'Tamestation'

What I've often wondered when these Ofcum debates take place, is whether or not they're aware how much of a laughing stock their organisation is, and how much they're held in contempt by rational-thinking people. And more to the point, if they are aware, does it matter or concern them one iota?

I haven't yet caught up with what's been said since I last posted several days ago but did Jemma Jay just get 'told off' for saying the word Dirty!?

Jemma Jay said "We're having a dirty party right now, a naughty weekend" then looked at someone off camera a bit sheepishly and had an 'oops' look on her mouth\face and said "Did I say a bad word?" to which Dionne replied "Dirty".

Maybe the waters are muddy on exactly how far they can go in regards to what they're allowed to say but surely saying the word dirty even in the context of "we're having a dirty party" isn't crossing the line!?

(15-10-2009 22:02 )StanTheMan Wrote:  Not wishing to sound ungrateful, dirk - indeed anyone who goes to the trouble of uploading clips for the benefit of others should be applauded, but let's face it, when did the channels you'll now be boycotting last broadcast anything worthy of an upload?

Well I think most, if not all, of Dirk's clips have been worthy of upload and I'm grateful for his efforts as, I'm sure, are many others.

(15-10-2009 23:42 )StanTheMan Wrote:  And more to the point, if they are aware, does it matter or concern them one iota?

No, the sort of people who behave as they do are too fucking arrogant and too fucking ignorant to even think about it.

(16-10-2009 00:11 )oxygenIT Wrote:  I haven't yet caught up with what's been said since I last posted several days ago but did Jemma Jay just get 'told off' for saying the word Dirty!?

Jemma Jay said "We're having a dirty party right now, a naughty weekend" then looked at someone off camera a bit sheepishly and had an 'oops' look on her mouth\face and said "Did I say a bad word?" to which Dionne replied "Dirty".

Maybe the waters are muddy on exactly how far they can go in regards to what they're allowed to say but surely saying the word dirty even in the context of "we're having a dirty party" isn't crossing the line!?

'Dirty' has been quite frequently used recently and even 'filthy' has been used a few times when they can sneak it in (I'm talking Freeview here) - I heard it only last night on PL.

The problem is that the producers don't seem to know what's allowed and what isn't - it's different every night.

As far as I'm concerned this just reinforces my view that the Freeview 'rules' are entirely a Cellcast thing. If they were the result of a directive from Ofcom they would be in an orderly form that could be understood by everyone.

(16-10-2009 00:28 )vila Wrote:  'Dirty' has been quite frequently used recently and even 'filthy' has been used a few times when they can sneak it in (I'm talking Freeview here) - I heard it only last night on PL.

The problem is that the producers don't seem to know what's allowed and what isn't - it's different every night.

As far as I'm concerned this just reinforces my view that the Freeview 'rules' are entirely a Cellcast thing. If they were the result of a directive from Ofcom they would be in an orderly form that could be understood by everyone.

I suppose a lot of it could be down to the producers playing it safe because they're not sure but there shouldn't be any differences between what they do on Sky and Freeview because they are both broadcast exactly the same (both FTA) and are now both 'out of the way' in the high channel numbers.

I went off on a bit of tangent earlier in the thread but I'm not really too bothered about what they say or the words they use but what's actually on screen. I don't think it would be as much of an issue if they showed the same content during 'Sky time' and 'Freeview time' and I can't see any reason they'd have to as they are broadcast in exactly the same way and (I'd imagine) have the same broadcasting license for both platforms.

(15-10-2009 03:40 )IanG Wrote:  

(15-10-2009 01:07 )Censorship :-( Wrote:  

(14-10-2009 15:52 )IanG Wrote:  SNIP

Ofcom, indeed, this bloody Government, are doing all the wrong things for all the wrong reasons because they refuse to trust the scientific evidence in favour of their cultural brainwashing in unproven and psychologically damaging 'British values' and insane beliefs.

It's not just 'this bloody Government', the Tories would be just as bad; Video Recordings Act, anyone?
Do you think that, had the Tories been in power when the campaigners were calling for the 'extreme' porn law, they would have said no? I doubt it. However, I'm not sure if the Tories have an equivalent of Harriet 'Hatesmen'/‘Harmsmen’ (take your pick); I wouldn't be surprised if she is the driving force behind much of Labour's repression - the woman is obsessed!

Cen., the VRA 1984 was never at fault...

SNIP

I agree with much of what you say about Ofcon, they are an utterly appalling, hypocritical, inconsistent, arbitrary, unreasonable, rights abusing, repressive… bunch of censors. However, their predecessor wasn't great, either.
Not that it did much good, but the Communications Act at least did away with ‘Taste & decency’, which should have been a good thing, if Mediawatch’s reaction to this was anything to go by. The fact that 'Offence' was left, though, is a big problem.

I am somewhat surprised at your apparent support for the VRA & the BBFC; Can I conclude that you are happy that the VRA allows censorship to be carried out, and ‘justified’, on the basis of harm that MIGHT be caused, rather than on the basis of actual harm, based upon actual evidence? Wouldn't this come under the heading of 'precautionary approach', that you seem so unhappy with (rightly so, IMO)?

Can I conclude that you are happy that the BBFC, an industry body, continues to censor considerable amounts of consensual adult entertainment (that is freely available throughout most (all?) of the mainland EU) without any evidence of harm? Not on what is actually, legally obscene (material that has a tendency to deprave & corrupt; not, as many seem to think, material that they find distasteful/offensive), but what they claim they have been told is in accordance with the current ‘interpretation’ of the OPA.

What is allowed at R18, is, as far as I am aware, based upon what the BBFC, police, Customs, CPS, etc. decided upon at their meeting following the High Court decision. Basically, what they thought would stop the chance of further legal challenges, but no more than that, hence the considerable amount of censorship that still exists.

I’m not sure why you might think this, but just to be clear, I’m not trying to defend Labour or Ofcon; in fact, I hold them in the same low regard as I do the BBFC, Customs etc.; I just think that people are deluding themselves if they think it will be all sweetness & light if/when the Tories gain power at the next Westminster election.

(15-10-2009 02:13 )vila Wrote:  I know we shouldn't pay too much attention to what Opposition leaders say when an election is looming, but I noted David Cameron's words when he was talking about drastically trimming Ofcom:

"Give Ofcom, or give a new body, the technical function of handing out the licences and regulating lightly the content that is on the screens."

I think you are correct in not putting much store in what has been said; Ofcon already claim they are a light touch regulator (I know, one of the many bullshit statements from them), and I don’t remember Cameron, or his party, opposing the ‘extreme’ porn law, even though he said he believes people should be free to view what they wish.

Any 'trimming' will merely be a cost-cutting exercise, I suspect.

(15-10-2009 11:52 )BarrieBF Wrote:  

(15-10-2009 00:35 )Censorship :-( Wrote:  The broadcasters of the so-called 'adult channels' often use such tactics e.g promising XXX content, or 'we can only show soft content FTA, but we go hard after encryption’, or words to that effect.

How many subscribers do you think they would get if they were honest, and said e.g. X amount per month, for strictly 18 certificate softcore content, every night!. Not many, would be my guess.

No, they would still have plenty. According to the accounts of Portland Enterprises who own TVX, most of their subscribers remain after the initial 12 month contract has expired.

By the way, one thing you seem to have completely forgotten is that hardcore versions of TVX programmes can be seen on the TVX website and membership of the website is free to TVX subscribers.

I didn't forget, because I didn’t know!

Perhaps the access to the website is the reason that they continue with their subscription?

Is it just me, or are we going increasingly OT? The thread is supposed to be about ‘Tamestation’, and the continuing disparity between the $ky only section, and what is shown (or not shown) on Freeview, which, as most seem to agree, is down to Cellcast, not Ofcon.

Although it wasn't the fault of the girls themselves (as we've seen much more 'full on' from these two) that was another pathetic 2-4-1 with Karina and Caty. It was virtually non-contact the entire time all the 'dancing' and bobble-heading around each other is ridiculous.

It really doesn't make any sense to have it so tame once the Freeview hours and from what I can tell there's no valid reason for it. If Bang Babes does launch on Freeview I really hope they don't take the channel the same way as Cellcast take the Babestation channels when FV hours start.

(16-10-2009 00:28 )vila Wrote:  

(15-10-2009 22:02 )StanTheMan Wrote:  Not wishing to sound ungrateful, dirk - indeed anyone who goes to the trouble of uploading clips for the benefit of others should be applauded, but let's face it, when did the channels you'll now be boycotting last broadcast anything worthy of an upload?

Well I think most, if not all, of Dirk's clips have been worthy of upload and I'm grateful for his efforts as, I'm sure, are many others.

If you'd read my post properly, vila, you'd have seen that I clearly stress my gratefulness. Sheesh!