This week the NSPCC fell foul of the ASA for claiming that "1 in 6 children are sexually abused". But it would appear this terrifying stat does not represent the number sexually abused in the physical sense as you or I might understand it. It might include seeing a parent naked coming out of the shower. The data was gathered 10 years ago anyway which questions the use of the present tense.

Besides, why do NSPCC use a statistic that clearly stretches most people's credibility when they must have a library of stats and stories that are genuinely appalling? When the cold truth is shocking, why exaggerate? Sexual abuse of children is patently the most appalling thing. By claiming it is almost commonplace you risk diminishing its impact and damaging your credibility as a witness. I cannot understand that.

For some advertisers these days, the advert itself is not that important. It is a small piece in a bigger jigsaw.  Most ads only have a short shelf life so if they never run again, it doesn't really matter. The ads role is to provide a headline figure that once it hits the news rooms, the PR machine takes off. The Daily Mail is outraged. The Chief Exec is interviewed by Newsnight.The bloggers and online chatters go beserk. That's what happened with the 'MMR link to Autism' research in 1998 that has subsequently been utterly discredited, yet continues to make its tragic mark. It is the premise upon which all those one-off political party posters are based.

I would prefer to believe that the number of upheld complaints is part of a healthy tension between advertisers pushing legitimate claims and regulators protecting the consumer. Occasionally it goes too far one way or the other. Sometimes the nit picking nature of the complaints makes you despair ("the hotel is 160 yards from the sea, not 150 yards as claimed"). But we should be grateful that in the ASA we have an independent arbiter of statistics, otherwise we'd never know the difference between them and all those damned lies.