Ofcom Discussion

(20-06-2012 12:57 )mr mystery Wrote:  

(20-06-2012 12:27 )Rammyrascal Wrote:  

(20-06-2012 11:45 )StanTheMan Wrote:  

Quote:"Adult chat broadcasters should:
• not broadcast shots of bare breasts before 22:00;

This is the one that get's me. Why the fuck has the watershed been put back an hour for the babeshows? Everywhere else the watershed is 21:00 !!

Don't know but it's always been like that on the babeshows for years, babes can't go topless till 10pm

The non topless rule before 10pm came in to force when the babe channels were re-categorised as Adult teleshopping services around September/October 2010 , before this date some channels including the various Sport xxx channels and Bangbabes used to go topless at around 9.30pm , the channels before they were re-classified by Ofcom could more or less use their own judgement at what time they should move into showing the more explicit stuff (after the watershed) , Ofcom just advised that after 9pm there should be a slow transition into showing the more explicit stuff . Ofcom cleared this grey area up when the new rules were brought out and gave a exact time for the topless stuff to start (10pm)

Its not a rule, its a guideline. It has no basis in law or research. Ofcom of course treat it as a binding rule admitting no leeway.

Correct that guidelines were introduced about the same time as the channels became advertising channels. Clarity is welcome, but only the babechannels are subject to this level of regulation.

As Stan says, other material has a 9pm watershed. Babe channels cant go topless until an hour later. E4 recently had an argument with Ofcom about whether strong swearing could be used at 30 seconds after 9 - some highlights show with a warning and trailing content later in the show.

It gets worse. Babes are allowed to use moderate sexual language, but only after midnight. Thats a 3 hour transition.

Reading through some of these posts you'd be forgiven for thinking that some forum members are in actual fact in favour of censorship. I mean what the fuck are you ofcom in disguise

All this talk about so long as the channels are making money or go find porn on the internet argument is bullshit.

Yes I fucking know what is so blatantly obvious. It doesn't need to be said, it's a pointless statement.

The priniciple is that ofcom = censorship, which = shit shows.

So once again I'll say throw that fucking rulebook in the nearest bin and set it on fire.

Like being told what to do, no - well if that is the case then ofcom need to be told to get to fuck.

A rulebook for a televised sexline - I mean what the fuck who ever came up with that one needs to be locked up for insanity

As obvious as saying that Ofcom= censorship for all intents and purposes thats what is there for. Lets say we take your approach and all the channels say fuck it, throw the rule book in the bin get clobbered with unsustainable fines or worse get taken off air, what is your proposal then.

None of us support Ofcom but they appear to be a fact of life like the watershed. There is not enough of a groundswell of public opinion to reduce censorship on TV and no political party will commit suicide!

Those of us who have children are already concerned explicit information is already too available in the public domain and that domain is almost un-policeable so the 900's have no chance.

Sorry Scottishbloke i understand where you are coming from but its where we are at the moment.

(23-06-2012 23:19 )sweetsugar007 Wrote:  There is not enough of a groundswell of public opinion to reduce censorship on TV

Say's who exactly, only the minority would agree with that opinion as you'll find most of the UK population see ofcom and censorship as a pointless exercise.

Whatever happened to self censorship and by that I mean if the parents/guardians don't want their children to view such material then there is allready safety measures in place to block any channel you wish to aswell as internet child friendly programmes too that can easily be installed.

No I think rather than this government trying to ban this sort of material from us that they'd be better off educating the parents/guardians instead, ironically on the ofcom website they give out helpful advice on how to impliment such measures.

What's next ban booze from the shops incase your children happen to drink that and only serve it in pubs instead.

We all know if that happened then the nation would kick up fuck and quite rightly too so why shouldn't the same be applicable to all forms of adult leisure activity.

(23-06-2012 23:49 )Scottishbloke Wrote:  What's next ban booze from the shops incase your children happen to drink that and only serve it in pubs instead.

That's a poor analogy as no matter where alcohol is being (legally) sold there is a minimum age requirement.

(23-06-2012 23:49 )Scottishbloke Wrote:  ...
as you'll find most of the UK population see ofcom and censorship as a pointless exercise.
...

Says who exactly?

Just a few weeks ago, the courts ordered that several major ISP's block access to thepiratebay website. All those ISP's have now complied, and I don't see people marching on the streets in protest at this blatant censorship!
People may see certain acts of censorship as pointless as it can be easily defeated, as in thepiratebay example, but I'm sure if you took a poll, there would still be a significant, and possibly even majority, support for some kind of regulation of things like pornography and the adult channels on tv.
There-in lies the problem. Complete de-regulation is highly unlikely in the near future, and any relaxing of the current regulations is likely to be slow and steady over a period of time, so as to be less noticeable so that the usual suspects don't realise and kick off.

That doesn't mean things will not change and we should all just give up, it simply means we have to dig in and prepare for a long term battle, and be realistic about what can be done and how.
At this moment in time, probably the best hope is a change in leadership at Ofcom as it seems unlikely a government will have the balls to actually disband and replace them any time soon. In the past, changes at the top of the BBFC has led to a relaxing of control, and many previously banned films being given certificates. A change at Ofcom could trigger a similar relaxation towards the adult channels.
In the meantime, we can continue to put forward coherent and articulate arguments to illustrate how unjust and hypocritical Ofcoms treatment of the babechannels is, in the hope that eventually, those arguments will have the impact we desire.

(24-06-2012 00:31 )iloveMegan Wrote:  That's a poor analogy as no matter where alcohol is being (legally) sold there is a minimum age requirement.

Actually the analogy is fine. There's also a minimum age requirement to watch the channels as well. Despite that, they aren't allowed to show anything too explicit in case children may be watching.

So the analogy that alcohol should be banned in case someone underage should buy it is quite valid in this context.

(24-06-2012 13:45 )MARCCE Wrote:  So the analogy that alcohol should be banned in case someone underage should buy it is quite valid in this context.

Only if the suggestion was that it was to be banned outright. Scottishbloke's is suggesting that it should only be served in pubs and not shops, but neither premises should be serving anyone underage.

(24-06-2012 14:05 )iloveMegan Wrote:  Only if the suggestion was that it was to be banned outright. Scottishbloke's is suggesting that it should only be served in pubs and not shops, but neither premises should be serving anyone underage.

That's the post in isolation. I think you need to take it in the context of Scottishbloke's overall views on the subject i.e. that things Ofcom won't permit on the babechannels are freely available elsewhere to anyone that wants to see it including other television channels.

ilovemegan you're talking shit as per usual. A very poor contradiction of my post if you ask me, but as per usual you try to be a smart ass but only it's you that is made to look foolish in this instance, you really take everything as literal don't you

Munch1917 what you are basing your views on is media propaganda. The stuff you read in the paper about censorship is exactly the kind of talk which the UK Government would have you fooled into thinking it matched public opinion.

People in favour of censorship are in the minority, the majority of the population couldn't give 2 shits what is broadcast, for instance the only thing that really tends to bother the women out there is when because of the footy sometimes the schedulers have to make way by showing the soaps later. I know that used to piss my mum off to no extent

Anyway keep the votes coming for cwpussylover to be the next televsion regulator