The company also has an internet and mail order business and a party plan

The company also has an internet and mail order business, and a party plan operation.Ann Summers is recruiting staff at the rate of about 250 a year as it expands rapidly in Britain and overseas, but at the moment it can place advertisements only in newspapers and through recruitment agencies, which are more expensive than jobcentres.The company had been able to advertise in many jobcentres, and about 50 per cent of its workforce had been recruited this way before the ban was introduced in May 2001. Despite pleas from the company, Jobcentre Plus issued a new policy statement in November last year, banning eight separate types of vacancy from its books, including “the Ann Summers category”.This category applies to businesses involved in the “manufacture, distribution, display demonstration, promotion or sale of sex-related products usually available to the general public only through licensed sex establishments and not commonly found elsewhere on the high street”. Ms Gallafent said the category was “tailor-made” to ensure Ann Summers fell into it.She argued that Jobcentre Plus could display Ann Summers adverts while not notifying job seekers of vacancies. In this way, only those who saw the advert and wanted the job would apply, and there would be no risk of embarrassment, or of a job seeker losing benefits for refusing to accept work.There was laughter in court as the judge discussed the nation’s sexual habits in the age of television programmes such as Sex And The City, which featured a Rampant Rabbit vibrator sold in Ann Summers shops. Mr Justice Newman said: “Common sense dictates that, no matter how advanced we are in Sex And The City, there will be job seekers who find it embarrassing and those who do not find it embarrassing.” Many people would not like to be questioned about their sexual predilections.The judge asked James Eadie, for Jobcentres, why an advert with a clear description of the job could not be used. “What about a vegetarian who answers an advert for a sales assistant in a high street shop and it turns out to be in a butcher’s shop?” he asked.Mr Eadie said that in such cases a conscientious objection would be upheld. But with the sex industry, a defined coherent policy was needed to maintain consistency of approach at all jobcentres.

Judgment was reserved until after 3 June.After the one-day hearing, Jacqueline Gold, the chain’s chief executive, described the ban as “ridiculous”. ‘IT’S JUST LIKE GOING INTO ANY OTHER SHOP’By Paul Peachey”It’s just a book for my friend’s birthday,” insisted the young woman looking nervously at the camera. “No, honestly, it’s all been wrapped up,” she added before scurrying off into the anonymity of the crowds.Another satisfied customer for Ann Summers, “where passion meets fashion”.It was business as usual yesterday at the Oxford Street store in central London, where tourists with their Union Flag carrier bags popped in to peruse the fur-lined handcuffs and bondage kits for beginners in the cheeky area downstairs and young women stocked up for hen nights.The staff refused to say much about the jobcentre ban, save for offering a discount to the press. But the large poster spoke volumes about the current recruitment policy A long, black leather boot stretched across the picture “Coming soon,” said the accompanying words. “Careers with a real kick.”Most of those who looked around the store were scathing on the jobcentre stance. Tamer, 19, a drama student from London, called the restrictions on advertising ridiculous. “I would work anywhere where they would give me money,” he said “It’s just like going into any other shop.

I go in, buy products and go home.”Sharon, 23, a solicitor who had unsuccessfully searched for a pair of red knickers in her size for her wedding in July, said she did not believe anybody would have a problem working at the store. “I wouldn’t, although my dad would,” she said, reconsidering.”I was quite surprised when they opened the store here. It has this image of being a bit sleazy, but it is much more low-key than I thought and approachable.”. MPs urged Tony Blair yesterday to release full details of intelligence on Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction amid growing concern at the failure to uncover proof of chemical, biological or nuclear arms in Iraq. Tony Blair and Gordon Brown sought a united front over the single currency last night as they struck a compromise designed to quell speculation that they are deeply divided on the issue. Mr Brown was irritated by reports in yesterday’s newspapers saying that Mr Blair had wrested control of his grip on euro strategy by allowing the Cabinet to decide the policy statement that the Chancellor will announce on June 9.In their joint statement Mr Blair dismissed speculation that he wanted to call a referendum before the next general election whether or not the Treasury’s five economic tests for joining were met. In turn, Mr Brown denied that he was against a referendum in this parliament, and promised to campaign fully for a “yes” vote if his tests were passed.

The two men also pledged to stand together on the issue once the Government’s position was agreed.The surprise statement did not change the Government’s policy and was seen by some Labour MPs as an attempt by Mr Brown to scotch suggestions that he had been outmanoeuvred by Mr Blair’s decision to give the Cabinet a decisive say on the euro.Downing Street and the Treasury stressed that Mr Blair and Mr Brown presented a “totally united front” at Thursday’s cabinet meeting, and made clear that the “dogmatic positions” ascribed to them by media reports should be ignored. They added that Mr Blair had paid tribute to the rigorous economic assessment carried out by the Treasury.The joint statement went on: “Stories that [Mr Blair] was determined to call a referendum this parliament come what may and regardless of the five tests were wrong. The Prime Minister emphasised the importance of the five tests. If it was the right thing to go in, based on this rigorous assessment in the long term national economic interest, then we do. If it is not, we don’t.”The Chancellor, for his part, equally sought to assure cabinet colleagues the ritual presentation of him as being more sceptical than the Prime Minister and that as a matter of principle he opposed a referendum this parliament are wrong.” If the tests were passed in time for a referendum before the next election, Mr Brown would “fight every bit as hard as the Prime Minister for a Yes vote”, it added.No 10 and the Treasury said: “Once the decision is taken, the Prime Minister and Chancellor will be on exactly the same page in total command of all the arguments.” Mo Mowlam, the former Northern Ireland secretary, claims today that Mr Blair and Mr Brown are divided on the single currency.