different channels, different rules..why?

bbrodriguez, makes you think it might not be Ofcom at all - that it is indeed, different rules made by the different channels.

I'm pretty sure, because of my involvement with Ofwatch in 2003 when we tried (in vain) to get real R18 allowed on the adult channels, that there's a convenient deal been made between the babe/'adult' channels and Ofcom.

You may or may not be surprised to learn that the Adult Industry Trade Association (AITA) made a business case to Ofcom for keeping R18 and other explicit material off 'adult' TV channels - they said it would hurt the sex shop video trade (probably would too). And surprise, surprise Ofcom delay publication of the Code (after making all the right noises to Ofwatch that R18 was on the cards) and come up with an unbelievable excuse to ban adult material because apparently little children know the PIN number and can order up 18 rated movies/ppv adult services whenever they like without ma and pa blinking an eye. (And I use the present term because that's exactly what the situation is right now according to Ofcom's 'research' from 2003...)

Anyhow, if you've seen how LiveJasmin etc. work then you know that when these girls get a 'caller' they go 'private' so no one gets to see the show for free. Now imagine switching on your TV and seeing your fave TV babe getting naked for her first 'after 10pm' caller - unless you were absolutely desparate to speak to her, you'd likely crack one off and go to bed satisfied. I think the TV channels believe they'd make far less money if the girls actually got naked and performed sexually provocative acts too early (if ever).

So, my guess is, each station has figured out when and what attracts the most callers (listeners-in included) and sets its rules and schedule (i.e. the 'supply') to meet its expected audience demands. They all maximise their profits by showing just enough to keep their punter$ coming back and never giving anything away for free.

For instance. The sport channel used to FTG every night well after Ofcom put its Code in place. Once people knew the knickers came off after encryption, there were probably more takers for the PPV show once FTG was 'banned by Ofcom' (iirc it hadn't been banned by Ofcom for many months and there were always loads of flashes throughout the night until that Japanese mosaic appeared - slowly but surely any gash was completely removed from free view and placed securely behind the blue $creen). People were lead by the nose (or the little head) to where the money was.

The Comms Act 2003 is an interesting beast. On the one hand Ofcom are supposed to respect Freedom of Expression but, they're also charged with protecting the under 18s and helping TV and telephone businesses thrive. Our rights as over 18 consumers aren't really given any protection at all. There's some guff about balance in reporting and right to reply (that's complain about stuff you don't like on TV and get apologies for libel/defamation) but, there's not really anything that protects your rights to see anything beyond "generally accepted standards" (whatever they hell they are) if it makes businesses loads of money. Pretty odd legislation for a socialist Labour Gov. don't you think?

The real bottom line is Ofcom are doing what the Gov. created them to do - and like I said before, if you don't like the rules then its the rule makers that need sorting out. I don't pretend to know what Mr Bliar, Brown, Straw, Blunkett et al. thought they were doing but, I think most of us aren't really happy with the result. (And if you add Harm-men, Smith, Goggins and Coaker to that list of names you'll get a better idea why!)

And let me apologise for bringing politics into this but, at the end of the day the buck stops with the Government and their "Vision for Britain".