of causing harm or serious or widespread offence." (Principle 4 of The UK Code of Non-broadcast Advertising, Sales Promotion and Direct Marketing). How on earth was this advert not going to cause widespread offence? Guardian pick This comment has been chosen by a member of Guardian staff because it's interesting and adds to the debate Heap scorn on the ads, but don't censor them. That has just given this group a massive victory. Censorship should be used as rarely as possible. Aside from trampling on the principal of free speech even for speech you don't agree with, censoring often empowers the very words its meant to undermine. I do have a sense that the guardian, Boris and we cifers have been 'played' somewhat by these odious people... a great deal of attention has been drawn to their bile and they haven't had to pay a penny for it. And what the fucking fuck is the ASA for. We have bodies in this country to comfort the mortally offended and hand out punishment over such non events as the Brand/Ross shenanigans, but this is allowed. I would have preferred if the ads had been pulled because they made a therapeutic claim for which there is no supporting evidence rather than the fact that they are offensive; cue lots of whingy christians telling us how 'persecuted' they are. It's amazing how Christians can look at a tragedy like the earthquake in Japan which kills thousands and say, "It's part of God's plan!";