#myapp

Media playback is unsupported on your device

Media captionNigel Farage was hit with a milkshake while campaigning in Newcastle

A Burger King tweet alerting customers it was "selling milkshakes all weekend" has been banned for condoning and encouraging anti-social behaviour.

The fast food firm's post came after a number of European election candidates had milkshakes thrown at them.

And a McDonald's in Edinburgh stopped selling the drinks before Nigel Farage addressed a rally in the city.

Burger King defended the tweet, calling it a "tongue-in-cheek reaction to recent events".

Ice cream ban near Farage campaign rally

Milkshake thrown at Nigel Farage

It read: "Dear people of Scotland. We're selling milkshakes all weekend. Have fun. Love BK. #justsaying".

The Advertising Standards Agency (ASA) said it considered the tweet "irresponsible".

Image copyrightAdvertising Standards Agency

The post on Burger King's official Twitter account followed a number of dairy-based incidents involving campaigners on the European election trail.

Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, who is known as Tommy Robinson, and UKIP candidate Carl Benjamin were both hit with food and drink during the build-up to the poll.

UKIP candidate in milkshake melee

Milkshake thrown over Tommy Robinson

Former English Defence League leader Mr Yaxley-Lennon was drenched with milkshakes twice in two days as he campaigned in the north-west of England.

Days after his appearance at a Brexit Party rally in Edinburgh, Mr Farage was also later doused with milkshake during a campaign walkabout in Newcastle.

'Tongue-in-cheek'

The ASA was critical of Burger King's tweet for condoning and encouraging anti-social behaviour.

It said 24 people complained that it was irresponsible and offensive because they believed it encouraged violence and anti-social behaviour.

The tweet was posted the day after a McDonald's outlet in Edinburgh put up a sign to say that it would not be selling milkshakes or ice cream by "police request".

Burger King said it did not endorse violence, which it made clear with a follow-up tweet reading: "We'd never endorse violence - or wasting our delicious milkshakes! So enjoy the weekend and please drink responsibly people."

Image copyrightPA Image caption Dairy items were temporarily withdrawn from sale at an Edinburgh McDonald's during Nigel Farage's visit

The ASA said: "Although we acknowledged that the tweet may have been intended as a humorous response to the suspension of milkshake sales by the advertiser's competitor, in the context in which it appeared we considered it would be understood as suggesting that Burger King milkshakes could be used instead by people to 'milkshake' Nigel Farage.

"We considered the ad therefore condoned the previous anti-social behaviour and encouraged further instances. We therefore concluded that the ad was irresponsible."

The ASA added: "We told Burger King to ensure that its future marketing communications did not condone or encourage anti-social behaviour."

A Burger King spokesman said: "Our tweet regarding the situation in Edinburgh was intended to be a tongue-in-cheek reaction to the situation. It appears some have misinterpreted this as an endorsement of violence, which we absolutely reject.

"At Burger King, we totally believe in individuals' right to freedom of expression and would never do anything that conflicts with this. We'd never endorse violence or wasting our delicious milkshakes."

Media playback is unsupported on your device

Media captionCats, shoes, eggs and milkshakes - why people throw things at politicians

A High Court judge has ruled an email sent by a lawyer is legally binding as it includes his automated signature.

The email is part of an exchange between lawyers whose clients were in dispute over the sale of some land.

In his email, the lawyer for the owners set out terms, including a sale price £25,000 lower than the original asking price, which the other lawyer accepted.

But he then said the terms had not been finalised because no paperwork had been officially signed by both parties.

The owners' lawyer, Daniel Tear, argued this fell under Section 2 (1) of the Law of Property Act of 1989, which states: "The document incorporating the terms or, where contracts are exchanged, one of the documents

incorporating them (but not necessarily the same one) must be signed by or on behalf of each party to the contract."

However, the judge said Mr Tear's auto-signature at the bottom of the email - although not added deliberately by him - served as a signature.

"The purported signature of the solicitor on behalf of the defendant was by 'automatic' generation of his name, occupation, role and contact details at the foot of an email," wrote Judge Pearce, at Manchester Civil Justice Centre.

He also pointed out not all of the email correspondence from Mr Tear had included the auto-signature and said his use of the words "many thanks" at the end of the email text showed "an intention to connect the name with the contents of the email".

"I am satisfied that Mr Tear signed the relevant email on behalf of the defendant," Judge Pearce said.

Mr Tear said in his defence this had not been his intention.

BBC News has contacted him for comment.

"Be careful what you add your signature block to," said journalist Gareth Corfield, who covered the story on technology news website The Register.

A High Court judge has ruled an email sent by a lawyer is legally binding as it includes his automated signature.

The email is part of an exchange between lawyers whose clients were in dispute over the sale of some land.

In his email, the lawyer for the owners set out terms, including a sale price £25,000 lower than the original asking price, which the other lawyer accepted.

But he then said the terms had not been finalised because no paperwork had been officially signed by both parties.

The owners' lawyer, Daniel Tear, argued this fell under Section 2 (1) of the Law of Property Act of 1989, which states: "The document incorporating the terms or, where contracts are exchanged, one of the documents

incorporating them (but not necessarily the same one) must be signed by or on behalf of each party to the contract."

However, the judge said Mr Tear's auto-signature at the bottom of the email - although not added deliberately by him - served as a signature.

"The purported signature of the solicitor on behalf of the defendant was by 'automatic' generation of his name, occupation, role and contact details at the foot of an email," wrote Judge Pearce, at Manchester Civil Justice Centre.

He also pointed out not all of the email correspondence from Mr Tear had included the auto-signature and said his use of the words "many thanks" at the end of the email text showed "an intention to connect the name with the contents of the email".

"I am satisfied that Mr Tear signed the relevant email on behalf of the defendant," Judge Pearce said.

Mr Tear said in his defence this had not been his intention.

BBC News has contacted him for comment.

Scarica la nuova APP "LEVEL PARMA" Richiedi le tue credenziali in Reception oggi stesso! Con #AppPalestre puoi prenotare o disdire la tua lezione, controllare il tuo abbonamento e molto di più! #levelparma

Con #AppPalestre puoi prenotare o disdire la tua lezione, controllare il tuo abbonamento e molto di più!

#levelparma

Il gestionale per #BOX più diffuso in Italia! Richiedi le tue credenziali in Reception oggi stesso!

#levelparma

Scopri in anteprima le nostre promozioni! Consulta il palinsesto e gestisci i tuoi allenamenti/corsi!

#levelparma

Uno strumento semplice per gestire…