Just a Hitch…According to the ASA, nothing to get all worked up about

Read more ASA Watch at MelonFarmers.co.uk

See article from asa.org.uk

A poster for Todd Insurance Broker featured a woman walking through an office, away from the camera. One side of the woman’s dress was tucked into her underwear. Text next to the image stated What are the odds? Further text stated Life’s full of little surprises. Make sure you’re covered for Home, Car, Travel and Business Insurance. A complainant challenged whether the ad was: offensive because it degraded and objectified women; and irresponsible because it could be seen by children. W Todd and Son Ltd did not believe that the poster was offensive or irresponsible. They said the poster was created by a female designer as part of a structured campaign that used the line, What are the odds? accompanied by an image of a recognisable mishap. They said the campaign was intended to be quirky and fun and took a light-hearted approach to thinking about insurance. They added that there was a male version of the poster planned for later in the campaign. ASA Assessment: Complaints not upheld The ASA noted the complainant’s objections to the ad. We noted that the image in the ad showed the women’s dress tucked into her underwear and that her underwear, bottom and legs were visible. However, we did not consider that the image was sexually explicit. Neither did we consider the image, or the accompanying text, sexually suggestive. We considered that the image and the text What are the odds? was a play on a recognisable and embarrassing situation, but we did not consider that the approach used in the poster degraded women or was likely to cause serious or widespread offence. We considered that the ad was a light-hearted approach to thinking about the chances of little surprises happening in life. Because we did not consider the poster sexually explicit or suggestive, or degrading to women, we considered that it was unlikely to cause serious or widespread offence. We also considered that it was suitable to be shown on a poster site that could be seen by children. For these reasons we concluded that the poster had not breached the Code. We investigated the poster under CAP Code rules 1.3 (Social responsibility) and 4.1 (Harm and Offence) but did not find it in breach.

Pink Flamingos…The BBFC agreed to pass John Water’s gross comedy at 18 uncut in 2008, but unfortunately the release was cancelled

Read more Latest UK Cuts at MelonFarmers.co.uk

Thanks to goatboy From BBFC’s excellent case studies from sbbfc.co.uk See further details at Melon Farmers Video Hits: Pink Flamingos See trailer from youtube.com

Pink Flamingos is a 1972 US crime comedy by John Waters. With Divine, David Lochary and Mary Vivian Pearce. See IMDb The BBFC agreed to an uncut 18 rated DVD release in 2008 but the release was cancelled. The BBFC addressed the 3 remaining cuts: Probably the most difficult scene was the one featuring a man assaulting a woman with live chickens. However, a careful viewing of the scene suggested that the handling of the chickens, although rough, was no stronger than other scenes of animals being manhandled that had been passed in other films. Furthermore, although the chickens were killed, the killing was quick and clean and therefore not in breach of BBFC policy on animal cruelty. The scene showing a man masturbating and injecting semen into a woman’s vagina was grotesque and repulsive, rather than erotic. Although the Board had previously expressed concerns about the non-consensual nature of the scene, the datedness of the film and the lack of credibility of the scene, argued against intervention.  With regard to the sexual violence in the scene, the Board’s conclusion was that the scene was so over-the-top and so divorced from reality, that the likely response was disgust, shock and horror, rather than arousal. The brief explicit fellatio could be justified by the wider context of the film, in that the whole purpose of the film was to shock, disgust and amuse (in a blackly comic fashion), rather than to arouse, and the explicitness of the image was important in creating the film’s effect. Previous Versions Released uncut for the pre-cert video: UK 1981 Palace VHS After a long delay, out of fear of a BBFC rejection, the video was eventually passed 18 after 3:04s of BBFC cuts for: UK 1990 Castle VHS The cuts, justified on grounds of sexual violence, degradation, animal cruelty, and obscenity, were: Cuts were made to remove sight of chickens being roughly handled and killed during a bizarre sexual assault on a woman. [The chicken is crushed between the copulating lovers]. Cuts were made to reduce a scene in which Channing the butler masturbates over a captive woman and injects semen into her vagina with a syringe Cuts were made to reduce a scene in which a man flexes his anus in close up, making it look as if the anus is singing. Cuts were made to remove all sight of Babs fellating her son in explicit detail Cuts were made to remove sight of Babs eating real dog excrement. The elastic singing anus cuts were restored for: UK 1997 cinema release Then the excrement eating cuts were additionally restored for: UK 1999 EIV VHS