Ofcom & The UK Adult Industry

(13-02-2011 04:30 )nailpouchofmine Wrote:  Graphic war scenes,people getting blown to pieces,getting shot,stabbed,kicked to death,being pushed over the edge of a cliff,getting blown appart in a car explosion,being disintregrated by an alien weapon,cut in half by a light beam,having their eyes gauged out,being burned at the stake,beheaded,whipped,eaten by sharks,run over by cars,shot to death by gunfire.......I could go on,so could we all,all this shit is shown 24/7/365 but show some shagging,show a bit of muffin,swear[use the famous 4 letter word] and all of a sudden,it is the end of the world [because children may see/hear it]

This just sums up Ofcom and I find it incredible that they've never been asked to justify their stance on violence Vs consentual pornography.

Christ almighty!! What sort of person is happy for rape scenes to go out on fta channels, but not consentual pornography???

And rather than access to porn creating a new generation of sexual devients, isn't there evidence to show that countries that have a more liberal appraoch to sex on tv, have far fewer sex crimes than we do?

I think most people would know about the prohibition of alcohol in the good old USA. Prohibiting what the general public wants,only makes them want it more. In our case it would mean more people switching tv off and the internet on. As more and more places get the openzone it will be a lot easier to go to a live show on the internet. People will spend their hard earned money where they get the best value and at the moment,that is not on our tv sets. Only one loser I an afraid

(14-02-2011 16:16 )StanTheMan Wrote:  

(13-02-2011 04:30 )nailpouchofmine Wrote:  ...people getting blown to pieces...kicked to death,being pushed over the edge of a cliff...being disintregrated by an alien weapon,cut in half by a light beam,having their eyes gauged out...beheaded,whipped,eaten by sharks,run over by cars,shot to death by gunfire......

This just sums up Ofcom and I find it incredible that they've never been asked to justify their stance on violence Vs consentual pornography.

Christ almighty!! What sort of person is happy for rape scenes to go out on fta channels, but not consentual pornography???

My widowed grandmother watches almost nothing but cop shows, detective dramas and murder mysteries. Pretty much all day long (apart from a bit of Ken Bruce in the morning, and that's only cos Alibi hasn't got anything really juicy on at that time).
So, every concievable violent crime (especially sex-crimes and crimes against minors in 'Law & Order; SVU' - a particular favourite) and many of the crime scenes and "vics", if not always the actual crime, shown in fairly graphic detail.

To be fair, she used to leaven it out with a bit of medical drama (horrific accidents, people dying before their time, dying, dying, mutilation with heavy machinery, more tragic death) and some soaps (massive rows, illicit affairs, beatings, theft, arson, incest, rape, murder, murder, murder...), so it wasn't all murder, murder, murder.
And what has been the effect of all this acceptable, family-friendly, Ofcom-approved bullshit? She is a paranoid delusional, quite convinced that the world is an insanely dangerous place (see Ep1 of Charlie Broooker's excellent 'How TV Ruined Your Life', for a better rundown of the mechanics of 'Mean World Syndrome') and that very little happens outside the house that isn't bad. She almost never smiles or laughs.

So, thanks a lot Ofcom; we can depress and frighten ourselves all we want with sanctioned televised negativity, but for those of us who want a bit of titillation to take the edge of this miserable heap of shite we universally refer to as Modern British Life?
Well, no, we can politely f### off.

Missing key events. Talking bollocks. Making stuff up.
~~~SAVE THE KRILL!~~~

StanTheMan Wrote:And what has been the effect of all this acceptable, family-friendly, Ofcom-approved bullshit? She is a paranoid delusional, quite convinced that the world is an insanely dangerous place ... and that very little happens outside the house that isn't bad.

A notorious alleged case of this was Stanley Kubrick, the director behind 2001 and Clockwork Orange, who was rumoured to have believed that Britain was full of gangs committing copycat crimes and was rumoured to have spent the rest of his life safe behind the security gates of his estate or film studios, rarely travelling by car or train. His family dispute this.

I only became familiar with the babe channels two years ago when I first purchased a Sky package. Then, Ofcom kept a watch on what was being broadcast as they still do. But back then they seemed to be a lot less strict in their control, letting a much raunchier type of show go to air. What as happened in the meantime to bring on the wrath of the watchdog? Who now seems intent on coming down hard at the slightest wrongdoing by the channels. As iv'e said before, and here I have to agree with rctv. That it's the concept of a sex channel that is the problem, rather than the actual content they put out. As for the treatment of the girls or the type of crew that are used. I know nothing about. But I do know that television was devised to be a entertainment tool and not a vehicle for fly-by-night company's to make a quick pound and then do one. I suppose what I'm saying, is that two years ago the people who ran these company's were a bit more savvy in what they could get away with and not to upset the prying eyes. These modern day entrepreneurs will have to learn "it's not what you do, but the way that you do it". That's if they intend on sticking around.

Thanks hun. I actually had an email today from an old work mate of mine who said it is a lot worse and I got out of the uk industry really before all the money grabbers really got their claws in, and that was 2007, and it seems they now have.

many of you guys are confusing art with porn. A tv show is able to broadcast naked/sex/rape if they can prove to ofcom (which it isn't easy trust me) if it enhances the program and should be in it. Pornography is not art and is there purely for entertainment and not to imporve the show, which tbh is purely porn, which is why ofcom really has a dislike as the programme is porn and it would bring nothing to it as the programme is already pushing the limits.

just through this in the mix what would crimewatch be if you didn't see the reconstructions/cctv, and would they get the help, no. They NEED to do them to help people and this aids the show. Wanting girls to have sex and get topless ISN'T needed it is WANTED. Big difference and tbh i think that makes ofcom stricter.

(15-02-2011 00:38 )RCTV Wrote:  Thanks hun. I actually had an email today from an old work mate of mine who said it is a lot worse and I got out of the uk industry really before all the money grabbers really got their claws in, and that was 2007, and it seems they now have.

many of you guys are confusing art with porn. A tv show is able to broadcast naked/sex/rape if they can prove to ofcom (which it isn't easy trust me) if it enhances the program and should be in it. Pornography is not art and is there purely for entertainment and not to imporve the show, which tbh is purely porn, which is why ofcom really has a dislike as the programme is porn and it would bring nothing to it as the programme is already pushing the limits.

just through this in the mix what would crimewatch be if you didn't see the reconstructions/cctv, and would they get the help, no. They NEED to do them to help people and this aids the show. Wanting girls to have sex and get topless ISN'T needed it is WANTED. Big difference and tbh i think that makes ofcom stricter.

You are talking bollox as usual naked/sex/rape,is art,you fucking moron.
I wish that some of the women that have been raped would come on here and let them listen to your fucking ramblings.

In my opinion rape is only one stage away from murder in the ratings of serious crime and there is no need for it to be depicted on tv at all!!!.

Naked and sex are totaly different in there own aspects too,naked can be classed as art,sex can only be classed as sex,and if it is ok to show naked and sex on so called art channels,it follows that it should be ok to show it on any channel.

Nice try, but Crimewatch does not actually show people getting their heads smashed in or clothing ripped off, it implies it.

Alien shows a monster erupting from a mans stomach - and that is purely to entertain the audience. Setting aside the Documentary genre (documentaries, news, current affairs, including CrimeWatch) and Educational content, where graphic images are both essential to convey information AND the information is in the public interest, 99% of all broadcasting is some form of entertainment and exists to excite, stimulate or soothe viewers. The fact that something has a Drama labeldoes not detract from the fact that people watch it to be entertained.

Yes, agree with Eccles.
Certainly not having a go, RCTV - not my style at all - but the contention that Crimewatch is representative of all TV output is a flimsy one at best. Crimewatch isn't totally frivolous, but I also won't agree that it's an entirely necessary piece of television; yes, it does some good, but the Police Force Service are there to solve crimes, and do quite well actually. Suffolk Strangler? Police nailed that fast.
Anyway, if we're going to justify 'extreme content' (ie; violence and dramatic sex on tv) or more accurately divisive content as art, then we should remember that art is, ultimately, unnecessary and we can all live just fine without it. We need food, oxygen, water, exercise and children, but not art. It does help to improve us as intellectual civilised beings, certainly. And if we have to accept a few extremes along the way, well then we also have to put up with the endless debates over limits, morality, ethics, yada yada yada... part and parcel.
We also don't need porn, but it certainly helps to improve us as civilised beings... bottle up the sexual frustration of a disenfranchised and socially inept male human for long enough by depriving him of any form of release, and we may well end up with some more material for (at best) Crimewatch or (at worst) Messiah.

Missing key events. Talking bollocks. Making stuff up.
~~~SAVE THE KRILL!~~~

(15-02-2011 13:47 )Krill Liberator Wrote:  Yes, agree with Eccles.
Certainly not having a go, RCTV - not my style at all - but the contention that Crimewatch is representative of all TV output is a flimsy one at best. Crimewatch isn't totally frivolous, but I also won't agree that it's an entirely necessary piece of television; yes, it does some good, but the Police Force Service are there to solve crimes, and do quite well actually. Suffolk Strangler? Police nailed that fast.
Anyway, if we're going to justify 'extreme content' (ie; violence and dramatic sex on tv) or more accurately divisive content as art, then we should remember that art is, ultimately, unnecessary and we can all live just fine without it. We need food, oxygen, water, exercise and children, but not art. It does help to improve us as intellectual civilised beings, certainly. And if we have to accept a few extremes along the way, well then we also have to put up with the endless debates over limits, morality, ethics, yada yada yada... part and parcel.
We also don't need porn, but it certainly helps to improve us as civilised beings... bottle up the sexual frustration of a disenfranchised and socially inept male human for long enough by depriving him of any form of release, and we may well end up with some more material for (at best) Crimewatch or (at worst) Messiah.

Don't want to argue with you Krill, but I don't think we could survive without art. But if we could, it would be a bleak existence. don't you think.