I think the whole thing is ridiculous, even from a "think of the children" perspective.
If I had to guess I'd imagine the issue is that someone doing an ad campaign that has gotten in trouble has pointed to the DNF ad as an exmaple of why there is precedent that prevents their rating system from blocking whatever they want to do (even if they being a lot more intense contextually... presentation and such matter). The old "If your going to ban this, you need to ban that" move. The thing about the UK from what I remember is that it doesn't have the same level of protection against laws and rulings being retroactively applied as the US in many cases, thus in thise case the guys doing the ratings are removing a precedent by banning something they previously okayed even if it's no longer being used, which sounds silly unless you understand how precedent works in the law.
I don't know enough about the situation to say, but this is a guess as to what actually happened. It gets attention because of the attention already garnered by DNF, but devoid of what caused this to actually happen.
I very much doubt 34 people complaining caused a radical change of policy like this, a society couldn't function if this was allowed to happen as you can find that many people to complain about anything on a national level. I'd imagine that's just something the news media latched onto and has little bearing on the actual events despite how it's being made to seem in the article.
If I had to guess I'd imagine the issue is that someone doing an ad campaign that has gotten in trouble has pointed to the DNF ad as an exmaple of why there is precedent that prevents their rating system from blocking whatever they want to do (even if they being a lot more intense contextually... presentation and such matter). The old "If your going to ban this, you need to ban that" move. The thing about the UK from what I remember is that it doesn't have the same level of protection against laws and rulings being retroactively applied as the US in many cases, thus in thise case the guys doing the ratings are removing a precedent by banning something they previously okayed even if it's no longer being used, which sounds silly unless you understand how precedent works in the law.
I don't know enough about the situation to say, but this is a guess as to what actually happened. It gets attention because of the attention already garnered by DNF, but devoid of what caused this to actually happen.
I very much doubt 34 people complaining caused a radical change of policy like this, a society couldn't function if this was allowed to happen as you can find that many people to complain about anything on a national level. I'd imagine that's just something the news media latched onto and has little bearing on the actual events despite how it's being made to seem in the article.
