Nanny Knows Best

Nanny Knows Best
Dedicated to exposing, and resisting, the all pervasive nanny state that is corroding the way of life and the freedom of the people of Britain.

Thursday, November 18, 2010

Nanny Bans Beyonce

Poor Beyonce, all she wanted to do was advertise "her" perfume "Heat". However, Nanny's chums from our old "friends" the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) are not best pleased with her TV advert (watch it above).

As per usual with these things, a handful of people watched the advert and chose to be offended by it. I suspect that the people who tend to complain to ASA are in fact a hard core of "professional complainers", who deliberately seek out material that is "offensive" to them.

Anyhoo, the basis of their complaint this time was that the advert was shown during the day and had been seen by some children. Nanny's shrill screech:

"Won't someone think of the children?"

was exalted throughout the land.

ASA deemed that the advert is "sexually provocative", and "unsuitable to be seen by young children".

ASA have forbidden it from being shown before 7.30pm.

ASA said, and I have to say I am suppressing a snigger or two at the pomposity and nonsense within this:

"Beyonce's body movements and the camera's prolonged focus on shots of her dress slipping away to partially expose her breasts created a sexually provocative ad that was unsuitable to be seen by young children.

We considered that the ad should not have been shown before 7.30pm due to the sexually provocative nature of the imagery

Here's why the ruling is bollocks:

1 ASA are somewhat out of touch with the "modern wired" age. Kids can access, and in fact do, far more lurid scenes on the internet.

2 Could it be that ASA, by commenting on the advert in this way, has now encouraged a whole host of kids to try to watch this "naughty" advert?

3 Could it be that those who created the advert had hoped that the handful of regular "professional complainers" would in fact complain, thus giving the advert and product greater publicity and making the video go "viral" on the web (eg I have posted the video here on my site)? ASA, I think, have fallen into a trap here.

I can't see the problem with the advert myself.

All I see is a lady wearing the sort of dress, usually worn by women (though I do live in Brighton:)), that is commonplace at parties and clubs any day of the week. (It does seem though that the airconditioning on the film set has broken down, as she looks a little hot).

Visit The Orifice of Government Commerce and buy a collector's item.

Visit The Joy of Lard and indulge your lard fantasies.

Show your contempt for Nanny by buying a T shirt or thong from Nanny's Store. is brought to you by "The Living Brand"

Celebrate the joy of living with booze. Click and drink!

Visit Oh So Swedish Swedish arts and handicrafts

Why not really indulge yourself, by doing all the things that Nanny really hates? Click on the relevant link to indulge yourselves; Food, Bonking, Toys, Gifts and Flowers, Groceries


  1. smithy10:10 AM

    As many recording artists have said about BBC Radio one: "The best thing that happened was they banned it..." and still the pompous idiots at Nanny HQ fall for the trick time and time again.

  2. Normally I agree with all that you say; this time I can't.

    I have no problem with the advert; I like a look at a "partially revealed breast" as much as the next chap, but that isn't the point.

    Normally Nanny is protecting people from themselves, which is ridiculous. In this case though, a parent might reasonably expect that television during the day is harmless for their children. Said parent might find Beyonce writhing around unsuitable for their children.

    Television programmes are different -- they are announced in advance and a description is available. Adverts are, from the viewer's perspective, randomly chosen. It surely can't be acceptable to force one person's idea of acceptable imagery for a child, on to another parent?

    If you think it's fine for your children to watch -- good stuff, show them whatever you want, but you can't demand that all parents have the same attitude as you.

    My argument is the same that I would use for censorship: censorship is never acceptable; certification is always acceptable. Why? Because parents should be allowed to choose for themselves.

    The key word is "choose".

  3. "She looks a little hot"

    Eye ;-)

  4. Anonymous4:35 PM

    Have to say, she's the type of skank I would run a mile from.
    You wouldn't catch Paris Hilton behaving in this manner.


  5. Anonymous6:57 PM

    I'm reminded of a girlfriend I met when I was at university. When we got onto a similar topic as this one she said: “Men really need to learn to be more comfortable with ladies' bodies!”.
    I thought: 'I think I'll take her up on her offer here'. So I switched to my philosophical tone of voice and said: “Yes. I think that is very true.”.

    I'm reminded of her words when I watch that video; although it finished just when I was waiting for the raunchy bit to start. Admittedly, it's not at the Anne Widdecombe end of the scale but it's hardly porn either. Whether it's alcohol, sex, money or whatever else, I think it's important to develop a balanced and mature attitude at an early stage of life.

    I must admit though, while I do like Beyonce's music I don't think much of that track she's singing. The original is much much better. A bit raunchier as well.

  6. Mjolinir5:15 AM

    If I were the advertisers, I'd complain as well. Who is likely to be at home watching TV during the day - and able to afford over 200quid a pint for this stuff?

    (I had wondered if the complaints were about the suggestion of racially motivated violence in Peggy Lee's 1958 lyrics - or the use of the word 'Fahrenheit'- but these bits weren't included.)

  7. I have a confession. I have complained about an advert to the ASA. The case in question was one of those adverts for beauty productions with questionable percentage approvals. You know the sort 89% of women say X is the best. The contention I had was that it was 89% of 9 people. Apparently though they can think of the children the ASA has no guidance on survey size. So in this case they act, because they can apply subjective rules, in case where they can carry out multiple surveys and pick the best result the ASA can't.

    What use is this body again?

  8. Now I'm wondering why Nanny didn't ban these adverts instead: