Advertising Standards Authority reject Mumsnetters' complaints about Madeleine McCann advertisement

[morningpaper]

The ASA think that the advertisement was suitable for a U audience

I'm annoyed at that; I think it is the wrong decision. I think that the use of pictures and the 'story' that a young child was "snatched" WOULD upset young children.

It's very subjective and I know that the ASA is staffed by lots of trendy Londoners who haven't seen young children for years, but I think that it is the wrong decision. Shame.

i no, fkin freeaks!

l8r

xxxxooxxooxxooxxooxxooxx

Oh don't encourage her OO

oo is from manc dats y she is gd @ it

they is all fik as fck in manc

2 rite

me educashun is top $

The letter I received last week in response to my complaint said that they didn't think "snatched from her bed" was sensationalist (or words to that effect). Told to keep it confidential til today, very suprised the phrase "snatched from her bed" wasn't mentioned in the adjudication.

What is it with the text speech? I have to read it 3-4 times before it makes sense.

i dnt fink so oo

u is ded fik @ u sucked dazza jones off by da tescos in neath

omg u slagz

that's funny, I read yours and they don't make any sense either

how uncanny!

OO

lol

bit harsh! Simple question didnt need a difficult answer.

I agree with the ASA. Good to see common sense has prevailed.

I think it is the wrong decision too. They are trying to get round it by saying it was a family film - BUT it was a U cert - not a PG or 12A or whatever. And my 6yo (so primary school age) does not know about what happened, but he can listen and read (read same Captain U'pants 4x on hols). I didn't take him to see Shrek, but that would have been a great run-up to our summer holiday, wouldn't it?

OO, lolz.

Yes I think that you really expect a U to have NOTHING at all dodgy in it

PG you know you are on shakier ground but U I always expect to be totally bland

You also have CHOICE with a film

So it will say PG "with mild comic violence"

If it had said "with references to small children being snatched from beds in real life" then I would choose NOT to take my young children

It is a bad decision I think

TBH I am not quite sure how this particular system works though

Isn't it the BBFC that certify adverts? If so, have the ASA ever overturned their certification?

You're right morningpaper. They're wrong.

I was grateful for the warning on MN - avoided the advert by avoiding the film. Would have been furious to be caught out by that with my dd.

I agree MP, it was a bad decision. Tossers.

how can they say it's ok to tell OUR children what THEY decide? It appears parents wishes count for little!

I don't see why telling 3 or 4 or 5 year olds that a child can be snatched from their own bed would cause undue fear or distress either. I mean do they seriously think they can sleep without a raving lunatic snatching them?
Teach them from the start to sleep with one eye open and a knife under their pillow i say. Get them young, we'll make a sane society yet!

I am all for Madeleine's face eveywhere but this is just wrong. Fortunatley i never took mine to see shrek but have reservations about all movies now if we are to expose them to whatever they see fit!

The problem here is every child reacts in different ways and usually the best person to judge how they will receive info on sensitive issues is a parent/guardian or someone who knows them really well. By putting this information without warning at a U film is removing the parent's choice of what/whether to tell their child. I know how my DD1 would have taken this film if it made reference to a young girl being snatched from her bed-badly. I am gradually answering her questions about Madeleine McCann in a way she can try to understand without scaring her too much (incidentally her little sister is called Madeline so this would have added to her concern), ie it is possible for little girls called Madeline to disappear.

I find the ASA's response very clinical (Shrek may be a U film but not all audience would be small children-come on! Would love to see percentages of how many are children or their parents). Have had experience of them before when they said a TV ad for a Little Britain DVD at 9.15 am was not offensive despite it containing vomiting scenes, someone shouting fat cow over and over again and a character showing mental health issues-the published reply was again very clinical and not very 'real world'.