uk.news.yahoo.com/21/20090902/tuk-semi-n...under16-6323e80.html

Now it appears that you are showing scantily clad women that may pass for under 16 is banned, even when you are well over 16 (i.e. 23). The advertising authority said that some readers may be offended, talk about living in a nanny state.

Brilliant Robbie! The ultimate proof that the species has finally gone barking mad.

This is totally crazy.

Yet there are loads of genuine teenagers ( Britney Spears - Miley Cyrus ) splashed all across the press on a daily basis is quite suggestive poses who have been around 16 / 17 years old. But because they are "celebs" and the big companies do it - then it is ok.

This is the amazing double standard that our media has.

WHat about 90% of R & B videos featuring teenage girls in bikinis on the music video channels.......

The list is endless.

The advertising people are implying that because the girl wasn't wearing any make-up that she appeared to be under 16.

Under 16 year-olds in adverts get criticised for wearing make-up for sexualising children and over 16's get chastised in adverts because they are "trying" to appear to be under 16. You just can't win!!!

I agree with the fact that under 16s shouldn't be sexualised in adverts as they just wouldn't be old enough to handle it , however people over 16 that look younger, will have an older mindset and be able to cope it much better, regardless of how young they may look!!!

brilliant !..it's a sure sign that my planned class action for former Page 3 girls will be a winner. (if News Corp survives or has any money left when it falls apart)