Doctors are told not to prescribe vital drugs because they are ‘too expensive’
Doctors are being ordered not to give patients vital drugs that are available on the NHS because managers deem them too expensive. More than a quarter of primary care trusts are telling GPs and hospital doctors not to prescribe treatments including those for cancer, heart attacks and asthma, even though they have been recommended by NICE, the NHS rationing body.
Doctors and charities warn that the health of seriously ill patients is being compromised by ‘grossly unfair’ cost-cutting drives. They also point out that patients are at the mercy of a postcode lottery with the chances of being given a drug entirely dependent on where they live.
One trust, Cambridgeshire PCT, has drawn up a blacklist of ‘not prescribable’ drugs that include treatments for lung cancer and bone cancer. A further eight discourage doctors from handing out treatments that prevent heart attacks.
An investigation by GP Newspaper has found that 19 of the 77 PCTs which responded to freedom of information requests had blacklisted drugs approved by NICE. Other PCTS have blacklisted treatments for asthma, macular oedema – which can cause blindness – diabetes, blood clots in the legs, angina and high blood pressure.
Dr Chaand Nagpaul, a GP and spokesman for the British Medical Association said: ‘It’s grossly unfair for patients. ‘Many of them are seriously ill and they now find themselves at the mercy of the PCT. ‘If NICE thinks a treatment is effective it should be available to all patients. ‘Patients who could benefit from these drugs are now not being able to receive them.’
Once a drug has been approved by NICE then GPs and hospital doctors should be allowed to prescribe it for appropriate patients on the NHS. But if PCTs decide to blacklist certain drugs then doctors are strongly discouraged from using them even if they are freely available elsewhere in the country.
Doctors who go against these guidelines could be hauled into meetings with managers to explain themselves and in some cases they could face financial penalties.
Dr Bill Beeby of the British Medical Association told GP Newspaper: ‘PCTs are not treating patients. ‘The only reason PCTs will do this is for cost containment.’
He added that while doctors should be mindful of the costs, they should be able to make decisions based on the circumstances of individual patients.
Dr Nigel Capps, chairman of Heart UK, a charity for patients with high cholesterol said: ‘Postcode prescribing may lead to further variation in heart attacks and strokes.’
Cancer cash wasted on NHS salaries
Cancer care on the NHS lags behind that in many other developed countries because Labour wasted billions of pounds on PFI schemes, bureaucracy and inflated salaries for managers, the Health Secretary will say on Thursday.
A report by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) has found that, despite record spending on health care, cancer survival rates in Britain are worse than in Slovenia and the Czech Republic.
Survival rates for breast cancer, prostate cancer and cervical cancer were below the average for the 34 developed countries in the study.
Mr Lansley lays the blame for the poor performance on the previous government’s failure to make sure that extra investment in the NHS reached the front line. He claims patient care was ignored in favour of increased salaries and botched computer systems.
Writing in The Daily Telegraph, Mr Lansley says: “Unfortunately this report shows how much work there is to do to deal with Labour’s legacy of neglect and mismanagement of our NHS.
“They hugely increased spending on the Health Service, but wasted much of it on managers, failed IT projects and unsustainable PFI projects.
“They failed to focus on what really matters – patients – which is why we still have some of the worst cancer outcomes amongst comparable countries.”
Under Labour, spending on the NHS trebled, reaching almost £100 billion in 2009, but money for treating cancer still lags behind much of the rest of the world. A report by the Policy Exchange think tank last year found that England spent around 5.6 per cent of its health care budget on cancer care, compared with 7.7 per cent in France, 9.6 per cent in Germany and 9.2 per cent in America.
In September it emerged that private finance initiatives, introduced by Labour to fund capital projects, have left 60 NHS hospitals on the “brink of financial collapse”. Meanwhile, the pay of NHS chief executives has risen, with typical earnings now more than £150,000.
The OECD figures reveal that the best breast cancer survival rates were in the US, where 89.3 per cent of women were alive five years after being diagnosed. The average across all OECD countries was 83.5 per cent, while in the UK it was 81.3 per cent.
Survival rates for cervical cancer were worse. Norway topped the table with 78.2 per cent still alive after five years, compared with 58 per cent of women in the UK. There were also more hospital admissions for asthma and other lung conditions than the average and infant mortality was higher.
The report also showed that consultations by doctors have fallen, and were below he OECD average in 2009.
Katherine Murphy, the chief executive of the Patients Association, said: “The NHS provides some excellent care but it does fall down on many counts. We know from patients phoning our helpline that the quality of care that they have experienced can be very poor and sometimes it is downright neglectful.
“Rather than trying to tackle the issue of poor care, the Department of Health is demanding that the NHS makes £20 billion of efficiency savings while spending a million pounds a day on a reform plan that doctors, nurses, patients and NHS managers all say risks irrevocably damaging the NHS.”
Andy Burnham, the shadow health secretary, said: “This report confirms what others have been saying. That the NHS is the most improved health care system and yet we have a secretary of state desperately talking down the NHS to justify his ill-conceived Health Bill.
“The OECD and the recent Commonwealth Fund report say Britain has one of the best health services in the world, which begs the question: why is the Government intent on turning it upside down and putting the progress at risk?”
British boy who rebelled against stupid school rules gets award
A 13-year-old boy who wore a skirt to school in protest at a ‘discriminatory’ uniform ban on shorts was today given a prestigious human rights prize. Chris Whitehead made headlines in May when he turned up for class in his younger sister’s black skirt.
He was taking stand against a rule at Impington Village College near Cambridge which allowed girls to change into skirts during hot weather, while boys had to swelter in long trousers.
The Year 9 student said wearing trousers in the heat affected concentration levels and an ability to study in class.
His campaign made it onto national television when ITV’s Daybreak presenter Adrian Chiles showed his support by wearing a floral skirt live on air.
Now the teenager has become a runner-up in Liberty’s human rights young person of the year competition held at the Southbank Centre in London today.
Chris, who is a member of the school’s student executive, said: ‘I didn’t think it would be that influential, but I’m really happy. It was a good surprise to be nominated.’
He had decided to take advantage of a ‘silly loophole’ in the school’s uniform policy which meant boys could wear skirts because the school would be guilty of discrimination if it tried to stop them. He said at the time: ‘Wearing a skirt is just like wearing shorts with a gap in the middle. I don’t feel silly at all. I don’t embarrass easily.
‘I will be wearing the skirt at school all day in protest at the uniform policy and addressing the assembly with the school council.’
The 1,368-pupil school, which was classed as good in its last Ofsted inspection in 2006, imposed the ban two years ago after a consultation with parents and teachers. Its ‘Look Smart’ dress code stated students must wear ‘plain black tailored trousers or knee-length skirts without slits’ – but did not specify gender. The school later promised to review its decision.
Chris, of Histon, Cambridgeshire, was the youngest nominee on the Liberty awards shortlist which includes Cerie Bullivant, who fought against government control orders, journalist and activist Zin Derfoufi, and Abigail Stepnitz of the Poppy Project for women.
Long-term study proves statins benefit to some
Those studied were “high risk” individuals. There is therefore no warrant from the findings that statins are of benefit to the general population. Note also the oddity that there was no mortality benefit in women in the original study and the fact that substantial funding (over one hundred million pounds) for the study came from statin drug companies. The academic journal abstract follows the popular summary below
I have looked at the whole article and can see no coverage of possible sex differences. In view of the findings in the original study, that seems extraordinary. It makes one wonder what else they have left out
STATINS safely reduce the risk of cardiovascular illness even years after treatment is stopped, according to a probe into the popular cholesterol-busters published today.
Statins work by blocking a liver enzyme that makes fatty molecules, which line arterial walls and increase the danger of heart disease and strokes.
With worldwide annual sales of more than 20 billion dollars, the drugs have been dubbed “the aspirin of the 21st century” because of their benefit and wide use.
But lingering questions persist about their long-term safety for the heart, liver and cancer risk.
Researchers at the Heart Protection Study Collaborative Group in Oxford looked at 20,536 patients at risk of cardiovascular disease who were randomly allocated 40mg daily of simvastatins or a dummy look-alike over more than five years.
During this period, those who took the statins saw a reduction in “bad” LDL cholesterol and a 23 per cent reduction in episodes of vascular ill-health, compared to the placebo group.
The monitoring of the volunteers continued for a further six years after the trial ended.
The benefits persisted throughout this monitoring period among those volunteers who stopped taking the statins, the investigators found.
In addition, there was no emergence of any health hazard among those who had taken, or were continuing to take, the drugs.
A large number of cancers (nearly 3500) developed during this follow-up period, but there was no difference in cancer incidence between the statin and placebo groups.
“The persistence of benefit we observed among participants originally allocated simvastatin during the subsequent six-year post-trial period is remarkable,” said one of the investigators, Richard Bulbulia.
“In addition, the reliable evidence of safety, with no excess risk of cancer or other major illnesses during over 11 years follow-up, is very reassuring for doctors who prescribe statins and the increasingly large numbers of patients who take them long-term to reduce their risk of vascular disease.”
A previous investigation in November 2010 found that long-term use of statins was less risky than thought for people with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), a common liver ailment.
The Lancet, Early Online Publication, 23 November 2011
Effects on 11-year mortality and morbidity of lowering LDL cholesterol with simvastatin for about 5 years in 20 536 high-risk individuals: a randomised controlled trial
Findings of large randomised trials have shown that lowering LDL cholesterol with statins reduces vascular morbidity and mortality rapidly, but limited evidence exists about the long-term efficacy and safety of statin treatment. The aim of the extended follow-up of the Heart Protection Study (HPS) is to assess long-term efficacy and safety of lowering LDL cholesterol with statins, and here we report cause-specific mortality and major morbidity in the in-trial and post-trial periods.
20 536 patients at high risk of vascular and non-vascular outcomes were allocated either 40 mg simvastatin daily or placebo, using minimised randomisation. Mean in-trial follow-up was 5·3 years (SD 1·2), and post-trial follow-up of surviving patients yielded a mean total duration of 11·0 years (SD 0·6). The primary outcome of the long-term follow-up of HPS was first post-randomisation major vascular event, and analysis was by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ISRCTN, number 48489393.
During the in-trial period, allocation to simvastatin yielded an average reduction in LDL cholesterol of 1·0 mmol/L and a proportional decrease in major vascular events of 23% (95% CI 19—28; p<0·0001), with significant divergence each year after the first. During the post-trial period (when statin use and lipid concentrations were similar in both groups), no further significant reductions were noted in either major vascular events (risk ratio [RR] 0·95 [0·89—1·02]) or vascular mortality (0·98 [0·90—1·07]). During the combined in-trial and post-trial periods, no significant differences were recorded in cancer incidence at all sites (0·98 [0·92—1·05]) or any particular site, or in mortality attributed to cancer (1·01 [0·92—1·11]) or to non-vascular causes (0·96 [0·89—1·03]).
More prolonged LDL-lowering statin treatment produces larger absolute reductions in vascular events. Moreover, even after study treatment stopped in HPS, benefits persisted for at least 5 years without any evidence of emerging hazards. These findings provide further support for the prompt initiation and long-term continuation of statin treatment.
UK Medical Research Council, British Heart Foundation, Merck & Co, Roche Vitamins.
British job law shake-up to curb “unfair dismissal” tribunals: We’ll free firms from red tape, vows minister
Emergency measures to kick-start Britain’s faltering economic recovery by reining in a £1billion-a-year employment tribunal bonanza will be unveiled today.
After a row in the Coalition over how far to go in slashing business red tape, Vince Cable will pledge to cut the number of tribunal claims hitting firms by at least a quarter.
The Business Secretary will also say ministers will make it easier for firms to sack large numbers of workers in one go and allow bosses to read the riot act to under-performing staff without fear of being sued.
The moves will be hailed as the biggest reform of employment law for decades and have infuriated the trades unions.
Yet last night ministers were still arguing over proposals to go even further by removing the right to claim unfair dismissal from certain employees.
Tory sources said they were still fighting for small firms taking on new staff to be protected from unfair dismissal claims.
Under plans drawn up for the Prime Minister’s strategy guru Steve Hilton, but fiercely resisted by the Liberal Democrats, firms would be able to dismiss staff at will as long as they are paid a fixed sum in compensation based on length of employment.
‘We’ll get there in the end, even if only for small companies,’ said one source.
The Coalition argues that unfair dismissal and compensation claims are increasingly exploited by disgruntled staff and their lawyers, adding more burdens to business. Ministers say it is essential to cut red tape as the private sector is asked to drag Britain out of the economic mire.
Today’s reforms, the Government says, will benefit employers to the tune of £40million.
Mr Cable will confirm that the qualifying period for unfair dismissal claims will rise from one to two years from next April.
That will wind the law back to 1999, before which workers had to be employed for two years or more before they could pursue unfair dismissal cases.
All claims will have to go through a process of conciliation before they end up in a tribunal, while the Government will also consult on allowing ‘protected conversations’ in the workplace. These will allow either a boss or a member of staff to speak their mind without fear of it being used against them in court or at a tribunal later on, letting managers point out where employees are falling short without being hit with a constructive dismissal claim.
The plans would also help employees who wish to complain about a boss but fear disciplinary action would be taken against them if they speak out.
Mr Cable will also announce an overhaul of collective redundancy rules. He says the consultation period required in law when a firm wants to sack 100 or more staff – currently 90 days – should be reduced to as little as 30 days.
Business leaders welcomed the plans, having called for action to curb the number of employment tribunal claims.
Last year, there were a record 218,000 claims, up 44 per cent since 2008. The industrial courts grant an estimated £1billion a year in payouts to those who claim they have been wrongly dismissed or suffered discrimination.
Katja Hall of the CBI said: ‘We particularly welcome the changes to tribunals, including a rapid resolution scheme, which will allow faster justice for legitimate disputes.’
But TUC general secretary Brendan Barber said: ‘Reducing protection for people at work will not save or create a single job.’
That’s enough anti-racist blather about Blatter
The obnoxious FIFA (soccer) president had a point for once – and the real targets of the moral backlash are the masses who watch and play football
When the presenter on the Talksport radio phone-in (the fount of all football wisdom) declared that ‘NO-ONE IN BRITAIN’ could defend what FIFA president Sepp Blatter had done, it was clear that something Evil must be afoot. When the media storm became a political one, and the figurehead of world football was denounced not only by the prime minister of the United Kingdom, but also by his secretary of state for culture, media and sport and even by the children’s minister, followed by the Labour leader of Her Majesty’s Opposition, it was obvious we must be facing a crisis of national and international importance that could affect the next generation.
What crime against sport, humanity and the children could the old fool Blatter have committed to provoke such an outcry? Had he karate-kicked David Beckham? Turned up at the FIFA fancy dress ball in a Nazi uniform? Or perhaps called an African football official a ‘f***ing black c**t’?
Not quite. What Blatter did was give an interview to CNN, in which he was asked about the extent of racism in football today – a question, incidentally, prompted by the allegations of racial abuse facing England captain John Terry. This is the response that brought the civilised world down on Blatter’s head:
‘There is no racism, there is maybe one of the players towards another, he has a word or a gesture which is not the correct one. But also the one who is affected by that, he should say that this is a game. We are in a game, and at the end of the game, we shake hands, and this can happen, because we have worked so hard against racism and discrimination.’
Could these three badly constructed sentences have been the cause of such general we-can’t-believe-our-ears! hysteria for the past week? What was all that really about?
At the risk of contradicting the omniscient Talksport muppet, we might dare to suggest that, notwithstanding his politically incorrect language, the obnoxious Blatter for once had a point – indeed he had two points. And that the real target of the backlash has not just been the imperious Blatter, but more importantly, the working-class foot soldiers who play and watch football.
Briefly, on Blatter’s two reasonable points. First, it is beyond doubt that racism in and around football in a country such as Britain has declined dramatically over recent decades, both on and off the pitch. Things are now so different to the atmosphere of casual racism in which I grew up playing and watching football in the Sixties and Seventies that to say ‘there is no racism’ can barely be called an exaggeration, never mind a lie.
This is not, however, as Blatter and his cronies always claim, because of FIFA’s official anti-racist initiatives or the self-righteous ‘Kick it Out’ campaigns over here. Indeed, these things have mushroomed as racism has declined. It is far more because of the way our society has changed – and football follows where society leads, rather than ‘setting standards’ as some imagine. That is why when I was an angry young man we campaigned against racism, not racism in football.
Secondly, Blatter also had a point when he suggested, in his own cack-handed way, that offensive or abusive words or actions that do occur on the football pitch should be treated differently from what happens off it. It has long been accepted that football is not normal life.
As spiked’s sports columnist Duleep Allirajah recently argued, in response to the controversies over alleged racial slurs in the Premier League, the traditional view in sport has been that what’s said on the pitch stays on the pitch – and winding up your opponents is part of the game: ‘This isn’t genteel Radio 4 repartee; it’s war minus the shooting.
The traditional toleration of sledging is premised on a distinction between public and private. What’s said on the pitch is considered private and therefore outside the scope of conventional etiquette. As Arsene Wenger said of the Terry incident, players will say things “in a passionate situation” during a game that they don’t really mean…. Whatever insults were traded during the game, players are expected to shake hands and leave these animosities when the match is over. Yes, you need a thick skin, but the rules of engagement are fairly clear – or at least they used to be.’
After all, we do not treat somebody kicking us on the football pitch in the same way as we would if it happened in the street. So why should what they say be any different? The new attempt to impose a polite form of etiquette not only on the terraces but on the pitch is symptomatic of the muddying of the line between what is considered public and private these days. Football can only be the loser. The fact that not only the FA but the (thought) police have become involved in investigating something like the Terry business is far more dangerous than anything Blatter might say.
I don’t really want to defend Blatter any more than anybody else does. He certainly should not be running international football – though the alternatives on offer are little better. But the latest outburst of anti-Blatter outrage has not only been about him. The real target has been football players and fans, which largely means working-class men.
The theme of most of the complaints has been that by not simply repeating the official anti-racist mantra, Blatter’s words will somehow give the green light to everybody else around football to let out their inner racist. Much as genteel critics in the media and politics dislike Blatter, the people they fear and loath far more are the crowd, whom they believe harbour racial prejudice whether they know it or not. The idea of ‘role models’ who can spark monkey-see-monkey-do behaviour is bad enough when it is applied to celebrity footballers. The notion that a bloated suit such as Blatter can somehow set the standards that the world’s youth will follow is bizarre.
This is all a symptom of the way that football has become much more than a game. It has been turned into a national and international instrument for the moral re-education of the masses. Isolated and unpopular governments and authorities who see football as the only way they can still communicate with large numbers of people are desperate to exploit the game to promote all sorts of political agendas.
In particular, the crusade against racism in football has become a powerful way to try to impose a conformist view on the crowd and police the words and even thoughts of ‘ordinary people’. So important has this instrument of moral re-education become to the authorities that no scintilla of doubt can be entertained, no whisper of ambiguity allowed. That is why Blatter’s few clumsy and off-message words caused such consternation.
The irony is of course that FIFA itself has been a central player in this game of hunt-the-unwitting-racist. For the likes of Blatter, the World Cup is no longer just about the best team winning, but about striking a PR blow for Good against Evil and showing they are on the side of the angels. The 2010 World Cup in South Africa was turned into an anti-racist festival, with team captains ludicrously required to read out Stalinist-style statements about their commitment to being good guys before the quarter finals (would they have been allowed to play if they had refused?), and Nelson Mandela wheeled out to declare that ‘[football] is more powerful than governments in breaking down racial barriers’. Which is why of course governments want to use it to kick down the walls that stop them connecting with the working class – and why British politicians leapt at the chance to strike moral postures high up the pitch over ‘Blattergate’.
Indeed, it is striking how much this affair has been a very British kerfuffle, largely ignored by the rest of planet football. A few cynics have suggested this is to do with settling scores with Blatter over the fiasco of England’s humiliated bid for the 2018 World Cup. No doubt. But more broadly it is also about seizing the opportunity to show that Britain can still lead the world on the moral high ground, if not on the football pitch. That is a dangerous game, inviting others to point out that it was the allegation of racism against England’s captain that kicked all of this off in the first place. Those who live by the sword of self-righteousness can perish by it, too.
The worst culprits, as so often, have been the allegedly liberal-minded British pundits, screeching as if Blatter had been found guilty of Holocaust denial. These are the types who claim to love the ‘beautiful game’, yet hate the ‘ugly’ working-class people who watch and play it. At least one even went so far as to try to connect the Blatter affair with the sort of poisonous hatred that led to the racist murder of Stephen Lawrence in London 18 years ago, for which two men are currently on trial. There are many things of which Sepp Blatter might be thought guilty, but that is not among them.
Enough of all the ‘anti-racist’ blather about Blatter. You need not be ‘soft’ on racism to see that he had a point – and even if he hadn’t, we should defend free speech for arrogant old fools, too. But more importantly, let’s stand up for football as the world’s game, rather than a tool for the moral re-education of the masses, before the fat man blows the whistle and it’s all over.
UK ‘must do more to assure aid budget is not lost to corrupt foreign regimes’
Ministers need to do more to prevent Britain’s ballooning aid budget from being lost to corrupt foreign regimes such as Somalia and Zimbabwe, a watchdog will report today.
The warning is another damning assessment of the Department for International Development which is enjoying a 34 per cent spending increase – to £12.6billion in 2014 – at a time when Whitehall budgets are being slashed.
In March, International Development Secretary Andrew Mitchell announced a strategy which will involve pouring billions of pounds of new aid money into some of the world’s most corrupt regimes in an effort to tackle poverty.
International Development Secretary Andrew Mitchell: He announced that billions of pounds of aid money will be poured into corrupt regimes
International Development Secretary Andrew Mitchell: He announced that billions of pounds of aid money will be poured into corrupt regimes
He has insisted changes have been made to safeguard taxpayers’ money.
But in its first report, the Independent Commission for Aid Impact warns: ‘This focus on fragile states, together with the planned increase of the aid budget, will expose UK aid to higher levels of corruption risk.’
It adds that there is a lack of ‘coherent and strategic’ response when dealing with countries which have a high risk of corruption.
Figures reveal the biggest single aid winner will be Somalia, which has been riven by civil war for years and is rated the most corrupt nation on Earth.
Other winners include Burma, Zimbabwe, and Yemen, all of which will receive double-digit percentage rises.
Somali militia of Al-Shabab are seen during exercises at their military training camp outside Mogadishu. The country is the world’s most corrupt
Somali militia of Al-Shabab are seen during exercises at their military training camp outside Mogadishu. The country is the world’s most corrupt
The department has insisted that none of the money will go to governments and will instead be delivered through bodies such as the European Union and World Bank.
But the report warned: ‘DFID’s monitoring of these partners requires improvement. There is a need for more articulated processes for managing the corruption risks associated with particular aid types and greater attention to due diligence and on-the-ground monitoring.’
The watchdog added: ‘Taxpayers have the right to expect that the aid budget not only maximises impact but also delivers value for money.’
The ICAI reports has introduced ‘traffic light’ scoring system for its reports. The overall assessment given to the DfID’s approach to anti-corruption is ‘Amber Red’ – the second highest danger rating.
Graham Ward, ICAI Chief Commissioner, said ‘In order to manage the increasing risks presented by DFID’s focus on fragile states, DFID must give more attention to the fight against corruption.
‘DFID needs to invest more in analysis of corruption risks and a more strategic approach to tackling corruption proactively.’
Mr Mitchell said the report showed there were ‘some areas where we must do better’.
From the Climategate 2.0 files: CRU scientist admits ‘…”our” reaction on the errors found in Mike Mann’s work were not especially honest.’
(Dr. Douglas Maraun performs time series analysis, extreme value statistics, and analysis of precipitation extremes at the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia)
Dr. Douglas Maraun, a scientist at the Climatic Reasearch Unit at the University of East Anglia wrote to his colleages in an e-mail on October 24, 2007.
Dr. Maraun, who seems to have more of a conscience than many of his colleagues, had some concerns which he wished to address in a “discussion seminar” to be held in the coffee room that afternoon. Among Dr. Maraun’s points he wished to discuss were:
“How should we deal with flaws inside the climate community? I think, that “our” reaction on the errors found in Mike Mann’s work were not especially honest.”
He also actually pondered, “how do we avoid sounding religious or arrogant?”
Sex appeal now incorrect in Britain
“Advertisements for Lynx deodorant featuring glamour model Lucy Pinder have been banned for degrading women and treating them as sex objects.
The lads mag model was seen wearing very little and flashing her cleavage in a series of provocative video ads that hark back to the 1970s.
Lynx is marketed using tongue in cheek humour that suggests the men who use it instantly become more attractive, with beautiful women falling at their feet.
[One ad.] featured an image of the model in her underwear and bending over an oven door. The text stated ‘Can she make you lose control?’.
In a ruling published today, the watchdog said: ‘We considered that the various activities that Ms Pinder carried out were presented in a sexually provocative way, and that alongside the focus on Ms Pinder’s cleavage … were likely to be seen as gratuitous and to objectify women.
Criticising the poster, the ASA said the language was ‘clearly intended to imply that using the advertised product would lead to more uninhibited sexual behaviour’. [How AWFUL!!!]
Just the usual feminist hatred of attractive women