Sometimes it’s hard to be a woman. And according to Men At Work, rapped on the knuckles for misleading advertising this week, "it may come as a surprise to you, but there is a new generation of career girls". Now. Do you see what they’ve done there, readers? They have noticed that there are girls what work! Goodness, they don’t miss a trick, do they? You’d have to get up at ridiculous o’clock to fool them lot. Which, incidentally, you can tell from their totally high-class, absolutely no stock photography, top-end website. What’s more, we working women "can’t find a reliable man". And do you know, they’re right. You know how it is, it’s all Tin Roof hot outside and Body Heat humid inside, and there you are, all alone, bit frisky, wondering when your next appointment with your remarkably reasonable hot male escort is going to be. Male escorts, the answer to every career girls’ "post-split, bad-date experiences". And for the extremely reasonable price of one hundred snickers an hour, you too can have a hot male masculine type person all to yourself. For just one hundred English pounds! Imagine!

Sadly, one aspiring man-for-hire and total spoilsport took issue with Men At Work’s helpful campaign for working women. And specifically with their national newspaper advertorial, which roared "MEN AT WORK URGENTLY REQUIRED ALL AGE GROUPS OVER 18 DISCRETION ASSURED INTERNATIONAL WORK AN OPTION EXCELLENT RATES NO COMMISSION”. Which exactly doesn’t mess about, does it? All shouty caps and quick, quick, register with us before the women of planet earth simply MELT into their Tesco’s meal for ones. Which, we will, of course.

The fing is, they then fleeced poor Man A for £225 (the ‘registration fee’ for promoting him and hooking him up, like) and then failed to find him any women to ‘accompany’. AND it cost him a lot of pennies to phone them. So the ASA, releasing their judgement today, have asked Men At Work to remove the ad, saying “We concluded that Men at Work had not substantiated that they could provide work for escorts”, and that they breached CAP Code clauses 7.1 (Truthfulness) and 52.3 (Employment and Business Opportunities). I mean, OMG cuh, what rotters. Does that mean my 21:30 business opportunity with Paulo is off?