Tory backbencher Dr Sarah Wollaston will put forward a private member's bill to restrict children from alcohol marketing.
Wollaston believes that a repressive French law known as Loi Evin could be adapted for the UK. She will put forward the proposal as a 10-minute rule bill. This allows her to make a speech in Parliament, although the process rarely leads to
legislation being passed but is instead a chance to raise awareness about an issue.
The British Medical Association and university 'experts' said the move would go a long way to protect children.
The French legislation was introduced in 1991 and totally bans alcohol promotion through mediums such as television and social media.
Professor Gerard Hastings, a social marketing expert at Stirling University, told the British Medical Journal the law had helped to reduce alcohol consumption in France. Removing this profoundly unhealthy influence is, unsurprisingly, recognised as a
key public health priority. So along with their cafe culture, the Loi Evin is a French innovation that the UK needs.
David Poley, chief executive of the Portman Group, which represents the drinks industry, said: The UK already has some of the strictest rules in place to prevent alcohol being marketed to children or in a way that might appeal to them. The call for a
French-style advertising ban is entirely unfounded.
A church in Northern Ireland, which had a newspaper ad banned for using the biblical word sodomy , has had the ban overturned in the High Court.
ASA, the UK advert censor banned the ad in 2008, but the court said banning the ad was a breach of the church's rights to free speech.
The judge, Justice Treacy, said the ad quoted well-known passages of the Bible and constituted a genuine attempt to stand up for the church's beliefs.
Justice Treacy said:
Whilst such views and scriptural references may be strongly disdained and considered seriously offensive by some, this does not justify the full scope of the restrictions contained in the impugned determination.
The judge also said the ad must be read in context. He pointed out that at the previous year's Gay Pride march a banner stating Jesus is a fag was carried, uninterrupted, by one of the participants. He also said the advertisement did not
condone and was not likely to provoke violence .
Rev David McIlveen described the decision as a landmark ruling, meaning that scripture could be quoted freely.
In 2008 Sandown Free Presbyterian Church placed an advert in the Belfast News Letter calling on people to meet in a gospel witness against the act of sodomy . The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) received seven complaints about the advert and
banned any further publication with the comment:
The ASA noted the ad prominently stated Published by the Kirk Session of Sandown Free Presbyterian Church and recognised that readers would understand that the text was representative of the beliefs of a specific group and
indicative of their opinion only. We considered, however, that some of the text used in relation to homosexuality, for example, ... declaring it to be an abomination ... , . .. God's judgement upon a sin ... , . .. remove the guilt of
their wrongdoing ... , ... a cause for regret that a section of the community desire to be known for a perverted form of sexuality ... , went further than the majority of readers were likely to find acceptable.
We considered that particular care should be taken to avoid causing offence on the grounds of sexual orientation, and concluded that this ad had caused serious offence to some readers.
On this point, the ad breached CAP Code clause 5.1 (Decency) but did not breach 8.1 (Matters of opinion).
A prize promotion, displayed in the window of an Officers Club shop, stated WIN A LADS HOLIDAY TO AYIA NAPA . It featured two photographs. One showed three girls smiling at the camera and was labelled Ayia Napa 2011 .
The second photo showed a woman from the neck to the waist wearing a small bikini top and was labelled Awesome Views . Text below stated START 2011 WITH A BANG! .
1. Five complainants challenged whether the image of a woman's body in combination with the label Awesome Views was offensive, because they believed it objectified women.
2. Five complainants also challenged whether the ad was inappropriately placed where it could be seen by children.
Officers Club 1979 explained that the ad had appeared in all their stores throughout the United Kingdom. They acknowledged they had received a very small number of complaints and explained that these complaints had been
resolved by removing part of the imagery.
They said the ad had been targeted at fashion conscious young males in the 16 - 30 age group... and that the images were chosen to reflect the nature of a so called 'lads' holiday to Ayia Napa ... and to attract the
attention of our core consumer .
They acknowledged that the images were mildly provocative, but did not consider them to be indecent. They said that it was not their intention for the ad to cause offence.
ASA Assessment: 1. & 2. Upheld
The ASA acknowledged that the ad was a prize promotion related to a lads holiday. We considered that the sole focus on the womans chest, in conjunction with the text Awesome views , was likely to be seen as gratuitous
and to objectify women. We considered that the image was likely to cause serious offence to some and was not suitable to be displayed in an untargeted medium where it could be seen by children.
The ad breached CAP Code rules 1.3 (Social responsibility), 4.1 (Harm and offence) and 8.6 and 8.7 (Protection of consumers, safety and suitability)
An ad for music gigs, in the Guide section of the Guardian, was headlined with the name of the band HOLYFUCK . The ad also featured a picture of the band, tour dates and booking information.
One complainant challenged whether the ad was offensive and inappropriate for use in a supplement that was likely to be seen by children.
Kilimanjaro Live said Holy Fuck were a Canadian band and that Kilimanjaro had been the bands live promoter in the UK for about 12 months.
Kilimanjaro said the Guide was specifically chosen as it was an industry standard weekly going-out guide that was a hugely successful form of advertising for them. They believed the Guide was an acceptable place to advertise a band with that name because
it was an adult oriented entertainment guide aimed at teens and older. They said it was common for editorial in the Guide to contain the word fuck uncensored.
Kilimanjaro said they accepted that the name of the band created potential issues but believed the bands music lent itself to the use of such a controversial word in their name and argued that they had a justifiable right to use the word in the way in
which they did. Kilimanjaro said the band were not a controversial act and their name had been used on many gig posters, flyers and tour ads in the time that Kilimanjaro had been working with them without any complaints except the one received by the
The Guardian said they carefully scrutinised all advertising copy prior to publication and had decided to accept the ad. They argued that the Guide was clearly targeted at a young adult audience who were very unlikely to be shocked by the language in the
ad and pointed out that swearwords could also sometimes be found in the Guides editorial content. They believed it was impossible for the band to promote themselves without using their full name.
ASA Assessment: Complaint upheld
The ASA noted that the word HOLYFUCK was the name of the advertised band and we also noted that the Guide was targeted at older teens and adults. However, we considered that, because it was placed in an entertainment listings supplement to a
national newspaper, the ad was likely to be seen by a wide variety of readers including children. We considered, in that context, that the name HOLYFUCK was likely to cause serious or widespread offence to some readers. [how does it cause 'widespread' offence to just 'some' readers. Sounds like the censors are twisting their own rules]
The ad breached CAP Code rule 4.1 (Harm and offence).
A new Swedish website which challenges individuals to dabble in infidelity in order to help them cope with dull, lifeless relationships has been reported to the advertising ombudsman.
Married travellers waiting for buses in Stockholm are currently being confronted with the challenge Are you married? Liven up your life - have an affair in the form of a billboard campaign from Norwegian firm Victoria Milan.
But criticism of the firm's business idea and advertising message has quickly followed the weekend campaign launch, with the Swedish Advertising Ombudsman (Reklamombudsmannen) having already received complaints.
Many visitors to the firm's Facebook page are openly scathing in their criticism of the Victoria Milan business model: You are the sickest firm I have ever experienced. You are a disgrace to Swedish business... that you encourage infidelity (with all
the consequences for couples and not least their children), one person wrote.
Despite the heated response from some quarters, Sigurd Vedal CEO of Victoria Milan is unrepentant: We are a dating site which is very clear and direct, in contrast to many other sites out there. In a very competitive market one has to be clear with
one's message and target group .
The chairman of Australia's federal government inquiry into outdoor advertising says if tougher rules are needed, the possibilities include ratings by the Film Classification Board.
The Australian Association of National Advertisers (AANA) is gearing up for a fight. It said any kind of classification system for outdoor advertisements would add an unnecessary and burdensome layer of compliance .
The AANA's chief executive, Scott McClellan, said the present system of self-regulation was the most efficient, flexible and cost-effective means of ensuring that advertising continued to meet community expectations.
But the chairman of the government inquiry, Graham Perrett, said while the AANA had some good guidelines in place, not everyone who put up an ad was a member of the AANA and there were plenty of cowboys in the industry: Not every billboard you
see goes through those checks and balances. Some advertisers push the boundaries to get attention .
Perrett said because outdoor advertising spanned federal, state and local jurisdictions, regulation was complex but not impossible. He said theoretically the Film Classification Board could classify billboards.
Perrett said the inquiry aimed to report back to the government by the end of June, following public hearings in Sydney and Melbourne.
Meanwhile, the AANA is reviewing its code of ethics.
This is one from a series of British Humanist Association adverts intended for 4-sheet placement at train stations in March 2011.
They were rejected by the rail companies working in franchise partnership with our media agency. The reason given for this was that the advertising was of a religious nature and risks offending, in their opinion, either with our original for
God's sake slogan or with alternative slogans we offered.
The Committee of Advertising Practice advised against running ads with the for God's sake slogan but our media agency agreed to run an alternate slogan on buses only. Our redeveloped slogan will appear on buses in towns and cities across the UK
and reads: Not Religious?: In this year's census say so
The religious think tank Theos has criticised a new humanist advertising campaign telling people to tick no religion on the census form, saying it is misconceived and unnecessary .
The think tank said people had ample opportunity to deny any religious affiliation if they wanted to, and that humanist claims that respondents are funnelled... into giving a religious response are simply untrue .
Commenting on the campaign, Paul Bickley, Senior Researcher at Theos said the humanists were doing a good job of keeping religion in the news but added that there was clearly a mistake with this campaign:
The campaign grossly exaggerates the extent to which the religious affiliation results of the 2001 census have shaped government policy or influenced spending decisions.
In any case, the British people are quite capable of judging for themselves what box they should tick. They don't need to be told.
Offsite Comment: For God's sake, stop censoring ads
The effective banning of UK humanist adverts that dared to mention the G-word confirms that protecting hurt feelings now trumps free speech.
This particular ban involved a set of British Humanist Association (BHA) adverts featuring the slogan, If you're not religious, for God's sake say so . The reason for this rather oblique command is that the BHA wants people in the UK to respond to
the 2011 UK census question What is your religion? by ticking the box marked no religion .
Unfortunately for the BHA, the owners of advertising space in UK rail stations, aided and abetted by advice from the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) and the Committee of Advertising Practice, have not only correctly discerned a religious nature
to the BHA's campaign, they have also decided that such ads are likely to cause widespread and serious offence . And where there's offence to be caused, censorship is sure to follow.
So the British Humanist Association ads with the headline If You're Not Religious for God's Sake Say So , urging people to tick the no religion box on the census, have been banned because the people who own the advertising space in railway
stations think they will cause serious and widespread offence . I mean, Christ on a bike!
A billboard for a Minneapolis museum has been replaced after someone spray-painted a top and the word Brrr! in red over its depiction of classic nudity from a 16th-century painting.
The poster is for the Minneapolis Institute of Arts' exhibition of works by the Italian master Titian. The museum chose to feature the famous Venus Rising from the Sea painting on the billboard because it's very typical of paintings in
the show, said MIA spokeswoman Anne-Marie Wagener.
The billboard that was vandalized has been restored to its previous condition, despite objections from museum officials. We said 'We think it's funny, just leave it, don't bother replacing it,' Wagener said Thursday.
But she said Clear Channel Outdoor, the company that owns the billboard, has a policy that ads with graffiti must be taken down so as not to encourage vandalism.
The museum has fielded about 10 calls from 'angry' passers-by who said they weren't comfortable seeing nudity outside of the museum, said MIA marketing director Kristin Prestegaard. Some people said it forced them to talk to their children about nudity
in art, a conversation they weren't ready to have.
Both Prestegaard and Wagener said they think whoever did the graffiti was probably just trying to be funny, not censor the image. It would be different if the words 'Brrr!' weren't there and they hadn't given her such a nice, shapely swimsuit, Wagener said.
I mean, if you were angry, why would you make it kind of pretty?
After the removal of a billboard in New York City which charged that abortion makes a mother's womb the most dangerous place for African Americans, Archbishop Timothy M. Dolan condemned the move as an intolerant gag order.
Likening the ad to anti-smoking campaigns that show the graphic affects of nicotine addiction or world hunger organizations that show pictures of starving children, the New York archbishop said that being confronted by the truth can often be
unpleasant. Dolan said that the removed ad is so upsetting because its message is somberly true.
The billboard, sponsored by the group Life Always depicted a young black girl beneath the phrase The most dangerous place for an African American is in the womb.
Pete Costanza, the general manager for Lamar Advertising, said the billboard was being taken down because an objector to the billboard harassed the waiters and waitresses in the Mexican restaurant below the sign. The restaurant has no affiliation with
the billboard company or the pro-life group.
A poster used to advertise the Cape Town Sexpo in November last year will never be used again, Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) said.
Sarah Howarth, a spokesperson for Sexpo pointed out that the 2010 campaign had been checked with the ASA before going public.
Complaints against the poster were lodged with ASA by eight people after posters depicting the upper body of a woman showing her breasts that are provocatively covered by red suspenders were erected in Cape Town.
Those who lodged the complaint argued that the advert depicted women as sex objects and it was demeaning to women in general. The ASA website said that some complainants said that the poster was erected near schools and was not suitable for children to
ChristianView Network director Philip Rosenthal said the ruling meant public places would be protected from pornography: It is a significant step to protect of women and children from the sexploitation industry promoted by the Sexpo .
A TV ad for Fox Mobile ringtones featured the American ventriloquist, Jeff Dunham, with his dummy, Achmed, the Dead Terrorist . The ringtones used some of the phrases from Dunham's act which included Silence! I kill you , Stop touching
me and Knock, knock. Who's there? Me. I kill you .
A viewer challenged whether the ad was offensive because he believed it was racist towards Muslims.
ASA Assessment: Not upheld
The ASA understood that the ad featured the puppet Achmed, the Dead Terrorist, which was a well-known part of Jeff Dunhams ventriloquism act.
We understood that that particular comedy act touched on the theme of terrorism and we also understood that there would be viewers who found the puppet character and comedy theme of terrorism distasteful or offensive. However, we
noted that at no time did the ad make any reference to terrorism or the Islamic faith. We also noted that, whilst the ad showed some footage of the act, its emphasis was on the phrases Silence! I kill you, Stop touching me and Knock, knock, whos there?
Me, I kill you which were available to download as mobile phone ringtones. Whilst we understood that some viewers might find those ringtones distasteful, we considered that the content of the ad accurately reflected the nature of the product being
advertised. Because the ad itself contained no direct reference to terrorism or the Muslim religion, we concluded the ad was unlikely to cause serious or widespread offence.
We investigated the ad under BCAP Code rule 4.2 (Harm and offence) but did not find it in breach.
A TV ad for TDC, a telecommunications provider, featured a man and a woman dressed in nude suits. The woman sang a song in Danish, the lyrics of which included the phrase ... jag er sa* fucking stolt ... . Issue
One viewer, who saw the ad on TV3 Denmark, thought the ad contained the word fucking and the swearing was offensive.
TDC said the ad was part of a long running and well-known humorous campaign, introduced in Denmark in September 2009, based around three famous comedic actors playing the roles of a middle-aged married couple and their neighbour. The husband and wife
were naturists. The neighbour had no phone, Internet or TV and the couple's aim was to get him updated on telecommunications. The campaign had been rolled out on national Danish TV as an ongoing series of ads.
Viasat Broadcasting UK provided a translation of the ad and the song it contained. They said the phrase identified by the complainant, Det idag vi fejrer slverfest, jag er s fucking stolt , translated into English as It is today we celebrate
our silver anniversary, I'm so damn proud . Viasat argued that the English word fucking had become part of the Danish language as a slang word, it had lost some of its original English meaning and with it its level of offence, and the
pronunciation of it had even changed to focking , to sound more Danish. They (as bilingual Danish and English speakers) did not believe fucking was the correct Danish translation of the word in the context of the ad. They said the word was
not used in the ad in a negative, offensive or hurtful way, but was intended to emphasize how proud the wife was of her husband, and was more akin to the milder term damn . They continued that the word fucking was used as a Danish word in a
Danish sentence in the ad, and should not be seen as having the same meaning or connotations as the word fucking might have in the UK. Although it was a swear word, fucking was used as an expression in both positive and negative situations
and they did not believe it would be considered offensive in Denmark, although they appreciated that if the ad had been broadcast to a UK audience, some viewers might have found the word offensive. Viasat believed that, although the Danish population had
a good understanding of English, they would associate the word fucking with its mild Danish meaning.
ASA Assessment: Not upheld
The ASA understood that fucking , although a swear word in Danish, was much milder than, and did not have the same offensive connotations as, the word fucking in English. We concluded that the ad was unlikely to cause serious or widespread
offence to viewers in Denmark.
We investigated the ad under BCAP Code rule 4.2 (Harm and offence) but did not find it in breach.
A beer commercial which looked too much like a historical documentary has been criticised by New Zealand's Advertising Standards Complaints Board and the version will be barred from broadcast.
The television and cinema campaign supported a relaunch of Dominion Breweries' DB Export branded beer by telling the story of former DB brewer Morton Coutts' attempt to brew the world's best beer in New Zealand.
A complainant objected to the use of real footage of the 1951 waterfront dispute to illustrate violent protests that the advertisement says took place after Arnold Nordemeyer's Black Budget of 1958.
A majority of the complaints board considered the television and cinema advertisements to be in a documentary type style, achieved by the use of the contrasting black and white screen-shots, the music, and the accompanying authoritative narration . When coupled with the use of the actual footage of the riots, from a different historical event, the ad gave the impression that
the advertisements were portraying a credible and realistic depiction of history , said the board's decision.
The majority of the complaints board was of the view that the television and cinema advertisements ... were likely to mislead and deceive consumers given the realistic and accurate depiction of history conveyed in the advertisements.
A billboard promoting a fitness centre featuring the bottom of a whip-wielding woman has been slammed as sexist, led to complaints and 'polarised' the community.
The Advertising Standards Bureau will review the billboard. Bureau communications manager Alison Abermethy said a number of complaints had been received about the Health Club @ Newmarket billboard.
Resident Virginia Druett claimed she found the image offensive: To portray a woman as just the bottom part of the body is an insult to every woman in Australia Women have strived for centuries to be treated with respect and equality and this is just
so demeaning. How this has passed through censorship just amazes me.
Sweden's advertising ombudsman upheld a complaint against the advertisement, promoting a television operator called Boxer, in which a photo shop character called Robert stretches out on a sheepskin rug wearing only a pair of straining, white boxer
Even if the intention was to present a humorous link between the man and product, the man is presented, through his posture and lack of clothing, as a mere sex object in a way that could be deemed offensive to men in general, the ombudsman's
office claimed in a statement.
It added that Robert's legs, chest, arms and abdomen are very muscular, and the outline of his genitalia is visible through his underpants .
A complainer argued that the focus on the organ and its size had nothing to do with the product, and even if that was the case, it is no way to portray either a man or a woman . It was also claimed that Robert's physical shape could place pressure
on impressionable men who aspire to have the same physique.
The advertisement sparked lively debate on internet comments sites, with many men stating they found it harmless and inoffensive, and that the ombudsman should get a life .
An editorial in Aftonbladet, a leading Swedish newspaper, said that the ombudsman had to act on equality grounds because it would have upheld a complaint if Boxer had used a female image.
It is okay to use the acronym MILF in adverts according to the Australian advertising censor.
The Ad Standards Board (ASB) was considering a complaint over a Ticketmaster promotion for a tour by the actress Jennifer Coolidge.
According to the complaint: As this is a special offer, you need to enter a code word into the Ticketmaster booking engine to receive the discount. The code that you are asked to enter is MILF. This seems innocent enough except that MILF is an acronym
commonly used in the porn industry for MOMS I'D LIKE TO FUCK . My objection is about the casual and insidious use of pornography (in this case a term used in pornography) to sell to the general public.
The ASB dismissed the complaint, ruling:
The Board noted the complainant's concerns that the word MILF is linked to pornography. The Board noted that the term MILF was coined in a film featuring Jennifer Coolidge and that it is an acronym for words meaning a sexually
attractive older woman. The Board considered that it is not a term directly related to the pornography industry but to Jennifer Coolidge's character in the film American Pie and has subsequently been used to describe attractive mothers generally.
The Board considered that whist the word MILF did relate to the sexual attractiveness of a woman, you would need to understand the meaning of this acronym in order to understand the sexual reference. The Board considered that in the
context of the advertisement for the Jennifer Coolidge tour, this word and implied reference is relevant and unlikely to be viewed or understood by children.
Whilst some members of the community may not like this word, it has become part of the common vernacular, is not generally considered offensive, and in this context is not inappropriate.
An ad, in Harrods Magazine, for clothing and accessories sold in the store, showed a woman lying at the foot of a staircase, with a blood stain on the floor near her head. A man holding a heavy candlestick was standing next to her and text below him
stated Professor Plum with the candlestick in the hall?
One complainant challenged whether the ad was offensive and likely to condone violence.
ASA Assessment: Not upheld
Although we noted that the ad depicted a scene which heavily implied that a violent act had taken place, we noted that the presentation was very stylised and the focus was on presenting the fashion and jewellery, rather than portraying a realistic image
of violence. We considered that readers would clearly associate the image with the well-known board game Cluedo and would understand, in that context, that the scene related to the object of the game, namely, discovering which Cluedo character had
committed a murder, in which room and with which object. We therefore considered that readers would see the image as a darkly humorous representation of a popular board game and, in light of that, concluded that the ad was unlikely to cause offence or
We investigated the ad under rules 4.1 and 4.4 (Harm and offence), but did not find it in breach.
A TV ad, for Belle D'Opium perfume, featured a woman dancing to a drum beat. The woman pointed to her inner elbow and ran her finger along the inside of her forearm. She was then shown lying on the floor as a voice-over began I am your addiction,
I am Belle D'Opium. The new fragrance by Yves St Laurent.
Thirteen viewers objected that the ad was irresponsible and offensive, because the woman's actions simulated drug use.
ASA Assessment: Upheld
The ASA understood the ad had been carefully choreographed and styled to create Belle and her movements as a way of emphasising the powerful and intense qualities of the perfume, and to play on the idea the perfume had addictive qualities like a woman or
opium. However, we noted that the ad broadcast on TV was only 20 seconds of the full one-minute ad featured on the Belle d'Opium website, and that it had been cut to feature predominantly the quickest and most dramatic music and scenes from the full ad.
We noted that two of the key scenes, the circular symbol and wings gesture scenes, were omitted from the TV ad, and other key scenes were altered. We considered that the fast changing scenes and urgent music, created a less flowing, more frantic
atmosphere in the ad, which might not enable viewers to interpret the ad as a stylised expression of femininity and bewitchment, as intended.
We were concerned that in the context of the ad, Belle running her finger down her inner arm could be seen to simulate the injection of opiates into the body. We were also concerned that following that scene, Belle was shown moving in a series of short,
rapid scenes, before the ad concluded with her body seizing upwards while lying on the floor, an action we considered could be seen to simulate the effect of drugs on the body. While we recognised the name OPIUM was a well-known designer perfume brand
and did not consider it irresponsible or offensive to advertise OPIUM branded products, and while we noted the consumer research found that most viewers did not consider the ad to be offensive, we nevertheless considered the woman's actions simulated
drug use, and therefore concluded it was irresponsible and unacceptable for broadcast.
The ad breached BCAP Code rules 1.2 (Social responsibility), 4.1 (Physical, mental, moral or social harm), 4.4 (Health and safety), and 4.9 (Violence, crime, disorder or anti-social behaviour), but did not breach 4.2 (Serious or widespread offence).
A press ad, in Venue magazine, a Bristol Metro supplement, featured an image of the Virgin Mary holding a disco ball to advertise a themed club night. Text stated EVERY SATURDAY THEKLA BRISTOL FREE ENTRY BEFORE 10PM GUILTY POP PLEASURES
FOR SINNERS POP CONFESSIONAL WWW.POPCONFESSIONAL.CO.UK .
A complainant objected to the ad as offensive, as it mocked Christians, and Catholics in particular.
Venue Publishing said The Metro was a free paper aimed at young commuters, with significant content regarding entertainment and nightlife for that demographic. Because of that readership, they said they were surprised at the complaint, and
believed it was very unlikely any regular readers were offended by the ad. They added that they had received no complaints themselves about the ad.
ASA Assessment: Not upheld
The ASA understood that the intention was to light heartedly play on the idea that enjoying certain types of music was something people were ashamed to admit. We acknowledged that notions of sinning and confession originated from a religious
context, but considered that they had become embedded in secular society with a wider application, especially amongst the intended audience. While we understood some readers may have found it distasteful to use the Virgin Mary to promote a
nightclub, we did not consider that the ad portrayed religion negatively, and considered that most of the young and fashionable audience of the magazine were likely to interpret the ad as a tongue-in-cheek joke at poor music taste, and not a joke
at the expense of Christianity or Catholicism. We therefore concluded the ad was unlikely to cause serious or widespread offence, or that it mocked Christians, and Catholics in particular.
We investigated the ad under CAP Code (Edition 12) Clause 4.1 (Harm and Offence) but did not find it in breach.
More on the same theme
There's more on the them at the website popconfessional.co.uk
. Perhaps Hall & Oates, David Essex, Foreigner, Journey, 5ive and Craig David could obtain a little free publicity by being 'offended' that their music is considered a sin.
Our Father, who art in pop-heaven, hallowed by thy name…
The POP CONFESSIONAL comes to Bristol for the first time! Your host for the evening is Father Valentine Spinoza who will be spinning all your favourite guilty pop pleasures until the wee small hours of Sunday morning,
leaving you ready for Mass in the morning.
We'll bring you pop classics covering all musical eras, from Hall & Oates and David Essex to Foreigner and Journey to 5ive and Craig David. We also want you to confess your musical sins in our video confessional booth.
Our favourite confessions will be put up on our YouTube channel and the best will win some excellent pop prizes!
Expect shameless dancing to tunes you know you shouldn't, pop-priests and naughty-nuns, dressing up of all kinds, outrageous dance moves and pure party vibes the Lord Himself would be proud of.
On 17 January 2011 we have launched our new ad campaign to raise awareness of the ASA's work to ensure all ads continue to be legal, decent, honest and truthful.
The ads also aim to inform businesses about the ASA's extended remit online which, from 1 March, will include marketing communications by companies on their own websites.
It also seems a bit confusing though. Why should all adverts be decent? I can't see anything in the actual codes that require all adverts to be decent. Only that ads shouldn't be somehow harmful in the context with
which they appear. So this would surely require ads to be decent on daytime TV. But this simply does not apply to an 'indecent' hardcore ad in a men's magazine.
There also seems little information on how the new code applies to some of the complexities about internet jurisdiction. Even small websites can be very multinational, with internet servers being in different countries to the content providers.
and indeed, to the target audience. And even less information about such key concepts as labelling and child protection mechanisms.
The codes do not appear to have been written with websites in mind.
A TV ad, for the film SAW 3D , started with images of two men, one of whom was screaming and reaching towards the viewer with blood on his hand. A voice-over stated Since the beginning you have watched others .
The following images showed a bare-chested man breathing heavily in a car with a broken windscreen, people on a street looking at a window display, a swinging cage, a spiked metal mesh crashing down, and a man falling out of the bottom of a
hanging cage as the voice-over continued Now it is your turn to play.
The next scene showed spiky metal restraints suddenly appearing around the arm and shoulders of a man wearing 3D glasses. He screamed. The voice-over continued Experience the final ever Saw in eye-popping, heart-pounding, mind-blowing 3D whilst images were shown of circular saw blades flying over the people in a cinema and towards the viewer, people cowering from an explosion, two people hanging from a shaft, a close-up of a screaming man falling, a huge figure reaching out into the cinema from the screen and lifting a person back towards the screen, and a cage crashing through a window.
The voice of the Jigsaw character said The last piece of the puzzle is you as the camera moved towards a woman tied between rail tracks, followed by a vehicle on the same tracks coming towards the viewer and flying out over the
people in the cinema making them flinch. The voice-over stated Saw 3D. On-screen text stated SAW 3D THE FINAL CHAPTER . Circular-saw blades flew towards the viewer and the voice-over continued Only available in cinemas October
28th. On-screen text IN CINEMAS THURS OCT 28 appeared under the preceding text.
The ad was cleared by Clearcast with a post 7.30 pm restriction.
The complainant, who was ten years of age and who saw the ad at 8:29pm during The Gadget Show on Channel 5, thought the ad was distressing and was inappropriately scheduled.
ASA Assessment : Complaint Upheld
The ASA noted Clearcasts assertion that, apart from the scene where a man had blood on his hand, the viewer did not see any more blood or scenes of injury or death. However, we also noted that many of the scenes showed people in distress and in
We considered that, although the ad was clearly for a film and therefore based in fantasy, the scenes of people in the cinema - particularly those where they were suddenly trapped by metal restraints and where the figure reached out and pulled a
cinema-goer back towards the screen - linked the scenes from the film with a recognisably real situation. We considered it was therefore likely to cause distress to young children who might not make a clear distinction between the scenes from the
film and the scenes in the cinema, and a post 7.30pm restriction was not sufficient. We concluded that a post 9pm restriction ought to have been applied, to minimise the possibility of young children seeing the ad.
The ad breached BCAP Code rules:
4.1 (Harm and Offence),
5.1 (Children), 32.1, and
32.3 (Scheduling of Television and Radio Advertisements).
An entry in the annual Pepsi-owned Doritos Crash the Super Bowl ad contest will never air after it caused a bit of easy offence.
Feed Your Flock sees congregation challenged priest get divine inspiration to use Doritos to replace the more usual wafers. And Pepsi Max replaces the wine. And of course throngs of Doritos freeloaders descend en-masse.
But of course the body and blood of Christ are no joke to those who believe they are in Communion with their God when they accept the Eucharist and the wine during Mass.
Dave Williams, president of ad makers, MediaWave, says he pulled the ad from Pepsi's site and from YouTube. We felt bad, he says. Our intention was to win, not to offend.
The video now seems to have been taken down from all major video sharing sites.