Someone has complained about Wilson the dog.
I mean officially.
And, yes, I mean the dog that endures everything from storms at sea to desert heat to return the lost Lotto ticket to his owner, but after the gruelling travel finds his owner now has a cat so gives the ticket to a tramp.
What is there to complain about, you ask? Is the word "tramp" offensive now? Should I have said "person experiencing homelessness"?
No, the complaint to the Advertising Standards Authority was that Wilson's actions condone theft! And, no, I am not making this complaint up.
But some sad stories end happily and this is one of them. The authority did not proceed because they felt the complainant had taken a rather extreme view of what was intended to be quirky and light-hearted.
I'm sure they also said "off the record, of course" that this complainant needs to get out more.
Quirky and light-hearted are also off the menu at an Auckland primary school.
The school cancelled "pirate day", a fun day of eye patches, shoulder parrots, fake pieces of eight, landlubbers and people saying "arrr" a lot.
But it's the reason for the cancellation that will make you think I am making it all up. No, it wasn't because of potential injuries from walking the plank or from ear-pecking shoulder parrots. It was - are you sitting down? - because the activity could not be linked to any learning objectives.
Have we really gone that mad? Do we need national standards for dressing up as a pirate? Do we need to have a pirate databank? Will there soon be learning objectives and ticky-box data for playtime? I despair.
Perhaps the teacher who pulled the pirate pin and the person who complained about Wilson should meet up. Maybe go on an outing together. What fun!
They could congratulate each other on their many achievements so far: replacing the term "Christmas tree" with "holiday tree", replacing "Easter eggs" with "chocolate spheres" and renaming "manholes" as "maintenance openings".
Then there was the whole silly business of dropping the terms BC (Before Christ) and AD (Anno Domini) and replacing them with Before Common Era and Common Era.
This opens up a whole can of worms, doesn't it? For example, has a valid explanation yet been offered for Noddy and Big Ears "living together"?
You may just laugh off these silly examples but if I offer a few more real ones from around the world, perhaps you will join me in taking the issue rather more seriously. You might even worry a little.
A UK recruiter had her advertisement rejected by a job centre because it sought "reliable and hard-working" applicants. The job centre deemed it potentially offensive to unreliable and lazy people.
A few years back, people portraying Santa Claus in Sydney, Australia, were rounded up and given a directive not to say "ho, ho, ho". I'll wager you can't guess why. It was because it sounds uncomfortably close to the American slang for prostitute. Santas who failed to comply were up the billabong without a didgeridoo.
A UK council renamed a classic British dessert as they thought it might give offence. In a triumph of risible nomenclature, they changed the name of "Spotted Dick" to "Spotted Richard". For those who don't know this grand dessert, the "spots" are currants.
My final example also comes from the UK, where a council banned "brainstorming" and replaced it with "thought showers". Why? Local lawmakers thought the term may offend epileptics.
I think I can sum up my reaction in one word: Arrr!
Wyn Drabble is a teacher of English, a writer, public speaker and musician.