I’ve refrained from mentioning the increasing excesses of the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA), Britain’s self-appointed advertising censors, because quite frankly, it would fill up the news feed to discuss their increasing efforts to make Britain’s advertising into something that even the Saudi Arabian authorities wouldn’t object to. But their latest decision shows that the lunacy is unrelenting.

The most recent ad to be banned is the poster for Final Destination 5, which graced the usual places over the summer. The image used also appears on the cover of the DVD, and here it is. Impressive, yes. Dangerous? Hardly. But thirteen people out of the millions who were exposed to it complained that the image of ‘violence’ would be distressing to children. Out of that thirteen, only three said their children – aged one to three – had been upset.

Now, the image may be scary for one year olds, if they actually know what a skull looks like. But lots of things scare children – just the other day, I saw a child outside a shop began screaming after a dog passed by. Was this child scarred for life by the experience? I doubt it. And neither would anyone have more than a passing fright looking at this poster, which is no scarier than horror movie posters, book covers and video sleeves have been since the 1950s. Nevertheless, the ASA upheld the complaint, stating the ads would be "likely to cause fear and undue distress to children."

Of course, it’s unusual for the ASA to judge ads for being scary. They’re far more likely to ban ads for being too sexy. In recent weeks, they’ve condemned and banned ads for M&S Lingerie, stating that “that the pose of the woman kneeling on the bed was overtly sexual, as her legs were wide apart, her back arched and one arm above her head with the other touching her thigh”. Here’s the photo, shown right – not quite the Razzle pose suggested.

Also in November, they banned two different series of Lynx ads, one featuring Lucy Pinder in underwear together with some tame innuendo and the other with a less well known model and even tamer innuendo for being (of course) harmful to children and degrading to women; and this ad from Tatler for fashion retailer Miu Miu, which will apparently encourage the hordes of Tatler-reading kids to copy teen model Hailee Steinfeld and sit on railway tracks, one posed image having the power to supersede education and common sense.

And the same month saw a magazine ad for Oh, Lola perfume banned on the bizarre basis that the photo of fully clothed, seventeen year old Dakota Fanning looked (to them) to be under sixteen, and so was ‘sexualising a child’. The fact that she isn't a child is neither here nor there. They also banned an ad for Drop Dead Clothing because the size eight model Amanda Henrick looked too skinny to them. So obviously, the message is, if you are a model who is slim or young looking – even if you are in fact an adult and not anorexic – you’d better quit your job, or at least ensure you only ever pose covered from head to foot and looking suitably modest.

But that’s not all – they also banned a TV ad for Kopperberg because it showed people in a club enjoying a live band who’s “heavy baseline and distorted female vocals were… likely to draw the attention of viewers under 18”. So clearly, alcohol should only be shown being consumed by miserable ageing boozehounds in a spit ‘n’ sawdust pub, lest the kids who would not be allowed into such underground rock clubs get excited by the image.

All this is one month. And based on a maximum of 169 complaints (in three cases, the ads attracted just one complaint). And almost certainly, much of it is a direct result of the fact-free Bailey Report into the myth of sexualisation. The ASA said they would clamp down on ‘sexy’ ads after that report was published, and they’ve done just that.

The ASA are now routinely banning ads that have attracted a handful of complaints, citing 'widespread offence' and 'potential harm', without having to provide evidence of either, other than their own subjective, humourless, prudish and easily-shocked opinions. And each idiotic decision like the one listed above simply encourages the easily (and often professionally) offended to complain more and more, rather than simply ignore advertising they find distateful and avoid buying the products in question like normal people do.

Welcome to the world of Mary Whitehouse.

(Thanks to Melon Farmers for reporting on all these cases and more)