God knows how long Ofcom came up with its decision that Domino's Pizza's sponsorship of The Simpsons on Sky One breached its codes that are meant to restrict the promotion of HFSS foods to children.

Given that the adjudication extends to six and a half pages and includes various definitions from ASA and BCAP Codes as well as correspondence with some poor sod at Sky Media who had to put their case back to Ofcom, it is an investigation that would have put the Hutton Enquiry to shame. And all because the National Heart Forum had said that the long-running sponsorship failed to ‘observe the spirit as well as the letter of the rules'.

In the same Broadcast Bulletin adjudication, in which ITV and Highland Spring are also castigated for giving undue prominence to the water brand during an exchange on the British Comedy Awards, which if anything was sarcastic and in any case only attracted one viewer complaint, EastEnders was exonerated despite 90 complaints that its storyline was about paedohilia.

The majority of the complainants said that the subject, centred around Bianca's partner Tony who had started abusing her daughter when she was 12, was not suitable for a pre-watershed audience. Images of them kissing and lying on the bed together were also shown. Incidentally, EastEnders is transmitted at the same time as The Simpsons.

In its judgment, which extended to just three pages, Ofcom noted its responsibility under the European Convention of Human Rights that ‘information and ideas' must be ‘imparted...without undue interference'. Also that the programme prompted viewers ‘to respond to the Action Line...and to write to the programme makers outlining their similar experiences' and it was therefore OK.

At the risk of sounding like Richard Littlejohn, are we sure that Ofcom has its priorities right here?