ASA Watch

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.

A TV ad, for Richmond ham, opened with a man wearing only a cap, standing in a field and looking admiringly at a ham sandwich. He was then shown strolling past a group of naked people who were eating a picnic. The man sang, Oh Richmond ham, as nature intended, you've nothing to hide Richmond ham, to me you taste blooming splendid. And I say naturally, check the pack and you'll see, 100% natural ingredients its true, yes it's Richmond's for me. The camera then cut to a shot of the man's backside and a voice-over stated, New Richmond ham. Britain's only ham made with 100% natural ingredients. On-screen text stated See richmondham.co.uk for verification. Reviewed quarterly .

The ad was cleared by Clearcast with an ex-kids restriction, which meant it should not be shown in or around programmes made for, or specifically targeted at, children.

The ASA received 371 complaints.

1. The majority of the complainants challenged whether the nudity in the ad was offensive.
2. Many complainants challenged whether the ad was inappropriate for broadcast at times when children were likely to be watching.
3. Ten complainants challenged whether the claim Britain's only ham made with 100% natural ingredients was misleading and could be substantiated, because they understood many local producers and butchers also made 100% natural ham products;
4. Five complainants challenged whether it was misleading to describe the product as Britain's only ham ... , because they believed the company was Irish and the product was made in Ireland; and
5. Four complainants challenged whether the claims made with 100% natural ingredients and as nature intended were misleading and could be substantiated, because they understood the product was processed and made with pork protein.

Kerry Foods Ltd (KF) said the ad was designed to convey their core message about Richmond Ham's natural ingredients in a light-hearted, tongue-in-cheek, humorous manner consistent with their positioning as a family brand. They said the ad demonstrated a well-adjusted, comfortable, and completely non-sexual attitude to the human body and that, before it was launched, they tested it rigorously with their target audience of mums with children living at home and had received an overwhelmingly positive response.

Clearcast said they did not consider the nudity in the ad was likely to cause serious or widespread offense because it was not sexual, voyeuristic or sleazy. They did not feel the nudity was gratuitous, but rather that it was there to reinforce the brand message of being 100% natural.

2. KF said their media schedule was planned with their target audience in mind. They told us they had abided by the ex-kids restriction placed by Clearcast, and that the ad had only run in airtime that Ofcom classified as adult .

Clearcast said they did not believe the ad would cause physical, mental, moral or social harm to persons under 18 years old and they felt an ex-kids restriction was sufficient to reduce the likelihood of the ad being seen by children under 16.

ASA Assessment: Nudity complaints not upheld

1. Not upheld

The ASA noted that the ad featured nudity and we accepted that that was not directly relevant to the product being advertised. However, we considered most consumers would understand that it was a light-hearted reference to the product being as nature intended . Whilst we understood the ad may not appeal to everyone, we considered that it was not sexual in tone and we concluded that it was unlikely to cause serious or widespread offence.

On this point, we investigated the ad under BCAP Code rules 4.1 and 4.2 (Harm and offence) but did not find it in breach.

2. Not upheld

We acknowledged some complainants felt the content of the ad made it unsuitable for viewing by children. However, we considered that the ad did not contain anything that might harm or distress children under 16, or that was otherwise unsuitable for them. We therefore concluded that the ad was scheduled appropriately.

On this point, we investigated the ad under BCAP Code rule 32.3 (Scheduling of television and radio advertisements) but did not find it in breach.

However the ASA did take issue with the claim that Richmond Ham is Britain's only ham when in fact it is made in Ireland.

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