UK Nutter News

A PC campaign group is urging for the totally disproportionate punishment of the sack for Strictly Come Dancing judge Craig Revel Horwood after he said he liked the sex and violence in the hit TV series Game of Thrones.

Revel Horwood was on the More4 comedy panel show 8 Out of 10 Cats on Tuesday night when discussing the hit American fantasy drama series with other panelists on the show.

Host Jimmy asked Horwood if he watched the programme and he replied:

No, I persevered for the first series until the dragon came on and that's when I switched off.

I liked all the sex scenes and the rape and I liked the cleavers through the skulls and I liked all of that, but I got very bored in the end.

Irish actress Aisling Bea who was on his team, looked horrified.  She said:

When they weren't raping anyone? Am I the only one who heard that? What world are we living in? Oh Trump's world, fine keep going.

Marilyn Hawes, founder of Enough Abuse UK, said she was:

Absolutely disgusted. Rape is the most devastating and vile crime and I would have to question him as a person and his merit as a judge on the Strictly Come Dancing panel, which is a family show.

His comment would have enraged many women and men who have been raped. How could he say he liked that scene? I'm absolutely disgusted.

You cannot have people on a family show with that mindset. I think the BBC should get rid of him. It is so distressing for people who have been raped to hear that.

A discount online retailer everything5.com has 'outraged' campaigners by selling a women's t-shirt with the slogan NO MEANS NO - Well maybe if I'm drunk .

Since the t-shirt appeared on the site it has attracted a flurry of complaints from angry campaigners who are demanding that it is immediately banned from sale.

Among those complaining, Rachel Krys from campaign group End Violence Against Women branded the t-shirt disgusting and supported the calls to have it removed from sale. She told the Daily Mail:

It's just disgusting. I'm all for free speech ...BUT... I can see why lots of women have complained about it.

Women, particularly young women, see things like this and hear things around recent rape cases and think they're in some way to blame or that it's not as serious as it feels to them. It's part of a really unhelpful dialogue around sexual assault and consent in general. It's really offensive, particularly to people who have experienced sexual assault and rape. We're living in an environment where they are not believed, and it adds to the message that it's a joke or won't be believed.

A spokesman for the website said:

How come many people are buying those t-shirts, specially women? I think it is to do with what you think in your mind.

A Youtube ad for Kronenbourg, seen on 18 June 2016, featured Eric Cantona playing a fictional character who, with two dogs who wore barrels containing Kronenbourg around their necks, said delivered Kronenbourg to the deserving . In other words, to people who had experienced unfortunate mishaps or who had enjoyed improbable success. The character stated Here in Alsace, live the most intelligent dogs in the world, the Alsace-tians. They deliver Kronenbourg to the deserving . In one scenario, a monk who had been ringing church bells had become entangled in the ropes and the dogs set him free. Afterwards he was given a pint of Kronenbourg. In another scenario, a local postman had fallen off his bike into a snowdrift and was trapped in the snow. The dogs dug him out of the snow and he was then seen sitting on a rock shivering holding a pint of Kronenbourg. In a third scenario, an actor was on stage playing a dramatic suicide scene and Eric Cantona's character in the audience was seen rolling his eyes and sighing, as though he disliked the actor's performance. Once the performance was over, the actor received a standing ovation from the rest of the audience and the Alsace-tian dogs delivered his pint of Kronenbourg in recognition of his success. In the final scene, Eric Cantona's character stated Man's best friend delivering one of man's greatest achievements. A taste supreme .

The Youth Alcohol Advertising Council (YAAC) challenged whether the ad implied that alcohol:

1. could enhance confidence; and

2. had therapeutic qualities, and was capable of changing mood, physical condition or behaviour.

Heineken pointed out that the scenarios had been resolved by the time the beer was consumed and the scenes ended after the characters had taken a sip of Kronenbourg. They believed that no continued physical or emotional uplift was shown which could be attributed to the effect of the beer, and that it was not implied through the visuals or narrative that Kronenbourg had any therapeutic or restorative properties. They believed the ad implied that the characters were grateful for the unexpected offer of a refreshing and locally popular beer.

ASA Assessment: Complaint not upheld

1. Not upheld

The ASA noted that the actor did not receive or consume alcohol before or during his performance, and it was only after he had finished his final scene, and had taken a bow, that the Alsace-tian dogs ran onto the stage and delivered a glass of Kronenbourg. We also noted that the audience reacted positively to his performance before the dogs appeared on stage with the beer. We therefore considered that the ad did not imply that it was the Kronenbourg that had given him confidence in the later part of his performance, or that it had enhanced his popularity with the audience, and we concluded that it did not breach the Code.

2. Not upheld

We noted that in both scenarios, the dogs rescued the trapped villagers as soon as they appeared on the scene and that after they had been released, they were given a Kronenbourg. We noted that the monk was seen smiling as he brought the glass to his mouth and closed his eyes as he took a sip of the beer. We noted that the postman was shivering as he brought the glass to his mouth and, after taking a sip, he waved to Eric Cantona as a gesture of gratitude.

We considered that, although the men appeared pleased, the situations portrayed implied that any improvement in their mood was due to their relief at having been rescued from unpleasant situations, coupled with their gratitude at having received an unexpected gift of a free beer. We considered that because the beer was consumed at the very end of the scenes after the rescues had taken place, there was no suggestion that it was the consumption of the beer, rather than the act of being rescued, that had improved their mood. We also considered, for the same reason, that there was no suggestion that the beer had therapeutic properties that had helped the villagers either get out of or recover from their ordeals.

In the case of the postman, we noted he was still shivering after having taken a sip of the beer, although slightly less markedly, but we attributed that to him warming up naturally as a result of no longer being in the mound of snow, rather than having taken a small sip of beer. We considered therefore the ad did not suggest it was the consumption of beer that had improved his physical condition.

For those reasons, we concluded that the ad did not imply that alcohol had therapeutic properties, or was capable of changing mood, physical condition or behaviour.

A post on the @WKDOfficial Twitter feed in May 2016 stated Our WKD tech team are trying to make your emoji dreams a reality. Below was an image of a phone screen showing an exchange of messages. The first said Gonna be a gr8 nite and included an image of three small blue bottles. The response included an image of two small red bottles and a face with tears of joy emoji.

The Youth Alcohol Advertising Council challenged whether the ad was irresponsible because the use of emojis was likely to appeal particularly to people under 18 years of age.

WKD said they believed emojis were an ageless, common form of communication that did not have particular appeal to under 18s. They said they were used by a variety of brands (including other alcohol brands), institutions and non-governmental organisations to communicate with adults and that they saw them as being interchangeable with exclamation marks and words, with the benefit of reducing the use of characters, which was a consideration given the limits on social media. They supplied examples of emojis being used in communications by various companies and brands, and cited a magazine article which said that 92% of the UK population, including four out of five of those aged between 18 and 65, used emojis on a regular basis.

WKD cited a report which had said Twitter was a media platform where 84% of users were over 18. They said the WKD Twitter page was protected by an age gate, where users were asked to submit their date of birth.

ASA Assessment: Complaint not upheld

The CAP Code stated that alcohol ads must not be likely to appeal particularly to people under 18, especially by reflecting or being associated with youth culture. The ASA acknowledged WKD's comment that the content of their Twitter page was targeted at those who declared themselves to be 18 years and over. However, we considered that the content nevertheless should not have particular appeal to under-18s. We considered emojis were likely to have appeal across many age groups including, because of their cartoon-like appearance, those under 18. However, we considered they were not likely to have particular appeal to under-18s by reflecting or being associated with youth culture and concluded that the ad therefore did not breach the Code.

A rape scene on Sunday night's episode of Poldark has attracted just 14 complaints, surely a disappointment to PC campaigners.

A spokesman from TV censor Ofcom said the complaints would be assessed before deciding whether to investigate or not. Usually this means that the complaints are already heading towards the wastepaper bin.

In the episode, Ross Poldark, played by fan-favourite Aidan Turner, turns up unannounced at the house of his former fiancee Elizabeth. He kicks in the door and demands that she cancels her wedding to his enemy George Warleggan. She ignores what he says and instead asks him to leave, prompting him to take her face in his hands and forcefully kiss her. The scene continues until Poldark pushes her on to the bed and she appears to finally give in to him.

Sarah Green, co-director of the campaign group End Violence Against Women, said:

It is definitely portrayed very much as a rape. The female character says "no" and there are also non-verbal signs. She is moving away from him and pulling away from him. There is lots of stuff that is ambiguous.

The directors have done something really ambiguous. It is a really appalling message, which is they have made the representation of non-consensual sex ambiguous by making her appear to change her mind.

Poldark is  based on the novels of Winston Graham. Commenting on the controversial scene, the author's son Andrew said:

There is no "shock rape" storyline in the novels. To say so is to misconstrue my father's text. The BBC has cut nothing and (production company) Mammoth Screen's portrayal of these scenes is entirely true to my father's writing.

The only way to judge what my father intended is to read the novels as a whole. Doing so it becomes clear, from earlier scenes as well as from Elizabeth's immediate reactions and later mixed emotions, that what finally happened was consensual sex born of long-term love and longing. It was, as Aidan Turner has put it, "unfinished business emotionally".

The actress Doon Mackichan has whinged about what she calls crime porn -- the use of brutalised women as entertainment fodder in television dramas such as The Fall .

The Smack the Pony actress calls on broadcasters to bring the body count down in a documentary for BBC Radio 4 in which she examines the prevalence of scenes of sexual violence involving women.

Mackichan focuses on shows such as The Killing , Luther and True Detective as well as interviewing Allan Cubitt, writer and director of The Fall. The BBC drama starring Gillian Anderson about a detective on the trail of a serial killer. Mackichan attacked the show saying:

We've reached zero tolerance of these overused images and can move on from stories of brutalised women as entertainment fodder.

Cubitt countered telling Mackichan:

I don't know how you could possibly argue The Fall is misogynistic . The Fall sets out to critique these things. My mantra was always that we shouldn't sensationalise it, but we shouldn't sanitise it either.

In an interview for BBC Radio 4's Seriously ... podcast, Mackichan said she would:

Like there to be a real sea change ... because it bleeds into our culture. We do have a lot of what I call crime porn. The onus is with commissioners who commission these programmes, and with screenwriters ... who are pandering to the appetite that has been created.

Two national press ads for Luv2Chat, seen in the Sunday Sport on 14 June 2016, promoted adult chat lines:

• a. The first ad appeared on an inside page of the paper and featured several images of naked and partially naked women in sexualised poses with their breasts visible. The images were accompanied by phrases such as They're Huge! Shoot Your Load on my Massive Tits!! and Filthy Old Pensioner! Give Quick 30 Second Relief .

• b. The second ad appeared on the back page of the paper and featured several images of women, who appeared to be removing their clothing, with their breasts partially visible. The images were accompanied by phrases such as XXX Sex Stories and Filthy Sex Chat with Hot TGirls! .

Not Buying It! [a feminist campaign group], who were concerned that the ads could be seen by children, challenged whether the ads had been irresponsibly placed.

Worldwide Digital Media said that to prohibit the ads from being placed in the newspaper, would be highly selective and restrictive, and would amount to censorship on the UK's free press.

The Sunday Sport said they regularly ran similar ads in their newspaper, but had never received a complaint directly about their content, and were not aware of any previous complaints to the ASA about children viewing such ads. They believed that their customers would all be aware of the regular sexual content within the newspaper, and therefore believed that the newspaper was a suitable media to display the ads. They said there was nothing within the ads that could reasonably be perceived to target children.

ASA Assessment: Complaint upheld in relation to ad (b) only.

The ASA noted that the ads contained sexually explicit imagery and text, and therefore required careful placement to ensure that they were not viewed by children. We understood that the Sunday Sport was a paid-for newspaper targeted at adult males, which regularly contained similar ads for adult services alongside editorial content which was comparably sexually explicit. Because the newspaper was not targeted at children, we considered that it was unlikely that ad (a) would be seen by them, and therefore concluded that the ad had not been irresponsibly placed on the inside of the Sunday Sport.

However, because ad (b) appeared on the back page of the publication, we considered that, if the paper was left in public places or around the house, the ad could be seen by children. We also understood that the Sunday Sport was usually displayed in retail stores alongside other newspapers in a readily visible position (as opposed to appearing on the top shelf), and therefore the back page was more likely to be seen inadvertently by children. As such, we were concerned that there was a risk that children would be able to view ad (b), and concluded that the decision to place it on the back page of the Sunday Sport was irresponsible.

Ad (b) must not appear again on the back page of the Sunday Sport. We told Worldwide Digital Media not to place sexually explicit ads on the back page of publications where they could be seen by children.

Reaction

Needless to say, the ban on the back page was not enough for the feminist campaign group Not Buying It! who were 'outraged' that the censors did not also ban sex adverts inside the publication. The group countered with a few angry banners on its website. Eg

Love Island
30 June 2016, ITV2, 21:00

Love Island is an ITV2 reality programme in which a group of young single people look for romance while staying in a luxury villa.

Ofcom received seven complaints about the episode broadcast on 30 June 2016 at 21:00. Viewers objected to a scene in which housemates Emma and Terry had sex. This was broadcast shortly after the watershed.

The individual housemates got into bed with their partners. The lights in the communal bedroom were turned off and the following images were shown in the form of footage taken using night vision cameras:

• Emma and Terry in bed together and kissing, with their upper bodies visible above the duvet (with Emma wearing a slip);
• Emma and Terry looking at each other in medium close up;
• a wide shot from behind of Emma as the duvet slipped from her shoulders down to her lower back, which indicated that under the duvet she was straddling Terry;
• a series of three brief close-ups of Emma’s back and shoulders as the couple had sex; and
• a shot from behind of Emma pulling the duvet back up over her shoulders afterwards.

These shots were interspersed with images of the shocked reactions of the other housemates in the villa's bedroom while Emma and Terry had sex, as well as interview footage of them afterwards recounting their view of what had happened.

Ofcom considered rules:

• Rule 1.6: The transmission to more adult material must not be unduly abrupt at the watershed…For television, the strongest material should appear later in the schedule.
• Rule 2.3 In applying generally accepted standards broadcasters must ensure that material which may cause offence is justified by the context…Such material may include, but is not limited to…sex…Appropriate information should also be broadcast where it would assist in avoiding or minimising offence.

Ofcom Decision: Not in Breach of Rules 1.6 and 2.3
 

Rule 1.6

We noted that Love Island is a relatively well-established reality show format and that this episode formed part of the programme's second series (which began on 30 May 2016). The series focuses on the romantic entanglements of a group of young single people, and we recognised that sexual activity between housemates had occurred in this and the previous series, and is often a key element of the programme's ongoing narratives.

We took account of other specific contextual factors that we considered reduced the explicitness and overall sexual tone of the material. In particular, we observed that the images of the sexual activity were recorded using night vision cameras so that they were in monochrome and relatively indistinct, and the shots of Emma straddling Terry while they were having sex were very brief (approximately six seconds in total duration). We also noted that none of this sexual activity was shown in any explicit way: the couple were covered by a duvet below the waist and Emma was wearing a slip throughout, and there were no images of full nudity during these scenes. We considered that the use of music, and the intercutting of the shots of Emma and Terry with the housemates’ reactions, lightened the tone and further reduced the potential impact on viewers of the sequence. We also took account of the clear warning before the programme that alerted viewers to “scenes of a sexual nature”.

Ofcom had regard to the fact that the programme was broadcast on ITV2, a channel that is aimed at a young adult audience. In light of this, much of this channel’s postwatershed schedule includes reality programmes as well as films and comedies targeted at adults. We therefore considered it likely the audience would have a greater expectation for content potentially unsuitable for children to be shown shortly after the watershed on this channel, compared to the audience for the main ITV public service channel.

We also noted that this episode of Love Island was immediately preceded by a double-bill of the sitcom Two and a Half Men. This programme typically includes some limited discussion of adult and sexual themes and does not aim to attract child viewers. We considered these factors helped, in this case, to ensure that the transition to stronger material after the watershed was not unduly abrupt. In addition, given the brevity and relative inexplicitness of the content, we did not consider it amounted to the strongest material . For all these reasons, our Decision was that Rule 1.6 was not breached.

Rule 2.3

We considered that the Licensee had ensured that this potentially offensive material was justified by the context. Therefore, our Decision was that it did not breach Rule 2.3. In the particular circumstances of this case, Ofcom has found this material did not breach of the Code.

However, as noted above, we consider that content including real sex may carry a greater potential to raise issues under the Code than depictions of sex in a drama or film. Broadcasters should take particular care and exercise caution when scheduling material of this type soon after the watershed.

Moralists fall out of love with the TV censors

Of course a few moralist campaigners were non pleased by Ofcom's decision and were happy to provide the Daily Mail with a few sound bites.

Chris McGovern, of the Campaign for Real Education, whinged:

Schools work hard to encourage children not to experiment with sex and these kinds of programmes present sex as some kind of Victorian freak show, offered up for entertainment.

Sam Burnett, acting director of Mediawatch-UK, whinged:

Apparently it's now OK to show two people having sex nine minutes after the watershed as long as you play some jaunty music over the top of it.

Ofcom's lip-service regulation is leading to a freefall in television standards, and it's the viewers who are losing out.

Conservative MP Sir William Cash whinged:

The bottom line is that this was inappropriate. I would agree with those who have said it's deplorable.

Offsite Comment: The Daily Mail has a rant about Ofcom

15th September 2016. See  article from dailymail.co.uk . By Stephen Glover for the Daily Mail

What IS the point of a TV watchdog if it rules a couple having sex on a mainstream programme is acceptable?

Moira Knox, who died on 4th August aged 85, was an Edinburgh councillor who became almost a cult figure at the city's annual festival, supplying suitably outraged quotes to accompany the latest newspaper report on any Fringe production that might offend public decency with nudity, blasphemy, bad language or even bad manners; she became known as Edinburgh's Mary Whitehouse .

Moira Knox never needed to see a show before pronouncing judgment. She explained a little how she got caught up in newspaper fuelled 'outrage':

A girl from the Sun telephoned and told me that they had received lots of calls from irate ratepayers in Edinburgh complaining about the nudity, she said. The girl from the Sun has seen it and she explained exactly what was going on... I do not need to go and see it to know what it looks like.

Her words of opprobrium would often be reprinted on the posters and fliers of visiting companies helping to raise public interest and increase ticket sales. One promoter even launched an award, called the Moira, which was given to the Fringe production that prompted the fiercest criticism

There were suggestions that some performers would contact her directly to alert her to the nature of their shows, while pretending to be offended members of the public.

By the end of the 1990s she had rather twigged that her 'outrage' was being exploited. She announced that she was going to retire from her self-appointed mission to clean up the Fringe:

I've realised that they want me to castigate them. I'm not falling for that again.

The Daily Mail runs with the headline: Can TV Sink Any Lower? and continues:

It claims to be progressive and truthful. In fact, Channel 4's new naked dating show is stupid and degrading voyeurism from what's meant to be a public service broadcaster.

From Big Brother to Sex Box, the world of TV is always looking for new lows. And this week Channel 4 succeeded.

Thousands of viewers complained on Twitter and media guardians branded Naked Attraction -- an uncensored nude dating show -- the worst programme ever shown on TV . Broadcasting watchdog Ofcom has already received 24 complaints about nudity.

A spokesman for MediaWatch UK said:

This has to be the worst programme ever shown on television, there is nothing to recommend it.

Norman Wells, of the Family Education Trust, accused Channel 4 of

Grossly irresponsible broadcasting and viewers labelled it creepy and a new low for British TV .

In each two-part programme, a pair of contestants get to appraise the six people vying in their birthday suits for approval. Each date stands stark naked in a box, while a screen is gradually raised to reveal them front and back bit by wobbly bit , as presenter Anna Richardson puts it.

The contestants then reject the dates one by one for purely physical reasons mainly attached to their genitalia. When only two potential dates are left, they parade naked while the contestant runs the rule over them, and while this doesn't quite happen literally, in Monday's opening programme one aspiring suitor was rejected because his penis was too big.

A spokesperson for Channel 4 responded to the whinges explaining:

This is a light-hearted and appropriately scheduled series which aims to demystify the rules of sexual attraction for the Tinder generation.

At the time of writing, 45 viewers had complained to the TV censor Ofcom who will no doubt reject them out of hand.

Despite the complaints, Naked Attraction has proved a hit with an average of 1.4 million viewers tuning to the series opener.

Naked Attraction airs Monday nights at 10PM on Channel 4.

Update: A few more complaints

28th July 2016. See  article from radiotimes.com

Ofcom has now received 98 complaints in total, some about nudity and some about the programming being supposedly degrading to human relationships.

Update: Another sound bite

31st July 2016.  See  article from telegraph.co.uk

Sam Burnett, of Mediawatch UK, said:

Never before have programme-makers shown such blatant contempt for basic standards, with record levels of explicit nudity serving no particular purpose. It's not even like the programme was any good to compensate.

Offsite Article: Naked Attraction unzipping the history of male full-frontal nudity on TV.

31st July 2016.  See  article from telegraph.co.uk

The first penis was shown on British television in 1957 during an episode of the documentary series Out of Step. Presenter Daniel Farson visited a nudist colony and, perhaps unsurprisingly, some naked chap wandered past in the back ground. While this did make the front page of The Daily Herald, only one viewer called Television House -- and that was to praise the programme.

...Read the full article from telegraph.co.uk

Update: Whingeing about catch-up TV

1st August 2016. See  article from sundaypost.com

Moralist campaigners are now whingeing that the Channel 4 dating show, Naked Attraction , is available to view by youngsters anytime on its catch-up service. It can be easily accessed by children if parental controls haven't been set.

Norman Wells, director of Family Education Trust, whinged:

Although it's broadcast after 10pm, many young teenagers will be aware of it and will be able to access it online without too much difficulty.

Sexually explicit programmes like this one are sending out mixed messages to children and young people. On the one hand, parents and teachers are warning them about the dangers of sexting and encouraging modesty and restraint, while on the other hand sexual exhibitionism is being promoted as a legitimate form of entertainment by a public service broadcaster.

Sam Burnett, acting director of Mediawatch UK, whinged:

We're concerned that programmes like Naked Attraction are freely available via on-demand apps with barely more than a box-ticking effort to ensure the person watching is over 18.

As programme-makers chase publicity and controversy they're encouraging young people to seek out inappropriate content to keep up with playground gossip.

We have an anything-goes culture in television production. Just because a programme is on late at night with fewer viewers doesn't mean that standards should be thrown out of the window. That record-breaking nudity is no longer as bad as it once was isn't because we are more enlightened, it's a sad reflection of a society grown dull through over-exposure to pornography.

Meanwhile in the US, moralist campaigners are a bit green with envy about there being actual nudity on TV to complain about. Americans usually have to put up with their nudity being censored by pixelation.

See  article from w2.parentstv.org where Parents TV Council whinges:

In recent years, Americans have been bombarded by ever-more sleazy concepts for reality shows, from Walk of Shame Shuttle and The Seven Year Switch to Sex Box and Dating Naked . But British TV proves that there's always something more depraved waiting in the wings.

Naked Attraction is a new program on Britain's Channel Four which premiered this week. On the show, a contestant chooses a date from a panel of six eligible singles. How does the contestant make her choice? By viewing all six potential partners completely in the nude. Unlike Dating Naked , nothing is blurred; the show features full-frontal nudity, in shocking close-up.

And when Channel Four says naked, [they] mean NAKED. There are no modesty blurs like those found on VH1's Dating Naked or the Discovery Channel's Naked and Afraid . About 50 percent of the screen time on this show is dedicated to extreme close ups of vaginas, penises, six-packs, love-handles, nipples, boobs and butts. The camera seems to linger on every hair, pimple and stretch mark, as well as the curves and protrusions, notes an article about the show .

American TV history is rife with concepts borrowed from British television, from All in the Family and Sanford and Son to MTV's Skins and The In-Betweeners . American viewers can only hope that this is one case where American media decides NOT to imitate their cousins across the ocean.

The NSPCC has demanded that the makers of Pokemon GO introduce child safety features before the game is released in the UK. Peter Wanless, the chief executive of the children's campaign company, whinged:

Given Pokemon's already massive popularity with children, the NSPCC is concerned that basic safety standards appear to have been overlooked.

I urge you to urgently reassess your app and its security and safety features.

We all have a responsibility to ensure that children are protected and as creators of a game with substantive reach, you have a weighty responsibility to protect your young users.

The game lets players capture virtual cartoon animal-like creatures on their phones, as they wander around the real world.

There have been scare stories, though, of criminals using the game to lure players to remote locations and to rob them. In another instance, players following digital trails were directed to a sex shop.

Complaint Summary by Alcohol Concern

We would like to ask the Panel to consider whether the Captain Morgan pirate logo used on bottles and other items by Diageo is in breach of Section 3.2 (h) of the Code, which states that a drink, its packaging or promotion should not have a particular appeal to under-18s, and in particular contravenes the guidance that cartoon-style imagery...bright colouring... pictures of real or fictional people known to children or terminology popular with children should not be featured.

It is indisputable that Captain Morgan as he appears on Diageo's packaging and marketing materials is a cartoon-style image with bright colouring. He is also clearly both a real and a fictional person known to children: the popularity of 17th and 18th century pirates with young children is attested to by a wealth of books, films and toys; and the Captain Henry Morgan, on whom the drink's branding is based, is both a well-known historical character and has been fictionalised in a number of stories in print and on screen.

Portman Group Panel Decision: Complaint not upheld

The Panel began by discussing whether the image used on the product range was a cartoon or cartoon-like in style and might therefore be particularly appealing to under 18s. The Panel discussed the image at length and considered that the image was not a cartoon or cartoon like and that it more closely resembled a piece of art or oil painting than it did a cartoon. The Panel recognised that the colours used on the image were of a mature, shaded hue and that the image lacked luminescence or the bright colours that might be appealing to a younger audience. The Panel also concluded that the image was very old fashioned and traditional in style and was reminiscent of Victorian book illustrations and did not resemble any modern cartoons or characters.

The Panel discussed whether the image exhibited any visual clues or similarities to the archetypal pirate image that is commonly used in children stories and would therefore be recognisable by, and appealing to, children. The Panel considered that there were no obvious similarities between the image used on the product and the pirate images commonly depicted in children's stories, such as an eye patch or wooden leg, and recognised that the image was of in fact of a 17th Century Sea Captain and not a pirate.

Considering the lack of resemblance between the Captain Morgan image and archetypal pirate commonly used in children's stories, the old fashioned and adult style of illustration and muted colours used, the Panel concluded that it did not breach Code rule 3.2(h).

The anti-drink campaign group Alcohol Concern has whinged about the packaging for Kopparberg Frozen Fruit Cider. The campaigners claimed that the drink did not make clear that it contained alcohol and that the packaging would appeal to youngsters due to similarities with an unspecified popular non-alcoholic drink.

The complaint was not upheld by the Independent Complaints Panel (ICP), part of the Portman Group, an industry organisation that censors UK drinks packaging.

The Panel discussed whether the alcoholic nature of the drink was communicated with absolute clarity. They found that the word cider and contains alcohol were prominent on the packaging as was the ABV strength. Accordingly, the Panel did not uphold the product under Code rule 3.1

The Panel deliberated whether the packaging could particularly appeal to those under 18. The Panel noted a number of significant differences in comparison to the packaging of well-known soft drinks. The product did not have a straw and was not designed to be consumed directly from the pouch. The product was intended to be taken home, frozen and then poured into a glass. The Panel considered that this ritual was targeted at an adult audience.

The Panel also concluded that the colours used on the packaging, particularly the use of black, gave the product a premium appearance that would be more appealing to adults.

Accordingly, the Panel did not uphold the product under Code rule 3.2(h), particular appeal to children.

Anti-alcohol campaigners, Alcohol Concern, complained to the drinks industry trade group in its self regulating role as drinks censor:

We would like to ask the Panel to consider whether the Heineken UK beer packaging and marketing using an image of the armed character of James Bond is in breach of Section 3.2(b) of the Code, which states that a drink, its packaging and any promotional material or activity should not in any direct or indirect way... suggest any association with bravado, or with violent, aggressive, dangerous or anti-social behaviour .

We note that in May 2012, the Panel ruled against a pump clip produced by the Ramsgate Brewery since it felt that the Kray Twins [shown on the clip] were intrinsically linked with violence and aggression and were also relevant and contemporary . We would maintain that this is equally true of James Bond, particularly given the high degree of violence in recent Bond films.

Given that James Bond is a character who is also well known for his sexual success and unusually heavy drinking, we suggest that this marketing campaign is also in breach of Sections 3.2(d) and 3.2(f) of the Code, which prohibit any association direct or indirect with sexual activity or sexual success or with irresponsible or immoderate consumption .

Portman Group Decision:

Under Code paragraph 3.2(b): NOT UPHELD

A drink, its packaging and any promotional material or activity should not in any direct or indirect way suggest any association with bravado, or with violent, aggressive, dangerous or anti-social behaviour.

Under Code paragraph 3.2(d): NOT UPHELD

A drink, its packaging and any promotional material or activity should not in any direct or indirect way suggest any association with sexual activity or sexual success.

Under Code paragraph 3.2(f): NOT UPHELD

A drink, its packaging and any promotional material or activity should not in any direct or indirect way encourage illegal, irresponsible or immoderate consumption, such as drink-driving, binge-drinking or drunkenness.

The Panel recognised that James Bond is a brave, daring and sometimes violent fictional character. However, the Panel did not believe that the use of a stylised image of a known fictional character would lead the average consumer to draw similarities between themselves and the character depicted.

The Panel discussed the use of an image of a pistol, which they considered for some time. The Panel noted that despite the pistol, the image itself is not of a violent nature and does not allude to or focus on violent or aggressive behaviour. In this case the Panel considered that the pistol is displayed in a stylised pose and is not depicted as being used to shoot or to cause harm, nor is the pistol a prominent feature on the packaging. The Panel agreed that including an image of a gun on packaging carries a high risk of creating an association with violent behaviour; however, on balance, the Panel were satisfied that the stylised motif of James Bond in his trademark silhouette stance serves mainly to draw attention to the wider James Bond brand rather than violent behaviour. Accordingly, the Panel did not uphold the product under Code rule 3.2(b).

The Panel considered whether imagery used on the product suggested any association with sexual activity/success or with immoderate/ irresponsible consumption. The Panel could not find any reason why the use of the stylised image of James Bond or reference to the wider James Bond brand would lead consumers to believe that the product may suggest an association with sexual success/activity or would encourage consumers to consume the product immoderately or irresponsibly. For instance, there were no other images on the packaging (such as a woman) which could give rise to this association. Accordingly, the Panel did not uphold the product under Code rules 3.2(d) or (f).

Claude Knight, of the campaign group Kidscape has been kindly pointing out some of the most interesting highlights of BBC3.

Shows broadcast online since the move last month include Meet the Devotees which showed a disabled woman wearing just her underwear and a coat in her wheelchair to satisfy fetishists as well as amputees making porn for able-bodied people.

Another graphic programme available is People Pay Me For My Underwear , which shows a young student selling her knickers online to pay for her degree.

Other programmes include The Virtual Reality Virgin, which shows a debate about whether having virtual sex with a robot is cheating, and a short programme about sex work called Everybody Cries Their First Time , where a young sex worker Posie discusses her traumatic first time .

Knight whinged :

We have to ask why the public's licence fee is being spent on channels which offer such a tawdry view of life. It is giving a very disturbing view of the world. Why would the BBC be promoting or supporting this?

A spokesman for BBC3 said:

BBC3 informs, educates and entertains a young audience and doesn't shy away from covering issues that affect them. We're proud of the role it plays in helping young people understand issues and make sense of the world.