventeenth showed a photograph of a woman wearing patterned tights and a flesh-coloured top. She was sitting on the floor, facing the camera and doing the splits.
• r. The eighteenth showed a photograph of a woman wearing white tights but nothing else, curled up on a sofa, facing the camera. One of her breasts was visible.
• s. The nineteenth showed a photograph of a woman lying on her side with her back to the camera, wearing coloured, high denier tights.
• t. The twentieth showed a photograph taken from above of a woman lying on her side, wearing coloured, high denier tights.
• u. The twenty-first showed a black and white photograph of the lower halves of nine women standing close together wearing tights. Two stood facing the camera; the others stood sideways to the camera.
• v. The twenty-second showed a black and white photograph of two women with their backs to the camera wearing black, cut-out tights with the bottoms exposed. Both women had turned their heads to face the camera.
• w. The twenty-third showed three photographs of a woman lying on her back on a sofa with her legs raised in the air. She was wearing coloured, high denier tights and a top.

A complainant, who had wanted to look at the website with her 12-year-old daughter, objected that the images were unnecessarily sexual and inappropriate for a website that could be seen by children.

American Apparel (UK) (American Apparel) believed it was standard practice to market hosiery, intimates or lingerie in the way done on their website. They supplied links to other retailers' websites which they considered portrayed similar products in similar ways. They said children could access any website; that their website sold a variety of products in addition to hosiery and lingerie and that hosiery and lingerie were labelled as such.

ASA Assessment: Upheld in relation to ads (p), (r) and (v).

The ASA considered that ads (c), (d), (e), (f), (h), (j), (k), (l), (o), (s), (t), (u) and (w) showed women in poses that were natural or artistic but which did not appear to be overtly sexual or otherwise inappropriate in hosiery ads on a website that could be seen by children. Because of that, we concluded that those ads were not in breach of the CAP Code.

Although no nudity was visible, we considered the pose of the woman in ad (p) was sexually suggestive and gratuitous in an ad for hosiery. Because of that, we concluded that the image was inappropriate in a hosiery ad on a website that could be seen by children.

We saw that one of the woman's breasts in ad (r) was visible and considered her pose was submissive and sexually suggestive. Although we considered it was reasonable for ads for hosiery to feature women in limited amounts of clothing, we considered that the image, together with her pose and the appearance of a breast in an ad for hosiery, was gratuitous. Because of that, we concluded that the image was inappropriate in a hosiery ad on a website that could be seen by children.

Although no nudity was visible, we considered the poses of the women in ad (v) were flirtatious and sexually suggestive; that the poses emphasised their bottoms and that they were gratuitous in an ad for hosiery. Because of that, we concluded that the image was inappropriate in a hosiery ad on a website that could be seen by children.

Ads (p), (r) and (v) breached CAP Code rules 1.3 (Responsible advertising) and 4.1 (Harm and offence).

We investigated ads (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g), (h), (i), (j), (k), (l), (m), (n), (o), (q), (s), (t), (u) and (w) under CAP Code rules 1.3 (Responsible advertising) and 4.1 (Harm and offence) but did not find them in breach. Action

An advert for Playboy featuring modest but sexily clad women was banned after it appeared on the side of a lorry parked outside a hotel popular with the elderly in a seaside town.

The van which spotted parked in Ilfracombe, Devon featured pictures of women in seductive poses to advertise Playboy TV Chat.

Playboy was deemed to have overstepped the mark by the advert censor, which claimed the advert to sexually provocative and irresponsible and banned it from appearing in public.

The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) said it had received one complaint about the van, which suggested the images were overtly sexual and unsuitable for public display.

Stuart Cox, owner of the Osborne Hotel where the lorry was parked, said:

 We didn't have any problem with it, no-one moaned about it. Our guests were all quite intrigued by it, it was quite funny.

I received a lot of text messages asking if there was a Playboy party at our place and I didn't know what they were referring to until I went outside and saw the lorry.

The girls were scantily clad but you couldn't actually see anything. There's worse stuff you can see.

In its assessment, the ASA claimed:

The ads had the potential to be seen by a large number of people, including children, who were likely to find images of scantily clad women in overtly sexual and provocative poses offensive.

They were likely to cause serious and widespread offence and were irresponsible.

We concluded that the ads were unsuitable for outdoor display and must not appear again in outdoor advertising.

Two posters promoting the film Total Recall:

• a. A poster, seen on an outdoor billboard, featured two women dressed in bikinis and standing on a yacht. One woman was looking away from the camera with her arms above her head, the other was looking at the camera. Text at the top of the ad stated: TELL US YOUR FANTASY. WE'LL MAKE IT REAL* . Text at the bottom of the ad stated: REKALL WelcomeToRekall.co.uk Follow @WelcomeToReKall *Side effects may include sleeplessness, headaches, memory loss, paranoia, delusions, schizophrenia, and possible death .

• b. A similar poster appeared in a tube carriage. The ad featured a cropped version of the same image of the two women with the heading TELL US YOUR DREAM. WE'LL MAKE IT REAL* . The same supplementary text as the billboard ad appeared at the bottom of the ad. Issue

1. The complainants challenged whether the ads were offensive, because they were sexist to women and portrayed them as merely sex objects; and

2. One of the complainants also challenged whether ad (b) was irresponsible because it was unsuitable for display in an untargeted medium where it could be seen by children.

ASA Assessment: Complaints Not Upheld

1. Not upheld

The ASA considered that most viewers would not be aware that the ads referenced the film Total Recall and would not understand what REKALL was. We noted however that in both ads the Sony Pictures and Columbia Pictures logos appeared, and although we considered that individuals might not recognise those logos, we acknowledged that the text Side effects may include sleeplessness, headaches, memory loss, paranoia, delusions, schizophrenia, and possible death meant that most consumers would understand that the content was fictitious.

We understood that the same image of the women was used in both ads, but that in the ad which appeared in a tube carriage, the image was cropped so the women's legs were not shown in full. We noted that, although in both ads the women's poses accentuated their hips and their faces showed seductive expressions, we nevertheless considered that the image was only mildly sexual and the text Tell us your fantasy/dream. We'll make it real would be understood to refer to living a fantasy lifestyle of someone rich, attractive and with a yacht and therefore did not present the women as sexual objects.

Because we did not consider that the women in the ads were portrayed as sex objects, we concluded that the ads were unlikely to cause widespread offence as a result, even though they were in an untargeted medium.

On that point, we investigated the ads under CAP Code rule 4.1 (Harm and offence), but did find them in breach.

2. Not upheld

We noted the complainant's concerns that ad (b), displayed in a tube carriage, could be seen by children. We considered that children would not understand the reference to REKALL and might not be aware that the ad was promoting a film. We noted that CBS had sought Copy Advice from CAP prior to circulating the ad, and, as a result, had amended it to state Tell us your dream rather than Tell us your fantasy because that was judged to be less sexually suggestive.

We considered that the phrase Tell us your dream. We'll make it real , when read in conjunction with the image of the two women, would be understood to refer to living a fantasy lifestyle of someone rich with a yacht rather than that they were sexually available. Because we considered the ad was only mildly sexual in nature we considered that it was not unsuitable to appear in an untargeted medium likely to be seen by children, and concluded that it was not irresponsible.

On that point, we investigated ad (b) under CAP Code  rule 1.3 (Responsible advertising), but did not find it in breach.

An e-mail for a clothing retailer stated Social Effin' Sunday ... We're celebrating a large London-based sporting event (any idea?) with a bonza London collection - get into the spirit of things! Fifty shades of Urban (Oooo, Vicar!) ... Well spank me with a paddle, we're feeling colourful! It may be Sunday, but we're all about colourful clothes, colourful language and downright dirty jokes (sorry Gran) ... ***king facts ... The first known use of the F-word can be found in a poem from 1503: 'Yit be his feiris he wald haue fukkit' ... Dirty joke of the week ... A doctor wanted to write a prescription so reached into his pocket and pulled out a thermometer. 'Damn', he said, 'some asshole has my pen' .

A complainant challenged whether the swearing and sexual innuendo was offensive.

Urban Outfitters said they were a trendy, fashionable clothing line with a street style attitude and that their core demographic was young adults and specifically students. They provided a number of press articles to that effect. They said their intention was to produce a funny, light-hearted ad to attract young shoppers and reflect their trendy nature. They said FIFTY SHADES OF URBAN was a play on the title of a popular book (Fifty Shades of Grey) that would register with their audience and would likely carry a degree of sexual innuendo, even for those who had not read the book. They said the phrases ooo vicar , spank me with a paddle and Effin' Sunday must be seen as a tongue-in-cheek reference to the book which were not in themselves offensive and consisted of words heard in common use, including Effin' , which was a non-offensive way of expressing a swear word.

They said customers must proactively sign up to their mailing list either in store or online. Customers did not have to provide a date of birth when doing so, but they believed those that signed up were likely to be within their core demographic.

ASA Assessment: Complaint Not upheld

The ASA considered that the sexual innuendo created by the phrases ooo, vicar and Well spank me with a paddle was mild and that, although it might be considered distasteful by some recipients, it was unlikely to cause offence.

We considered that Effin' , ***king and fukkit , were obvious derivatives of the swear word fuck and that their intended meaning was clear. Furthermore, we noted that the punch line of the joke stated 'some asshole has my pen' . We considered that those references had the potential to cause offence.

We had not seen any data regarding Urban Outfitters' mailing list but we noted that several press articles reinforced their argument that their core demographic was students and young adults and we noted that their website, which was one of the means of signing up to the mailing list, clearly targeted a young adult audience. Although we considered that consumers generally would not expect to receive material that included expletives by virtue of signing up to a clothing retailer's mailing list, we considered that the e-mail was unlikely to seriously offend recipients or to cause widespread offence amongst them.

We investigated the ad under CAP Code rule 4.1 (Harm and offence), but did not find it in breach.

An ad seen on YouTube, promoting the Toyota GT86, appeared during a third-party video. The ad was set in an animated virtual world in which a male character described not being real and how he had no feeling, until he drove the GT86. The car was shown being driven at speed, being followed by a police helicopter and being chased through narrow virtual streets. The car was then shown escaping the city and following signs to the end of the world . The car burst through a glass barrier onto a real road.

Two complainants challenged whether the ad was irresponsible and condoned dangerous driving.

ASA Assessment: Complaints Upheld

The ASA understood that Toyota had designed the ad to emphasise the unique driving experience of the car rather than the speeds it could achieve. We noted their belief that the central character was always shown to be in total control of the car and did not engage in any dangerous driving. Similarly, we understood that Toyota believed the ad showed the authorities attempting to prevent the character from having an authentic driving experience rather than preventing him from driving in a dangerous way. We considered, however, that a number of scenes depicted the character driving at speed and in a reckless manner, as shown by the reactions of bystanders as he drove past them, and the car chase scenes as the driver dodged, swerved and overtook various other drivers and obstacles.

We understood that because the ad was highly stylised and set in a fantasy environment, Toyota believed that the driving scenes featured were impossible to emulate. Whilst we appreciated that in the world where the ad was set, cars could drive themselves, objects could miraculously appear or disappear and certain everyday objects were contraband, we considered that the roads, public spaces and the car featured in the ad were recognisable as such and were not significantly different from those in the real world. We therefore considered that the driving featured, and in particular the speeds shown, could be emulated on real roads.

We also considered that the highly stylised nature of the ad glamorised the reckless manner in which the car was driven. Because we considered the ad portrayed speed, and the way the car could be handled in a manner that might encourage motorists to drive irresponsibly, we concluded that the ad was irresponsible and condoned dangerous driving.

The ad breached CAP Code rules 1.3 (Social responsibility), 19.1, 19.2 and 19.3 (Motoring).

An ad for Playboy TV, in paid-for space on the side, back and cab of a lorry consisted of various images of women.

• a. The image on the side of the lorry stated RE-TUNE YOUR FREEVIEW BOX TO GET US! and pictured the top halves of four women with their cleavages showing. One was dressed as a policewoman, another as a Playboy bunny, one held her finger between her clenched teeth, and the fourth smiled at the viewer.

• b. The image on the back of the lorry stated RE-TUNE YOUR FREEVIEW BOX TO GET US! next to a picture of woman dressed in stockings, high heel shoes and latex bodice, leaning backwards against a chair with her head back and eyes closed, and one leg raised and bent backwards.

• c. The image on the side of the cab showed the back of a woman, her face turned towards the camera, and touching her exposed bottom cheek.

• d. On the front of the cab, a woman was shown apparently kneeling, with her bottom pushed up, and head resting on her leaning arm. Issue

A complainant challenged whether the images were overtly sexual and therefore unsuitable for display on a lorry.

ASA Assessment: Complaint Upheld

The ASA acknowledged that although the images on the lorry were comparable to similar ads found in some newspapers and magazines, we nonetheless disagreed with Playboy's assertion that they were not sexually provocative.

We noted the woman wearing a police uniform in image (a) showed a significant amount of cleavage, which was pushed up to accentuate her breasts and made more noticeable by the police neckerchief draped between them. The woman next to her, dressed in a bunny girl costume, was leaning backwards, which also drew attention to her cleavage. One woman was provocatively holding her finger between her clenched teeth. All four women were looking directly at the viewer and, by their facial expressions and poses, implied sexual availability, which was compounded by the text underneath the image which stated RE-TUNE YOUR FREEVIEW BOX TO GET US! .

The woman in image (b) on the back of the lorry was holding a sexual pose, leaning backwards against a chair, her breasts pushed out, one leg raised and bent backwards, her eyes closed and wearing clothing often associated with sexually charged encounters. Although image (c) was partly obscured by both text and the lorry's fixtures, the woman could still clearly be seen touching her exposed bottom cheek, her head thrown back and suggestively pouting.

Image (d), while less obviously provocative than the other images, nonetheless showed the woman apparently kneeling, with her bottom pushed up. We considered that the poses held by all the women, seductively looking directly at the viewer, were sexually provocative.

The ads were in an untargeted, mobile medium and therefore had the potential to be seen by a large number of people who were likely to find the images of scantily clad women in overtly sexual and provocative poses, offensive. We considered that, because the pictures were overtly sexual and could be seen by anyone including children they were likely to cause serious and widespread offence and were irresponsible. We concluded that the ads were unsuitable for outdoor display and therefore breached the Code.

The ads breached CAP Code rules 1.3 (Social responsibility) and 4.1 (Harm and offence).

The 24 inch Monitors page of www.aria.co.uk, which offered PC monitors for sale, featured images of 20 PC monitors. Eighteen of the images included a woman wearing underwear on the monitor screen.

A complainant challenged whether the images were offensive, because they believed them to be sexist and degrading.

ASA Assessment: Complaint Upheld

The ASA noted the ad included images of women in their underwear and that two of the images showed women wearing only knickers and concealing their breasts with their arm and a pillow respectively. We therefore considered the images were likely to be seen as sexually provocative and had the effect of making those women appear sexually available. We also considered many of the models had sultry expressions on their faces and were shown in provocative positions, such as being laid on their backs with their arms outstretched or crawling towards the camera.

We considered sexually provocative images of women bore no relation to the products being advertised and that the ad therefore objectified the women by portraying them as sexual objects. We considered that because the ad objectified women it was also sexist and degrading. On that basis, we concluded that the ad was likely to cause serious or widespread offence.

The ad breached CAP Code rules 1.3 (Compliance) and 4.1 (Harm and offence).

A website, two outdoor ads, a banner ad on Spotify and an audio ad on Spotify:

• a. The website, www.eurolines.co.uk, featured an image of a woman wearing a can-can costume lifting her skirt and kicking one leg in the air. A red box, positioned over her crotch stated SEE WHAT YOU'RE MISSING IN EUROPE . Next to the image, it stated London to Brussels, Amsterdam or Paris FROM £ 9* ONE-WAY .
   
• b. An outdoor ad, displayed on trains, showed the top half of a woman wearing a can-can costume lifting her skirt and kicking one leg in the air. Text next to the image stated SEE WHAT YOU'RE MISSING IN EUROPE. From just £ 9* one-way . Text underneath the image stated Your number 1 coach operator for Europe... .
   
• c. An outdoor ad, displayed in the toilets of a family-friendly pub, showed an image of a woman wearing a can-can costume, lifting her skirt and kicking one leg in the air. A box containing a mobile phone quick response code (QR Code) was positioned over her crotch. Text underneath the image stated SEE WHAT YOU'RE MISSING IN EUROPE. London to Paris, Amsterdam or Brussels from just £ 8 one way .
   
• d. A banner ad on Spotify showed the same image as in ad (a).
   
• e. The audio ad featured a male character recounting a trip to Amsterdam, with a number of words censored by bleeps. The character said, So anyway, me and the boys got a Eurolines coach to Amsterdam for just ?9.00, and went straight to the [bleep] district. My girlfriend wasn't there, so I could buy a [bleep] without her knowing. After hours of window shopping, I finally went with a cute pair of Dutch [bleep]. They were a bit pricey, but well worth it. A male voice-over then stated, To hear the ad in full and see what you're missing in Europe, click the banner and discover low cost coach travel to hundreds of destinations, when you book online at least four days in advance. Eurolines - see what you're missing in Europe. Issue

Thirteen complainants objected to the ads:

1. five complainants objected that ad (a) made implied references to sex and prostitution and that it was offensive and degrading to women;
2. seven complainants objected that ad (b) made implied references to sex and prostitution and that it was offensive and degrading to women;
3. two complainants challenged whether ad (b) was irresponsibly placed, because they believed it was unsuitable for an untargeted medium where it could be seen by children;
4. one complainant challenged whether ad (c) was offensive and degrading to women;
5. one complainant challenged whether ad (c) and was irresponsibly placed because they believed it was unsuitable for an untargeted medium where it could be seen by children;
6. one complainant objected that ad (d) was offensive and degrading to women; and
7. one complainant objected that ad (e) was overtly sexual and that the reference to visiting a prostitute was offensive.

ASA Assessment

1. & 6. Upheld

Whilst we considered that the image of a French can-can dancer featured in ads (a) and (d) was likely to be a well-known cultural reference, the use of the box of text which stated SEE WHAT YOU'RE MISSING IN EUROPE and which was placed over the woman's crotch, implied that she was naked underneath. We considered the images of the woman were unlikely to be seen as an implied reference to prostitution, but the use of the visual and verbal pun in the ads about the potential seeing her genital area nevertheless was likely to be understood to present the woman as a sexual object. We concluded that, in the context of marketing for European travel, the image was likely to cause offence.

On these points ads (a) and (d) breached CAP Code rule 4.1 (Harm and offence).

4. & 5. Upheld

We considered that the use of the QR Code placed directly over the can-can dancer's crotch, alongside the text underneath which stated See what you're missing in Europe would be likely to be understood to be about the potential for seeing her genital area. We considered that this was exacerbated by the fact that users were encouraged to scan her genital area with a smart phone which had a QR Code app. We concluded that, in the context of marketing for European travel, the image was likely to cause offence and was not suitable for public display.

On these points ad (c) breached CAP Code rules 3.1 (Social responsibility) and 4.1 (Harm and offence).

2. & 3. Not upheld

Whilst ad (b) featured the same text and a similar image of the can-can dancer to ad (a), it did not use the visual pun of the box of text being placed over her crotch and did not draw any attention to the genital area. We considered that it was only mildly sexual and, as a well-known cultural reference, was unlikely to cause serious or widespread offence and was acceptable for an untargeted medium.

7. Not upheld

We noted audio ad (e) contained a script about visiting Amsterdam and that certain key words had been bleeped out in such a way that some consumers would understand the ad to be making implied sexual references because of the association with Amsterdam's red light district. Although we acknowledged that some consumers might find that implied sexual content distasteful, we considered that most would view it as light-hearted and that it was unlikely to cause serious or widespread offence.

An ad in Match Fishing magazine, headed BROKEN YOUR POLE? , included an image of a woman, seen from behind, wearing only a bra and thong. Her hands were placed on her buttocks, and half of a broken pole was superimposed into each hand. Text underneath the image stated DON'T DESPAIR WE CAN REPAIR! Crushed or broken sections, split or worn joints, full pole refurbishment. All repairs using high-grade carbon cloth and fully guaranteed .

A complainant challenged whether:

1. the ad was offensive, because it was overtly sexual and demeaning to women, particularly those who were interested in angling, and because it bore no relationship to the service advertised; and

2. the ad was irresponsible, because it was inappropriately placed in a magazine that might be read by children.

Esselle Pole Repairs (Esselle) said they had been placing the ad in four different magazines since 2006 without objection from the magazines or members of the public.

The publisher of the magazine, David Hall Publishing (DHP), said the ad had been appearing in two of their angling magazines since 2006.

ASA Assessment Complaint Upheld

1. Upheld

The ASA noted the ad featured an image of an almost-naked woman, and that, although the image was not sexually explicit, it had sexual connotations. We noted the image bore no real relevance to the advertised services, and considered it was likely to be seen to degrade and demean women by linking pole-dancing to fishing-pole repairs. We concluded the ad was likely to cause serious offence to some people.

On this point, the ad breached CAP Code rule 4.1 (Harm and offence).

2. Upheld

We noted the complainant had purchased the magazine for her young daughter, who was involved in a junior angling club. We considered it likely that children would represent only a small proportion of the readership of the magazine but nonetheless considered that the ad was not suitable to be published in a magazine where it could be viewed by children. We concluded the ad was irresponsible.

On this point, the ad breached CAP Code rule 1.3 (Responsible advertising).

A Harvey Nichols sale advert raised a few eyebrows in June 2012 over its concept that people are wetting themselves with excitement over anticipation of the sale.

A few people wrote a few uninteresting tweets to criticise the campaign, and it was enough for telegraph to report the 'outrage'.

The ASA have now considered whinges probably generated after the press coverage:

A direct mailing, an e-mail, three national and regional press ads, a magazine ad and a page on website www.harveynichols.com featured different well-dressed women and a man each with a wet stain on their clothing in their groin area. Text stated THE HARVEY NICHOLS SALE. TRY TO CONTAIN YOUR EXCITEMENT .

The ASA received 105 complaints.

1. Ninety-four complainants believed the ads were offensive, because they implied that the people featured in the ads had wet themselves with excitement.

2. Twenty-nine complainants believed the ads would cause distress and serious offence to people with bladder problems.

1. Harvey Nichols said it had not been their intention to cause offence. They believed the Harvey Nichols sale was an exciting time for many people and they had attempted to capture that excitement in a light-hearted and humorous way by a visual representation of the well-known phrase I was so excited, I nearly wet myself! . They researched the use of the phrase in popular culture and were satisfied that it was commonplace and invariably used in a playful, inoffensive manner and was therefore in keeping with the tongue-in-check spirit in which the campaign was intended to be taken.

The Scotsman newspaper said, although they took the view that the ad was distasteful, they did not believe it was offensive. They explained that when they saw that other newspapers were using a cropped version of the ad without the wet stain they used that version instead. They said they received six complaints from their readers.

The London Evening Standard said, although they considered the ad was reasonably light-hearted, before publication they sought a second opinion from the newspaper's editor who gave them permission to run the ad. They received one complaint from a reader and contacted Harvey Nichols, who provided the newspaper with a cropped version of the ad.

Assessment: Complaints not upheld

The ASA acknowledged that the concept of wetting oneself with excitement was well known and often used in the media and in speech in a light-hearted manner, but noted that images of someone wetting themselves with excitement were nonetheless unusual. We acknowledged that some people were likely to find the ads, and images in particular, in poor taste and welcomed the actions taken by The Scotsman and London Evening Standard to amend the ads after they received reader complaints.

We noted the language used, TRY TO CONTAIN YOUR EXCITEMENT , was not offensive and whilst the images made clear what was intended by this choice of language, we nevertheless considered the images and the ads, although likely to be seen as unsubtle and tasteless by many members of the general public, were unlikely to cause them serious or widespread offence.

We noted Harvey Nichols' argument that some of the complainants were assuming offence on behalf of others, but also noted that some of them were people who themselves had bladder conditions. We understood that around 14 million people in the UK had bladder problems and involuntary urination was likely to be a particularly sensitive issue for many. Nonetheless, we considered the ads would not be seen as making light of people with urinary problems and therefore, even to those who suffered from such problems, were likely to be seen as unsubtle and tasteless but were unlikely to cause them serious offence.

We investigated the ads under CAP Code rules 4.1 and 4.2 (Harm and offence), but did not find them in breach of the Code.

A cinema ad, for Britvic Club Orange drink, opened with a woman walking across an orange grove carrying a bottle of orange drink. Her cleavage was exposed and she said Do you like my bits? Of course you do. Come, let me show them to you . She pushed open a door labelled Club Orange and said Welcome to Club Orange . She walked through a laboratory-style room, where many women wearing short, white, open-fronted dresses, or bikini-type outfits, worked. She spoke to one: Mmm, nice bits , who replied Thanks, I squeezed them myself this morning . A row of women held a pair of oranges in front of their bodies as the main character said We love bits, all bits, as long as they're juicy and natural ... We are not only interested in the size of the bits, don't be shallow ... what is important is what's inside too - like juice. At this point, she dipped her finger into an orange half and licked it. A scene outside in the orange grove featured two women carrying wooden crates containing oranges, again with their cleavage exposed. The main character said And now we say goodbye. We know you boys can't wait to get your hands on our bits .

1. One complainant, who saw the ad before a 9.30pm screening of Prometheus (rated 15), challenged whether it was offensive and irresponsible, because it was sexist, objectified women and reinforced chauvinistic stereotypes to impressionable young people of how women should portray themselves.

2. A second complainant, who saw the ad before a screening of a Batman film (rated 12A), challenged whether the ad was irresponsible and inappropriate for children.

Britvic Ireland Ltd (Britvic) responded that this ad was part of a broader marketing campaign designed to make the Club Orange soft drink more appealing to its core target audience of 18- to 30-year-old men. Britvic acknowledged that the ad might not have been to everyone's taste but stressed that they had targeted it carefully and did not believe it was either socially irresponsible or likely to cause widespread harm or offence.

The Cinema Advertising Association (CAA) responded that they had considered the ad in view of the CAP Code and approved it for screening before films carrying a 15 or 18 rating in the UK. The CAA acknowledged the apparent sexism of the ad, but considered that this was exaggerated to such an extent that it would not be taken seriously.

The CAA also noted that the advert had been awarded a 12A certificate by the British Board of Film Classification (BBFC). They explained that the normal course of action when the restrictions imposed on an ad by the CAA and BBFC differed was to adhere to the stricter judgement. They said in this case the screening of the ad had been affected by a systems change whereby the CAA restriction had not been carried over.

ASA Assessment

1. Not upheld

The ASA acknowledged that the ad featured a lot of women in bikinis or short dresses inviting men to contemplate their bits and that therefore in some respects the ad did reflect sexist attitudes. However, we considered that it was clear the scenario was fantastical in nature, because of the setting and context, and that it would not encourage young women to conform to the stereotype it portrayed. Whilst we accepted that some people might interpret it as objectifying women and that it would not appeal to all tastes, we considered that the average viewer would recognise the ad as an over-the-top satirical spoof and that therefore it was not likely to cause serious or widespread offence to audiences aged 15 or over.

On that point, we investigated the ad under CAP Code rules 1.3 (Social responsibility) and 4.1 (Harm and Offence) but did not find it in breach.

2. Upheld

We understood that due to a systems failure the ad had been screened before the 12A-rated film The Dark Knight Rises. We considered that the ad was not suitable for younger audiences who might be less able to identify its satirical intent. Because the ad contained imagery and dialogue of an adult nature but had been shown before a film carrying a 12A rating, we concluded that it was irresponsible and inappropriate for children.

On that point, the ad breached CAP Code rules 1.3 (Social responsibility) and 5.1 (Children).

A TV ad for Estrella beer told the story of a young male traveller meeting two young women and the three of them exploring a Spanish island. The ad opened with the man disembarking a ferry. This was followed by a close-up of the profile of one of the women and a bottle of Estrella beer on a table. The man then approached the two women who were sitting outside a bar drinking Estrella and he showed them a map of the island. The following scenes featured the three characters driving around the island, swimming, sunbathing, on a boat and at a beach party together. In one scene, the male traveller was shown carrying two bottles of Estrella on the beach. In another scene, the main character and the dark-haired woman were seen trying hats on in the market and the woman kissed the man briefly on the lips. In another scene, bottles of Estrella were distributed to a group of friends at a lunch gathering. A further scene showed the male character at a beach party being greeted affectionately by a male party-goer who was holding a bottle of Estrella. The ad ended with the male character being dropped off at the ferry terminal by the two women. He kissed his finger and planted this affectionately on the dark-haired woman's lips. He walked up the gang plank and took a swig from his bottle of Estrella beer. As he lowered the bottle the story began again.

A soundtrack which played throughout the ad included the lyrics Tonight, I want to be with you .

Alcohol Concern challenged whether the ad breached the Code, because they considered it:

1. linked alcohol with sexual activity, sexual success or seduction;
2. implied that alcohol contributed to the male character's popularity; and
3. implied that the success of the holiday depended on the presence of alcohol. BCAP Code 19.319.419.6 Response

ASA Assessment: Not Upheld

1. Not Upheld

The ASA noted that only two scenes featured physical affection between the main male character and one of the female characters. The first was a scene where the two were trying on hats in the market and she gave him a brief kiss on the lips. The second was in the final scene when he said goodbye to her by kissing his index finger and planting it on her lips. We considered the theme music, played throughout the ad, with the lyrics Tonight, I want to be with you alluded to a sexual attraction between the two characters. However, we considered that these interactions between the couple did not constitute sexual activity, sexual success or seduction. We considered they were mildly flirtatious behaviours and noted that the Code did not preclude linking alcohol to flirtation or romance. We therefore concluded that the ad did not link alcohol with sexual activity, sexual success or seduction.

On this point, we investigated the ad under BCAP Code rule 19.6 (Alcohol) but did not find it in breach.

2. Not Upheld

We considered that the male character appeared confident and popular from the outset. At the start of the ad, he was shown approaching the two women in a nearby bar to ask them for directions with his map of the island. During the exchange, the women were shown laughing. The three characters were then shown driving around the island in a jeep, dancing and having a good time together at a beach party and then running along the beach and swimming together. The male character was not shown with alcohol until 20 seconds into the ad, at which point he was seen holding two bottles of beer on the beach. Although he did not drink from them, we considered this scene established him as an Estrella beer drinker. We noted another scene briefly showed him clinking a bottle of Estrella with friends in celebratory fashion before enjoying a meal. He was, however, not seen drinking any alcohol until the final scene when he took a swig from his bottle of Estrella beer whilst at the ferry terminal having said goodbye to his female companions. We considered that it was established early on in the ad that the male character was a confident independent traveller who was open to and adept at making new friendships and that his confidence and popularity was not due to him having consumed alcohol. We therefore concluded that the ad did not imply that alcohol contributed to the male character's popularity.

On this point, we investigated the ad under BCAP Code rule 19.3 (Alcohol) but did not find it in breach.

3. Not Upheld

We agreed with Wells & Youngs' comment that the ad depicted an entire summer on the island of Formentera and that this was clear from the fact that the events shown were separated in time and space and the main character was seen in different locations, wearing different clothes and with different friends. We also agreed with Clearcast's comment that alcohol featured in a realistic, incidental and minimal way. Although bottles of Estrella featured briefly throughout the ad, they were incidental to the activities and fun the characters were having. None of the characters were seen drinking alcohol apart from the main male character who was seen drinking Estrella in the final scene at the end of his holiday. In most of the scenes, such as the beach party scene, on the boat, and in the local market, alcohol did not feature at all. There was no suggestion that the characters were having a good time because of consuming alcohol; their exchanges were playful, natural and spontaneous throughout the ad, regardless of whether or not alcohol was present. We therefore considered that the ad did not imply that the success of the holiday depended on the presence of alcohol.

On this point, we investigated the ad under BCAP Code rule 19.4 (Alcohol) but did not find it in breach.

A press ad in Dirt Mountainbike , a specialist mountain and dirt biking magazine, featured a man crouching next to a mountain bike, making a devil horns sign with his left hand. Text in the bottom right corner of the ad read: YT-INDUSTRIES.COM FUCKING GOOD BIKES!

A complainant challenged whether the use of the slogan FUCKING GOOD BIKES! was offensive and inappropriate, particularly in a publication likely to be read by children.

YT Industries said they developed and produced high-end mountain bikes for the extreme sport market. They said their customer target group was 16- to 30-year-olds and they targeted young people with a tolerant, open mind, who were focused on fun sports. They said the man featured in the ad was team rider Andreu Lacondeguy, who was one of the top mountain bikers in the world and was a hero for many mountain bikers. They said he was well known for performing the biggest tricks on his bike, as well as partying and listening to heavy metal. They said the slogan fucking good bikes was intended to convey that they offered outstanding bikes and the slogan was used because they considered it would fit with and appeal to the target group. They said it was not their intention to provoke or insult any readers or to negatively affect children.

Assessment Upheld

The ASA acknowledged that the magazine was targeted at young adult males, but noted the readership also included older teenagers. Because the ad was placed in a specialist mountain and dirt biking magazine, which was an activity which would appeal to children as well as adults, we considered that the ad was likely to be seen by some children. We therefore concluded that the use of the phrase FUCKING GOOD BIKES! in that context was likely to cause serious or widespread offence to readers.

The ad breached CAP Code rule 4.1 (Harm and offence).

Four posters for the Channel Four documentary, Big Fat Gypsy Weddings:

• a. The first poster featured a close-up of a young boy looking directly at the camera. Large text across the ad stated BIGGER. FATTER. GYPSIER .
• b. The second poster showed a man leading a horse across a field. Caravans were visible behind a fence in the background. Large text across the ad stated BIGGER. FATTER. GYPSIER .
• c. The third poster showed two young women wearing low-cut bra tops. Large text across the ad stated BIGGER. FATTER. GYPSIER .
• d. The fourth poster showed three young girls dressed for their first Holy Communion standing in front of a caravan. Large text across the ad stated BIGGER. FATTER. GYPSIER .

These ads were previously considered by the ASA Council in February 2012, at which time the ASA had received 372 complaints about the campaign. The ASA Executive assessed the ads and recommended to the Council that the complaints did not warrant investigation. The Council agreed that recommendation. The Irish Traveller Movement in Britain and eight co-complainants sought Independent Review of Council's decision and, as a result, the case was re-opened and investigated.

The Irish Traveller Movement in Britain (ITMB) and eight other complainants challenged whether:

1. the ads were offensive because they believed they were racist, denigratory and portrayed Gypsies and Travellers in a negatively stereotypical way;
2. the ads were irresponsible because they believed they depicted negative stereotypes of Gypsies and Travellers and endorsed prejudice against them; and
3. ads (a), (c) and (d) were likely to cause physical, mental or moral harm to children from Gypsy and Traveller communities, including those featured in the ads, because the ITMB believed they portrayed them in a negatively stereotypical way.
4. The ITMB, who understood that one of the young women featured in ad (c) was under 16 years of age, challenged whether the ad was irresponsible and harmful because they believed it depicted a child in a sexualised way.
5. The ITMB, who believed that the children featured in ad (d) had been unfairly portrayed in an adverse and offensive way, challenged whether the ad breached the Code because they believed that the advertiser did not have written permission to portray them in that manner.

ASA Decision

The ASA took advice from the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) who had undertaken specific work into the issues affecting Gypsy and Traveller communities.

The EHRC said research had shown that Gypsies and Travellers (which was the appropriate term when referring to those groups) were often subject to suspicion and disapproval because of negative public perceptions which in turn led to members of the community experiencing prejudice and harassment. They said, although racism from members of the public towards most ethnic minority groups was now widely viewed as unacceptable, it remained persistent and common towards Gypsies and Travellers and was generally seen as justified and the last respectable form of racism. The EHRC said they continued to receive complaints about No Travellers signs.

1. & 2. Upheld in relation to ads (a) and (c)

In relation to ad (a) we noted that the boy in the image was shown in close-up and had his lips pursed in a manner that we considered was likely to be seen as aggressive. We considered that negative image, when combined with the strap-line which suggested that such behaviour was GYPSIER , would be interpreted by many members of the Gypsy and Traveller communities and some of the wider public to mean that aggressive behaviour was typical of the younger members of the Gypsy and Traveller community. We considered that implication was likely to cause serious offence to some members of those communities while endorsing the prejudicial view that young Gypsies and Travellers were aggressive. We therefore concluded that ad (a) was offensive and irresponsible.

We understood that the photo in ad (c) was an accurate depiction of how the young women had chosen to dress for the occasion at which they had been photographed and we considered that it was clear that they were dressed for a night out. However, we noted that they were heavily made-up and wearing low cut tops and we considered that, when combined with the strap-line and in particular the word GYPSIER , the ad implied that appearance was highly representative of the Gypsy and Traveller community in a way that irresponsibly endorsed that prejudicial view and was likely to cause serious offence to the Gypsy and Traveller community.

3. Upheld in relation to ad (a) only

We considered, for the reasons given in points 1 and 2 above, that the boy in ad (a) was depicted in a way that was offensive and endorsed negative stereotypes about him and his community. We considered that the ad reaffirmed commonly held prejudices about Gypsy and Traveller children in a way that was likely to cause distress and mental harm to children from those communities, including to the boy featured in the ad, by suggesting that was an acceptable way to portray him.

4. Upheld

We noted that the ad accurately depicted the girl as she had dressed for the party at which the photograph had been taken. However, we noted that she was heavily made up, her bra was visible and that she was wearing a low cut top that revealed much of her cleavage and raised her breasts. Although we understood that the girl was depicted in her own choice of dress we considered that, in choosing that image for use in a poster, Channel 4 had acted irresponsibly by depicting a child in a sexualised way. For that reason we also considered that, irrespective of any consent Channel 4 may have held, the ad was also likely to be harmful to the girl featured.

5. Not upheld