OfCom, the protector of modern decency and punisher of all who swear at Manuel from Fawlty Towers, have ruled that ITV were breaking the rules when they let Tulisa waggle her arm at the cameras.

And not in a Rebel Without a Cause, sexy, doing it with the lights on, leaving the lid off the margarine and swearing at the Pope kind of rule-breaking way, oh no.

They were breaking broadcasting rules, which are as old and fierce as time itself. Unless you’re Ricky Gervais, and you want to insult disabled people, obviously.

Tulisa got in big trouble this October for her attempt at reinventing Cheryl Cole’s now notorious “dickhead salute” in an even more irritating and fatuous manner, by doing a sort of half-sentient gurn at the camera whilst displaying her classy The Female Boss tattoo.

As well as being awkwardly worded and sounding like a low quality but potentially filthy spanking film, The Female Boss is the name of Tulisa’s perfume, which we had a sniff of when we were doing our Christmas shopping, and can assure you smells like Glenn’s vodka and a handful of Wham bars.

Tulisa, taking a break from glassing a child in the face while keying someone’s Fiesta, gave far too much credit to the intelligence of The X Factor’s audience:

“someone wouldn’t go into a shop and buy my perfume just because they’d seen my tattoo”

They probably, would, Tulisa. They bought Canonball by Little Mix, didn’t they?

Meanwhile, Ricky Gervais’ joke about Susan Boyle being a “mong” is apparently totally fine and AOK and Ofcom thinks maybe you should just calm down about it, yeah? You see, Tulisa was flogging her rank odour pre-watershed, while Ricky Gervais waited until half 10 at night to insult people with Down’s Syndrome and “therefore most viewers of the programme would have been expecting stronger and more challenging content.”

Which leaves us to wonder, would we rather live in a world where Tulisa’s perfume is pumped into the atmosphere 24/7, or where Ricky Gervais’ comedy is considered ‘challenging’?

It’s a tough one to call.

This was a post by Becca Day-Preston who is really bloody amazing

Since Frankie Boyle left the BBC, he’s been sulking. He’s decided that the BBC squashed his right to free speech and, of course, freedom of speech essentially means making the most offensive jokes you can think of. A bit like a teenager chuckling over the word ‘rape’.

This has left Boyle in the unique position of being a Post Modern Jim Davidson. He doesn’t mean it maaaaan, it’s all in the name of his art, okay? His show, Tramadol Nights, has seen Muslim women being hung, jokes about mental illnesses and one that has got him in hot water with Katie Price.

Boyle made a joke about Price’s disabled son and now Ofcom will be going after him, probably leaving Boyle to see himself as some lone gunman in the West, staunchly defending something on behalf of comedy itself.

Jordan’s lawyers allege that Channel 4, who are refusing to apologise for the offensive gag, and Frankie Boyle breached the “harm and offence” clause of the Broadcasting Code.

The joke was this:

‘Jordan and Peter Andre are still fighting each other over custody of Harvey – eventually one of them will lose and have to keep him.’

He added:

‘I have a theory about the reason Jordan married a cage fighter – she needed a man strong enough to stop Harvey from fuckin’ her…’

Blammo! A two-for-one! A rape joke AND a disability joke! If he’d got AIDS in there, it would have been the most perfect joke ever written… if of course, you’re the kind of person who likes laughing at jokes that Chubby Brown would have done if he was considered ‘alt’.

Talking to a newspaper who can piss off if they think we’re giving them any traffic, Katie said:

“’Harvey Price is a little miracle. Every day he overcomes so many difficulties with the help of family and medical experts and has so many tiny battles to win due to his medical problems and autism.

‘I love him and am deeply proud to be his mother. If Mr Boyle had a tenth of his courage and decency he would know that to suggest, let alone think funny, that Harvey may sexually attack me is vile and deeply unfair.’

‘Mr Boyle clearly has serious issues and those that give him a TV platform to say such disgusting things need to look at themselves very honestly.

‘To bully this unbelievably brave child is despicable, to broadcast it on television is to show a complete and utter lack of judegment. I have asked my lawyers to write to Channel 4 on Harvey’s behalf.’

And what do Channel 4 have to say about it all?

‘Frankie Boyle is one of the highest profile comedians in the UK; he’s well known for his controversial humour and the programme carried appropriate warnings as to the nature of the material.

‘The joke aired in the context of a late night comedy show. The joke itself has been performed by Frankie as part of his stage show and, as with much of his material, is an absurdist and satirical comment on high profile individuals whose lives have been played out in the media.’

Oh, that’s alright then. Three cheers for Frankie Boyle! Defender of our right to say a disabled kid might rape his own mother!

Of course, what makes this even trickier is that Katie Price is an infuriating celebrity who makes it incredibly difficult to side with in any instance, so to be on the safe side and join in with this new found freedom to say disgusting things about famous people, we think that this whole sorry scenario can only be resolved by killing them both in a televised event.

Throw some rape in as well just so we look edgy. Don’t be disgusted! We’re just jokinglol!!!!4!!

Follow hecklerspray on Twitter or join our Facebook group or BUY ONE OF OUR STUPID T-SHIRTS!

As everyone knows, catching a puffin with a net, pulling its still-warm heart of of its body and eating it is one of the most erotic things a person can do.

Just look at Gordon Ramsay. Not so long ago Gordon Ramsay ate a puffin’s heart on his TV show The F Word just to show what a triumphant lord of sex he really is. But, would you believe it, 42 people found the sight of Gordon Ramsay chewing on the just-dead heart of a beloved seabird offensive enough to complain about.

Fortunately, though, Ofcom has decided that Gordon Ramsay didn’t break any rules and is free to film himself gorging on raw blood-splattered puffin organs as much as he likes. That’s lucky for Gordon Ramsay, because it’s easy food for him – every year millions of migrating puffins have found welcome shelter from bad weather within the deep crevices of his angry face.

If the wooly-minded liberals in charge of this country had their way, we’d never be allowed to chase after animals with a net and then eat out their hearts as soon as we’ve caught them. Imagine a Britain where you couldn’t catch a rat and eat its heart. Or a dog. Or a monkey. Or a lollipop lady. It’s political correctness gone mad.

But one person who doesn’t give a hoot about political correctness is Gordon Ramsay. He doesn’t care who he offends - Paul McCartney, people who don’t like the idea of eating horses, anyone not completely into the sight of a furious cook constantly going “Uh? Yes? Uh? Yes? Uh?” like a tramp trying to bum his own reflection – because he’s Gordon bloody Ramsay. Yes?

Why doesn’t Gordon Ramsay care who he offends? Because he’s overcompensating wildly for having a traditionally female job? Well, yes, but also… no, actually that’s it. That’s the only reason.

But thank God for that, otherwise Gordon Ramsay wouldn’t have gone on The F-Word a few weeks ago and eaten the heart right out of a puffin he’d just caught in a net.

If you missed it, it was a brilliant piece of television. So long as your definition of ‘brilliant’ is ‘slightly gruesome and deliberately, tediously controversial’, that is. In the end, 42 people complained about Gordon’s heart-eating antics, but more fool them because Ofcom has told Gordon Ramsay that he didn’t do anything wrong. BBC News reports:

The regulator said the sequence was not in breach as it occurred in Iceland, where the puffin forms a popular part of the national diet. It also noted the birds were killed in a humane way with minimal suffering. Viewers had complained that the practice of killing puffins was cruel, the local tradition of eating their fresh hearts was offensive, and that, whilst not protected, puffins were a species under threat.

Yeah, under threat because they’re so bloody delicious.

Look, to be honest we can see everyone’s side of the argument. The viewers complained because Gordon Ramsay ate the heart out of an animal that’s under threat, and Gordon Ramsay ate a puffin’s heart because he’s an attention-seeking bellend who’d eat his own mother’s tits off if it got him a couple of decent headlines. So we’ve come to the only logical conclusion.

Battery-reared puffins. It’s obvious. Get 500,000 puffins, squish them into a shed the size of a bedside cabinet, pull their beaks off, never let them see daylight and there isn’t a problem any more. The puffins are no longer under threat, Gordon Ramsay gets to eat as many puffin hearts as he likes and Jamie Oliver has something new to bitch about on the telly. Everyone’s happy.

The thing that sets EastEnders apart from all the other British soaps is how gritty and realistic it is compared to everything else.

After all, anyone who's ever been to the east end of London knows that every five or six weeks a gang of unconvincing, slightly-too-theatrical thugs burst into the local pub for no real reason and kick a pregnant woman over.

That exact thing happened on EastEnders not so long ago, and now Ofcom has criticised the episode. Not because of the unusual and irresponsible level of pre-watershed violence, though – but because it was honestly the single most rubbish thing to appear on television in the last 12 months, other than the failed BBC2 pilot Look! Adrian Chiles In A Bikini! And because of the violence too, actually. A bit.

Ladies, here's a warning – if you ever find yourself pregnant on EastEnders, get out of town as quickly as you can. It doesn't matter where you go – George Street, Up West – but just don't stick around. EastEnders hates pregnant women, so in that respect it's just like the Lost island, only with more depressed pikeys.

If you're pregnant on EastEnders, it means your husband is either doing it with a bruised headed market-stall Gollum, or it means that a mental doctor is going to try to slice open your stomach even though people at home are trying to eat their dinner, or it means that a weird gang of deeply unrealistic football hooligans led by Lenny Henry's put-upon assistant from the Premier Inn adverts are going to kick you over a beer barrel. 

On November 13 last year, that's exactly what happened during an episode of EastEnders. An entire episode was dedicated to showing what it looks like when a group of posh, overly theatrical gasbags are employed to smash up a pub using one episode of The Bill from 1986 as their sole reference point to what poor people are like.

And that episode of EastEnders was violent. Unusually so. If you missed it, here are some edited highlights. In particular, look out for the 19 second mark, the 33 second mark, 49 seconds, 1:25, 2:42, 2:53, 3:30, 7:02 and 7:09. Not because they're violent, but because in years to come historians will pinpoint these moments as the least-convincing pieces of acting in all of television history…

Violent, huh? Distressing, you might even say. Or rubbish. Rubbish is also accurate. Anyway, Ofcom certainly agrees with the violent part – it got 78 complaints from viewers about the episode, who we imagine were all so alarmed by the Sidekick Thug's rubbery goon face that they all started crying. And Ofcom has upheld the complaints, saying:

"Although EastEnders is not made specifically for children it does attract a significant child audience, and any portrayal of violence needs to be carefully considered. The programme started with the gang attack on the Queen Vic. This involved a sustained, intense and high level of violence, destroying parts of the pub with hammers and bottles and glasses smashing into the furniture, to intimidate the locals, some of whom were injured. Regular viewers of EastEnders are aware that this soap deals, on occasions, with tough social issues. This is balanced, however, with the expectation that it will be suitable for children to view, who form a significant minority of the audience."

Yeah, that told you!

Now, with its wrist slapped, EastEnders will have to heed Ofcom's warning unless it wants another tongue-lashing. Maybe a rethink is in order, which is why we demand that EastEnders sacks all the characters with a violent past immediately and replaces them with an adorable little puppy that can't stop sneezing. It's the only way.

Read more: 

EastEnders violence ruled out of order – Guardian 

We're a bunch of inventors here at hecklerspray, you know.

It's just a goshdarn crying shame that the UK Patent Office has yet to realise our genius. Okay, okay… so we never actually tested that time machine made of potatoes. And, sure, that teleportation system that runs entirely on warthog urine is only hypothetical. But – seriously – give us a break, guys. Do you think medicines are tested out before they're released? Maybe on, like, animals or something? Yeah, right – give us a call when the spaceship lands, you nutters.

This whole invention malarkey is good for one thing, though – it's gone and given us another reason to hate omnipresent TV chef Jamie Oliver.

Jamie is also an inventor, you see. He's come up with something he calls the 'Flavour Shaker', an odd little ceramic pepperpot-type-thing that works as follows (instructions courtesy of the product website):

'Simply pop your ingredients inside, add the magic ball and give it a good shake. The ceramic ball does all the work crushing, grinding and bruising the contents, releasing amazing aromas and zingy flavours. You can also add liquids like oil and cream to create delicious dressings and marinades. The Flavour Shaker is sized to give you just the right amount of marinade or dressing (you don't need a lot) so that you can pour the contents straight over your food.'

Jamie is understandably quite proud of his new innovation. So much so, in fact, that he's found himself in a spot of bother with TV regulator Ofcom. It's not happy with the amount of advertising Jamie is doing – and bizarrely enough, it's not referring to the Sainsbury's campaign, a set of commercials so teeth-grindingly irritating that – whenever they turn up on the hecklerspray office TV set – the nurses come round and put us on that pesky 'suicide watch'.

Ofcom is actually referring to Jamie's recent TV series Jamie At Home, during which 'undue prominence' was given to Jamie's Flavy-Shaky-Whatever. We assume that 'undue prominence' actually means 'Mr. Oliver was gurning repeatedly to camera every five seconds and mouthing the words 'Flavour Shaker', before going back to his usual routine of explaining the fine art of cooking in the affected manner of a cockney greyhound wrangler.' But we're not quite sure.

Jamie isn't the only one to get in trouble, however. The allegations were included in the latest Ofcom report, which also features complaints about 'a dog fighting scene on Turner Classic Movies.'

Now, there's a Cary Grant moment we must have missed.

Read More:

Ofcom: Jamie Oliver rapped for plugging Flavour Shaker - Mediabreak