Compare the lack of interest shown by media, politicians and assorted celebrities to the cholera epidemic causing thousands of deaths in Haiti, with the hysterical outrage expressed about Oxfam officials consorting with prostitutes
Since their ascendance in the 2000s, Google and Facebook have largely defined how ads and other corporate content would appear, where they would flow, and the metrics of online advertising success.
On Monday, one top advertiser, Unilever, went public with its criticism, calling social media little better than a swamp and threatening to pull ads from platforms that leave children unprotected, create social division, or promote anger or hate.
That comes a year after Procter & Gamble adjusted its own ad strategy, voicing similar concerns. ,
Keith Weed, Unilever's chief marketing and communications officer, said in a speech Monday to internet advertisers.
Fake news, racism, sexism, terrorists spreading messages of hate, toxic content directed at children -- parts of the internet we have ended up with is a million miles from where we thought it would take us. This is a deep and systematic issue --
an issue of trust that fundamentally threatens to undermine the relationship between consumers and brands.
Jason Kint, chief executive of Digital Content Next, a trade group that represents many big entertainment and news organizations added:
The technology, it appears, is actually allowing bad actors to amplify misinformation and garbage while at the same time squeezing out the economics of the companies that are actually accountable to consumer trust.
Update: Center Parcs outraged at the Daily Mail for its advert placement
Center Parcs has announced it has stopped advertising in the Daily Mail. It took the decision after its advert appeared in an online article by columnist Richard Littlejohn that criticised diver Tom Daley and his husband David Lance Black, who
are expecting a child . Littlejohn claimed children benefit most from being raised by a man and a woman.
Center Parcs was responding to a complaint from a person who tweeted:
My son so wants me to book at your parks, but how can I do that if you support homophobia?
Center Parcs responded:
We take where we advertise very seriously and have a number of steps to prevent our advertising from appearing alongside inappropriate content. We felt this placement was completely unacceptable and therefore ceased advertising with the Daily
Mail with immediate effect.
One of the most watched TV shows in the world has broken the most basic of PC rules by featuring a sketch that had Asian
actors in blackface and black actors dressed as monkeys.
The annual Chinese Lunar New Year gala by CCTV is a four-hour event and is watched by some 700 million people each year. This year, one of the many comedy routines featured throughout the show was one intended to depict China's relationship with
There were plenty of 'outraged' tweets published from those that know the rules.
Peter Rabbit is a 2018 UK / Australia / USA family animation comedy by Will Gluck.
Starring Daisy Ridley, Margot Robbie and Elizabeth Debicki.
Feature adaptation of Beatrix Potter's classic tale of a rebellious rabbit trying to sneak into a farmer's vegetable garden.
Filmmakers behind a new adaptation of Beatrix Potter's Peter Rabbit have been forced to apologise after facing calls for it to be banned from cinemas over a scene in which the protagonist and his furry friends deliberately pelt an allergic man
Allergy UK claimed the film mocks allergy sufferers and trivialises a life-threatening condition. Carla Jones, the charity's chief executive, said:
Anaphylaxis can and does kill. To include a scene in a children's film that includes a serious allergic reaction and not to do it responsibly is unacceptable. Mocking allergic disease shows a complete lack of understanding of the seriousness of
allergy and trivialises the challenges faced by those with this condition. We will be communicating with the production company about the film's withdrawal.
Sony Pictures on Sunday night admitted it should not have made light of Mr McGregor being allergic to blackberries and said it regretted not being more aware and sensitive of the issue.
Peter Rabbit will be show in cinemas in March. It is PG rated for mild threat, comic violence.
Two TV ads and a Video on Demand (VOD) promoted the men's fragrance, Paco Rabanne XS:
a. The first TV ad, which was seen in July and August 2017, depicted a man walking into a bathroom. He was seen to have removed his suit jacket and became topless. Two women were then seen peering towards a light source in a dark room. The ad
then featured a close up shot of the man's hip area, with him standing behind a bath tap, which he proceeded to turn on. The ad then returned to the two women in a dark room, one of whom pushed the other out of the way. The man was shown
walking towards a mirror and looking at his own reflection. The ad revealed a group of women standing behind a one-way mirror. The women watched through the mirror and became excited as the man caressed his chest. One woman was seen to turn
away from the one-way mirror, becoming breathless. The man walked up close to the mirror as if looking closely at the reflection of his face and one of the women was seen to kiss the mirror on the other side. The ad then showed the man moving
his hand downwards onto his abdomen. The women in the dark room began screaming. The ad then featured a bird's eye view of the set with the man standing in the bathroom, separated, by a mirror and walls, from the group of women who were in a
viewing room, with a few other women rushing to join the group. The ad then featured a close up, side shot of the man's hip area, in which he was seen to be undoing his trousers zip. The women in the view room watched and fanned themselves. The
ad showed the back of the man, who began pulling off his trousers with his buttocks obscured by the bathtub. The women in the viewing room began cheering at the one-way mirror, through which they could see the man who was now visibly naked,
with his lower abdomen and hip area obscured. The man was then sprayed the perfume on either side of his neck. The ad cuts back to the women in the viewing room, clambering towards the one-way mirror. The ad then returned to a close-up shot of
the man's abdomen and showed him spraying the perfume towards his groin area. The women in the viewing room were then seen to faint and collapse on to the ground.
b. The second TV ad, seen in July and August 2017, was a shorter version of ad (a).
c. The VOD ad, seen on 4oD on 27 July 2017, was the same as ad (a).
The ASA received 120 complaints.
A number of the complainants, who believed ads (a), (b) and (c) were sexist and objectified the man depicted because he was seen as the subject of voyeurism, challenged whether the ads were offensive.
Some of the complainants, who believed that ads (a) and (b) were sexist because the women featured were depicted as powerless and weak and therefore reinforced stereotypes, challenged whether the ads were offensive.
Some of the complainants, one of whom saw ad (a) during Gogglesprogs on Channel 4, also challenged whether the ads were inappropriately scheduled to be shown when children might see it, due to the sexual nature of the ads.Response
ASA Assessment: Complaints not upheld
1. Not upheld
The ASA considered it was unclear from the ad whether or not the male character was aware that he was or had consented to being watched in the bathroom via the one-way mirror.
Although the ad did not feature explicit nudity, it was heavily focused on the physical appearance of the male character. The ad featured multiple shots in which the male character was topless and his expressions when looking in the mirror
suggested that he was admiring his own physique and attractiveness. We considered that this and the reactions of the women to him placed a strong emphasis on the attractiveness of the male character.
However, we noted the scenario depicted in the ad was not realistic and the tone was risqu39 but comedic and farcical. We considered the ad showed the male character's attractiveness in a light-hearted, humorous way, rather than in a degrading or
humiliating manner. We therefore considered viewers were likely to recognise the ad was a comical dramatisation of a surreal situation.
Whilst we acknowledged some might find the ad distasteful, we considered, for the above reasons, the ad did not objectify the male character and we concluded it was unlikely to cause serious or widespread offence.
2. Not upheld
We considered because the women were seen to be watching the man, perhaps without his knowledge, it suggested they were in a position of power over the male character. We noted as the ad progressed and the male character was in various stages of
undress, it was evident from the reactions of the women depicted they were increasingly being overcome with excitement. We further noted during one of the final scenes, all of the women were seen to have fainted and collapsed at the sight of the
man spraying the fragrance towards his groin.
Whilst we acknowledged some might find the portrayal of the women in the ads uncomplimentary and distasteful, we noted the reactions of the women -- for example, the scenes in which the women were shown to be breathless and screaming; another in
which they were seen to be clambering over each other; and another in which one woman was seen to be kissing the one-way mirror -- were exaggerated and caricaturised, which contributed to the overall comedic tone of the ad. In addition, because
the setting of the ads was unrealistic and highly stylised, we considered viewers were likely to recognise that the ads portrayed the women in a farcical manner, which was removed from reality. For those reasons, we considered the ads were
unlikely to reinforce stereotypes of women and concluded it was unlikely to cause serious or widespread offence.
3. Not upheld
We understood some complainants, who saw the ad broadcasted during the afternoon and early evening, were concerned the ads had been inappropriately scheduled to be shown when children might see it, especially during the school holidays.
We understood the ads had been given an ex-kids timing restriction by Clearcast, which meant it should not be shown during or around programmes made for, or likely to appeal to children. We considered that although the ad was not sexually
explicit its content was sexually suggestive, particularly in its portrayal of the man undressing, caressing his body and spraying the fragrance towards his groin area, and that the ad contained themes of the voyeurism, making it unsuitable for
younger children. Because the ads had been given an ex-kids restriction, we considered the scheduling restriction applied had been appropriate.
We also noted that the ad had been scheduled at around 8.40 pm during Gogglesprogs on Channel 4 on 28 July 2017. The programme was a spin-off of the programme Gogglebox and featured children between the ages of 5 and 13 viewing and commenting on
a selection of TV programmes and other content, such as ads and news headlines. We noted from Channel 4's response that the programme was not commissioned or made specifically for children, but was made to appeal to a broad adult audience.
We also noted the historical BARB index data for the programme, which was provided by Channel 4, included a breakdown of a four-week rolling average index for children aged between 4 and 9, 4 and 15, and 10 and15, all of which indicated that the
programme did not appear to be of particular appeal to children below the age of 16. We also considered the BARB data for the programme on 28 July 2017 which indicated that children made up a small proportion of the audience. There were
approximately 1,031,000 viewers in total, including approximately 92,000 children; 50,000 of whom were children aged between 4 and 9 years, and 42,000 of whom were aged between 10 and 15 years. Notwithstanding that children were predominantly
featured in Gogglesprogs, we considered that the ad was generally consistent with the type of ads that viewers were likely to expect to see during that time of the day and we did not consider that there was an unsuitable juxtaposition between the
content of the ad and the programme during which it appeared.
Because the ad was not sexually explicit; it was not inconsistent with the type of ads that viewers would generally expect at that time of day; and there was not an unsuitable juxtaposition between the content of the ad and the programme
Gogglesprogs, which was not of particular appeal to children, we concluded the ads had not been inappropriately scheduled.
Oxfam officials will try to convince the government it should keep its government funding - despite claims of sexual
misconduct by its aid workers.
Aid workers apparently paid for prostitutes in a villa rented by Oxfam. The charity noted that there was no evidence of the sex workers being under-aged. It is also reported that no recipients of aid were involved.
Four of the aid workers were sacked and 3 were asked to resign.
And for some reason, these punishments are simply not enough for a baying lynch mob of the politically correct.
There are suggestions that the aid workers should have been reported to the local police as sex work is illegal in the country. But what sort of people would call for people to be allowed to rot in a foreign prison as punishment for something
that is not even a crime in the UK.
The UK Government's International Development Secretary Penny Mordaunt has said Oxfam must account for the way it handled the claims or it risks losing government funding, worth 2£32m in the last financial year. Michelle Russell, director of
investigations at the Charity Commission will also be part of the talks.
Mordaunt told the BBC's Andrew Marr the charity had failed in its moral leadership over the scandal. She said Oxfam did absolutely the wrong thing by not reporting details of the allegations. She said no organisation could be a government partner
if it did not have the moral leadership to do the right thing.
Ahead of the government meeting, Oxfam announced new measures for the prevention and handling of sexual abuse cases. The charity will also introduce tougher vetting of staff and mandatory safeguarding training for new recruits.
Perhaps job adverts for aid workers will now read: "Only saints need apply. If the halo slips, must be willing to be burnt at the stake or be left to rot in foreign jails".
UK food censors are whingeing about people's 'Meal Deals' because they claim the promotion will diminish the effectiveness of the
government's new nanny tax on sugary drinks.
Carol Williams, Principal Lecturer: Health Promotion and Public Health, University of Brighton explains:
From April, the UK government's sugar tax will make 500ml bottles of high-sugar drinks cost an extra 14p, and two litre bottles an extra 58p. The higher price is intended to steer people towards choosing lower-sugar drinks. But promotions, such
as meal deals, could make the sugar tax meaningless by negating the price difference.
The drinks industry says the size and scale of the sugar-tax bill is too much for them to absorb, so they will pass the cost on to retailers. Retailers are likely to do the same and pass the cost onto consumers. This is what Public Health England
intended; high-sugar drinks should cost more to make them less attractive to buy. But the tax may have an unintended consequence on drinks purchased in meal deals, which typically include a sandwich, a snack and a drink.
Our research with students (aged 16-19 and 19-24) found that they decided what to buy in a meal deal based on price and getting a bargain. Students tend to choose the most expensive drink in order to maximise the cost benefit of the deal, even
though they are often aware of the health aspects. When the sugar tax comes into force and full-sugar drinks cost more, this may create a perverse incentive because choosing the more expensive drink will increase the relative discount/cost
effectiveness achieved by buying a meal deal.
Now it is over to retailers and other drinks outlets to act in the spirit of the sugar tax by passing the higher price on to consumers and keeping a price difference between high- and low-sugar drinks. For meal deals, there are three options: add
the sugar tax to the price of the meal deal when a full-sugar drink is chosen, take sugary drinks that are taxed out of the meal deal, or do nothing and risk encouraging people to choose the full-sugar version, undermining everything PHE is
trying to achieve.
A poster for Tunnocks Tea Cakes, seen on 6 November 2017, showed an image of a female tennis player holding a tea
cake in place of a tennis ball at the top of her thigh, with her skirt raised at the hip. Text underneath the image of the women stated Where do you keep yours? with text underneath the product image stating Serve up a treat.
A complainant challenged whether the ad was offensive and irresponsible because they believed it was sexist and objectified women.
Thomas Tunnock Ltd t/a Tunnocks Tea Cakes stated the ad appeared on a poster site adjacent to the SEC Hydro Arena in Glasgow to coincide with a charity tennis match and was created with a tennis audience in mind. They explained that the creative
execution and placement of the teacakes were a substitute to the normal placement of tennis balls and that they were not placed in an abnormal position. They stated they did not intend to offend anyone.
The Forrest Group confirmed they had not received any complaints about the ad.
ASA Assessment: Complaint upheld
The ASA noted the ad depicted a woman lifting her tennis skirt while holding a tea cake beside her hip, in place of where a tennis ball would usually be held, with her bare thigh exposed and her underwear clearly visible. While we acknowledged
the ad was placed opposite an arena hosting a tennis match, we considered it nevertheless bore no relevance to the advertised product.
We considered the phrase serve up a treat would be understood to be a double entendre, implying the woman featured in the ad was the treat, and considered this was likely to be viewed as demeaning towards women. We considered that although the
image was only mildly sexual in nature, when combined with the phrase serve up a treat it had the effect of objectifying women by using a woman's physical features to draw attention to the ad.
In light of those factors, we concluded that the ad was likely to cause serious offence to some consumers and was socially irresponsible.
The ad must not appear in its current form. We told Thomas Tunnock Ltd to ensure their advertising was socially responsible and did not cause serious offence by objectifying women.
TV censor Ofcom has received 228 complaints from viewers about an episode of Emmerdale that
featured an acid attack.
Viewers watched as Barton had the acid thrown over him by Simon McManus, who had mistaken the man for someone else.
Debbie Dingle had been trying to get back at Joe Tate, asking Simon to mess him up. However, Simon mistook Ross for Joe and threw the acid in his face, leaving Ross screaming in agony.
UK TV watchdog Ofcom received 228 complaints from viewers about the story, with many saying that the graphic nature of the scene was not suitable for pre-watershed viewing.
An Ofcom spokesperson responded:
We are assessing these complaints under our broadcasting rules before deciding whether or not to investigate.
This phrase is Ofcom speak for complaints that are already on their way to the wastepaper bin.
A spokesperson for Emmerdale told Metro.co.uk:
Emmerdale has a long track record of tackling difficult and topical storylines and the unprovoked acid attack upon Ross is another example of this. We take our responsibility seriously when portraying what happens in these circumstances.
Consequently, the storyline was researched thoroughly with medical experts at Pinderfields Hospital. For the sequence following Ross's attack we adhered carefully to the NHS guidelines about how to help people who are the victim of an acid
Amazon's game-streaming site Twitch is cracking down on sexy content in a bid to make the platform more family-friendly. In
particular the site as putting a stop to so-called bikini streamers who wear skimpy outfits to increase their subscriber count, or attract donations.
Some streams involved a squats for subs dynamic, where scantily clad game streamers would perform squats in front of a camera in return for new channel subscribers.
The Amazon-owned gaming website, which is the world's most popular place to live-stream video games, has introduced a strict dress code that will come into effect later this month. Transgressors will be banned from the site. Twitch
We're updating our moderation framework to review your conduct in its entirety when evaluating if the intent is to be sexually suggestive.
The company is planning to examine a whole host of elements, including stream titles, camera angles, emotes, panels, clothing, overlays, and the chat box too.
As far as clothing goes, Twitch recommends wearing something you'd be comfortable in at a shopping centre.
Attire in gaming streams, most at-home streams, and all profile/channel imagery should be appropriate for a public street, mall, or restaurant.
The US moralist campaign Morality in Media, which now likes to call itself The National Center on Sexual Exploitation, is recommending
the Steam games distribution website for its selection of sexy games. The group spouts:
Steam is a popular distribution platform, owned by Valve Corporation, which sells thousands of video games for PC, Mac, Linux box, mobile device, or even televisions, in addition to connecting gamers with community forums
on its website.
Despite hosting approximately 35 million users who are minors, Steam also facilitates video games that promote themes of sexual violence, exhibitionism, and rape.
When videogames include sexually graphic and degrading themes the user is not only a voyeur but an active participant in staging the scene. As our society suffers from the consequences of campus sexual assault, military
sexual assault, and rising child-on-child sexual abuse, we see that normalizing the sexual use (and often abuse) of others in videogames is irresponsible on the corporate and social level.
The National Center on Sexual Exploitation urges Steam® and its parent company Valve® to do the following:
Remove the game House Party due to its singularly degrading and exploitive themes.
Create an 18+ category on its website where all games with any amount of nudity or sexual content are stored. All accounts should have this 18+ category disabled by default, and require an extensive opt-in to view it so
that children are no longer automatically exposed to this content.
Institute a more robust policy enforcement against selling games that normalize or glamorize sexual exploitation in the future, no matter the age of the user.
The Tourism and Antiquities Police have referred a Russian belly dancer Eicatrina Andreeva, who goes by the name Gawhara, to investigations for wearing a 'non-standard' dancing suit A controversy arose over how the ideal dancing suit should look.
According to Act No. 430 of the law on the censorship of literary works, the dancing suit should cover the lower body, with no side slits, and should cover the breast and stomach area.
The Russian dancer was arrested over inciting 'debauchery and arousing young people's sexual instincts', as she appeared in a not particularly sexy dancing video that has gone viral.
Accompanied by a translator during her investigations, Gawhara added that she was wearing a dancing suit no different than those donned by many belly dancers in Egypt.
The Tourism and Antiquities Police stated that Gawhara was wearing a non-standard dancing outfit and was featured in a viral video flaunting her body and pointing to private parts of her body in a racy manner, according to the findings of
preliminary investigation previously announced by the prosecution.
Stockholm council is set to ban sexy outdoor advertising. Daniel Hellden, one of Stockholm's deputy mayors and
a long-serving Green Party activist with a political and personal mission to:
Make sure women aren't made to feel uncomfortable by explicit or gender stereotyped advertising in public spaces. I know my daughters, they don't like it. They feel bad. We should not as a city be part of this sort of advertising. I have a
responsibility to the citizens of Stockholm to ban this.
Hellden notes that record immigration to the Swedish capital has fuelled a wider awareness of stereotyping and a need to avoid racist undertones in public spaces.
His efforts to stamp out discriminatory billboards, digital displays or information boards will come to a head later this month, when the City Council is expected to approve a ban on racist and sexist advertisements.
The censorship rules about what constitutes a sexist or racist advertisements will follow those set out by the country's very politically correct nationwide advertising censor, Reklamombudsmannen (RO). But whereas RO cannot issue sanctions to
companies in breach of the guidelines, Stockholm's council will be able to order them to take down offensive billboards within 24 hours.
Inevitably the move has supporters and critics. The Swedish Women's Lobby recently labelled Sweden the worst in the Nordics when it comes to gender images, due to being the only country in the region lacking legislation against sexism and
stereotyping in advertising.
But Stockholm's plans to try and step up efforts against discrimination have come under fire from The Association of Swedish Advertisers, which represents agencies and marketing professionals. Its chief executive, Anders Ericson, argues that
despite complaints from what he describes as a really strong group of feminists, Sweden is already doing a really terrific job in self-regulation. He fears a ban will increase red tape and curb freedom of expression.
A series of posts on Poundland's Twitter and Facebook page, promoting the #ElfBehavingBad
campaign, seen in December 2017:
a. An ad, posted on 11 December, featured an image of a toy elf and a bottle of De-Icer placed in front of a car windscreen which featured a drawing of a pair of breasts. The caption stated, Oh Elf, we know it's nippy
outside but not that kind of nippy! #ElfBehavingBad.
b. An ad, posted on 12 December, featured an image of the toy elf in a sink filled with bubbles sitting with two female dolls, taking a selfie. The caption stated Rub-a-dub-dub, three in a tub. A night of 'Selfies and
c. An ad, posted on 13 December, featured a moving graphic of the toy elf with a toothbrush placed between its legs whilst motioning back and forth. The caption stated, That's one way to scratch that itch. That's not
Santa's toothbrush is it?!.
d. A tweet, posted on 15 December, featured an image of the toy elf holding a spherical shaped object and a Darth Vader toy holding a lightsaber. The caption stated, Buzz off Darth, my lightsaber is bigger than yours.
e. An ad, posted on 16 December, featured an image of the toy elf sitting on a toy donkey's back with the caption, Don't tell Rudolph I've found a new piece of ass.
f. An ad, posted on 18 December featured an image of the toy elf next to a drawing of a phallic-shaped tree with the caption, That's one very prickly Christmas tree.
g. An ad, posted on 19 December featured an image of the toy elf wearing a dark moustache holding an arrow that pointed towards it, which featured the text FREE moustache rides. The caption stated First come, first served.
h. An ad, posted on 20 December featured an image of a toy elf playing a game of cards with three unclothed dolls. The caption stated Joker, joker. I really want to poker.
i. An ad, posted on 21 December featured an image of the toy elf holding a tea bag between its legs with a female doll lying beneath it.
85 complainants challenged whether:
The ads were offensive for their depiction of toy characters and other items which had been displayed in a sexualised manner; and
The ads were unsuitable to be displayed in an untargeted medium where children could see them.Response
Poundland Ltd stated that their elf campaign was based on humour and double entendres.
They explained that while the nature of a double entendre was that they would not be understood by children. They also stated Twitter and Facebook had policies which prevented under-13s from creating accounts on their
websites and Poundland had never sought to encourage anyone other than adults to follow Poundland on these social networks.
They provided an appendix, which contained highlights of comments they had received in support of the campaign and referenced results from a poll conducted on Twitter where 82% of a sample audience containing over 12,000
responders supported the campaign. The results were almost equally split between men and women. They provided information on the volume of interactions they had during the campaign, which included 33 million impressions in total, 4 million
engagements -- including reactions, comments, retweets, shares and replies -- as well as 43,000 new followers with the most significant peak on the 21 December, when the campaign went viral. They stated a large number of people found the campaign
to be humorous, engaging, and in line with what it meant to be British.
They stated they did not intend to offend anyone.
ASA Assessment: Complaints upheld
The ASA understood the campaign was based on a toy elf, which resembled the popular children's Christmas tradition known as Elf on the Shelf, from the book of the same name. The elf was depicted in various scenarios where he
was shown to be behaving in a mischievous manner, with some images captioned with the hashtag #ElfBehavingBad. The overall campaign was based around puns and double entendres, which included sexual references.
Poundland's Facebook and Twitter pages were not age-gated and could therefore be seen by anyone. Although we did not consider they were likely to be of particular interest or appeal to children, we did not consider those who
were already following the pages would expect to see sexual or offensive content. We also noted the ads had been shared widely on social media and therefore would have been seen by a large number of people, including some children, who did not
actively follow Poundland on social media.
The image and caption in ad (a) depicting a pair of breasts drawn on a car windscreen and ad (f) which featured the elf beside a sketch of a penis-shaped tree were obvious sexual references that were shown to be drawn by the
toy elf. We considered ad (c)'s depiction of the elf thrusting a toothbrush between its legs to be interpreted as a sexual act. Ad (d)'s inclusion of the caption, my lightsaber is bigger than yours and the elf waving a vibrator were also obvious
references to sexual acts.
We considered ad (b), which depicted the elf and two unclothed female dolls placed in a sink filled with bubbles and the caption, A night of 'Selfies and chill, to be a play on the term Netflix and chill, which was a widely
known term implying sexual activity. We also noted ad (g), which featured an image of the toy elf wearing a dark moustache with the text FREE moustache rides, was an implied reference to oral sex. We considered ad (e), which featured the toy elf
placed on the toy donkey's back with the caption, Don't tell Rudolph I've found a new piece of ass, was a pun of a sexual nature.
We considered the depiction of a child's toy in relation to such sexual references and acts in a medium which could also be accessed by children was irresponsible and likely to cause serious or widespread offence, therefore
breaching the Code.
We further noted ad (h), which featured a group of unclothed dolls playing what appeared to be strip poker captioned with the phrase I really want to poker, was a sexual reference aimed towards the female dolls. We also
considered ad (i), which featured the elf holding a tea bag between its legs with a female doll lying beneath it, was also a reference to a sexual act. Both ads (h) and (i) presented the female dolls in a manner which could be seen as demeaning
to women. We considered these ads were irresponsible and likely to cause serious or widespread offence by depicting a child's toy in relation to such sexual acts, therefore breaching the Code.
We therefore concluded the ads, which depicted the toy figures in a sexualised manner and appeared in an untargeted medium where they could be seen by children, were irresponsible and were likely to cause serious or
The ads must not appear again in their current form. We told Poundland Ltd to ensure that their advertising was presented with a sense of responsibility and did not cause serious or widespread offence.
Manchester Art Gallery has censored a historic artwork seemingly in response to #MeToo
concerns about men gazing on naked women.
John William Waterhouse's painting Hylas and the Nymphs was painted in 1896 and depicts pubescent, naked nymphs tempting a handsome young man to his doom. It is one of the most recognisable of the pre-Raphaelite paintings.
Although framing the decision as some sort of prompt for a debate, the censorship seems permanent as the gallery has also announced that will also be erased from the post card selection in the gallery shop.
Clare Gannaway, the gallery's 'curator' of contemporary art, explained the censorship on grounds of political correctness. She spoke about the work, and related paintings which were exhibited in a room titled In Pursuit of Beauty :
The title was a bad one, as it was male artists pursuing women's bodies, and paintings that presented the female body as a passive decorative art form or a femme fatale.
For me personally, there is a sense of embarrassment that we haven't dealt with it sooner. Our attention has been elsewhere ... we've collectively forgotten to look at this space and think about it properly. We want to do something about it now
because we have forgotten about it for so long.
She added that the debates around Time's Up and #MeToo had fed into the decision.
She also invented a bizarre take on "I don't believe in censorship...BUT...". She claimed
The aim of the removal was to provoke debate, not to censor. It wasn't about denying the existence of particular artworks. [ ...BUT... it was about preventing men from gazing on the female form].
The response so far has been mixed. Some have said it sets a dangerous precedent, while others have called it po-faced and politically correct.
I particularly enjoyed a blunt reader comment on a miserable Guardian editorial piece
supporting the censorship. TheGreatRonRafferty commented:
Nope, it's censorship. The reason it has been removed is because it shows women's breasts, but now we're being fed bunkum, because those who would hide women's breasts aren't willing to say so.
And an the subject of journalistic accuracy, Andrew Sutton wrote to the Guardian:
Your arts correspondent, Mark Brown, repeatedly refers to Waterhouse as a Pre-Raphaelite. Waterhouse was a prominent Victorian painter contemporary with the Pre-Raphaelite brotherhood, but was never a member and to refer to him as such is just
Manchester Art Gallery said the censored painting will be back on display on Saturday, seemingly on council
orders. It's been clear that many people feel very strongly about the issues raised, Manchester City Council said.
Critics have been robustly condemning the curators for being puritanical and politically correct.
The gallery's interim director Amanda Wallace said:
We were hoping the experiment would stimulate discussion, and it's fair to say we've had that in spades - and not just from local people but from art-lovers around the world.
Throughout the painting's seven day absence, it's been clear that many people feel very strongly about the issues raised, and we now plan to harness this strength of feeling for some further debate on these wider issues.
Presumably the politically correct curators have been living in their own little Guardian reading filter bubble and simply didn't realise how few people supported their views on the censorship of art.
Offsite Comment: Perhaps a little sensitivity training for the staff of the gallery might be in order
The gallery is on tricky ground. Was it censoring Waterhouse's painting? Gannaway says no, but how else do you describe the removal of an
artwork because someone objects to its subject matter on the grounds of a debate that actually has nothing to do with it? Perhaps a little sensitivity training for the staff of the gallery might be in order.
The belief that art needs to be contextualised in this way is not only deeply patronising -- it is also opening up a gap between
the art world and the public. Mounting their moral high horses, curators and critics see the role of the arts as one of correcting the way people think about the world -- to make people see the world as it is seen by these elites: riven by gender
bias, racism, homophobia, Islamophobia, corporate corruption, environmental irresponsibility, and so forth.
Piers Morgan secured the first international interview with Donald Trump last week.
However the interviewer came across as bit arse lickey. The BBC's Mash Report concurred and broadcast a cartoon to illustrate the point.
Piers Morgan launched a blistering on the BBC after it aired a cartoon depicting the British journalist with his nose up President Trump's backside. Morgan accused the corporation of double standards. He wrote:
Amusing though this image may be to many people, can you imagine the BBC broadcasting it if the President was Hillary Clinton or the interviewer was a woman?
The BBC thinks this is OK to broadcast. But if it depicted high profile women, there would be outrage. Why the double standard? If they did it to Hilary Clinton and Laura Kuenssberg - somebody WOULD be sacked.
Surely a valid point but it hardly deflects the humour. US columnist and television personality Perez Hilton agreed and retweeted Morgan, adding: Solid point from Piers.
A BBC spokesperson said:
The BBC has a rich heritage of satire and The Mash Report takes a satirical and surreal look at the week's big stories. This brand of humour is well known to BBC Two audiences who tune in to watch the programme.