Ofcom Discussion

(06-11-2013 13:26 )mr mystery Wrote:  RLC have also had a complaint made against them for something broadcast on RLC 2 on the 31st of August 2013, Ofcom are taking this complaint further and have launched a investigation into this incident... I wonder who was on RLC 2 on that date ? .

Well I've just read your post there Mr Mystery so the first thing I did was have a look in the 2 for 1 caps of RLC from the 31st August and this might be the reason and also the cause of why the shows have suddenly become so tame on RLC. Lucy Summers and Olivia where in the bath together on the night in question.

http://www.babeshows.co.uk/showthread.ph...09&page=24

Those ofcom bastards just can't handle the fact that this is just a little bit of late night harmless fun but I do strongly suspect that the 2 for 1 in the bath where both babes got naked whilst mildly showing some interaction between them might have just pardon the pun landed RLC in hot water

I'm probably in a minority of 1 here when I say that I don't mind so much if Ofcon censor the free to air in the way that they do, citing protection of minors, etc as their reason but I am so pissed off with the sanctimonious twats when they then cite protection of children as the reason why they then censor encrypted channels so that full R18 is not allowed.

I wonder why they have never been challenged on why they allow certain R18 activities but censor the rest.

I can only ascertain that they have a vision of Page 3/ Lad's Mags for free to air and nothing else.

Strange people, those Ofcon types.

(02-11-2013 13:47 )RCTV Wrote:  I think ofcom vary on what the government are at the time. The number of adult channels has moved on sky, giving them less space for less channels, no surprise considering government.

I don't think whoever in government has much to do with it. Ofcom reflect what is perceived to be the public mood of the time.

Sadly we're living in a time where people are desperate to be offended. So all of a sudden you get supermarkets demanding that lads mags are put into covers. If you go to football, chants that nobody would have batted an eyelid at even 5 years ago are now meant to be offensive. The campaign to get rid of Page 3 seems to have picked up greater momentum.

The loudest voices being heard at the moment all seem to be preaching greater censorship. There's a twitter page set up for "no more page 3" but you don't see an equivalent set up for keeping it. People with the strongest opinions will always be more proactive than people who disagree with them but don't see it as the be all and end all of their lives.

When you have things like lads mags and page 3 under threat because of the way they apparently objectify women then you have no chance at all of Ofcom suddenly relaxing it's iron grip.

Ofcom have nothing to do with the allocation of channel numbers on the Sky EPG. It's a commercial decision taken by Sky.

(10-11-2013 21:33 )MARCCE Wrote:  If you go to football, chants that nobody would have batted an eyelid at even 5 years ago are now meant to be offensive.

Well I hope we are still allowed to sing the referees a wanker followed by who ate all the pies to any fat bastard on the opposition side that we happen to take a disliking to

But yes I would agree with you that censorship is now making its way out of the media and into the real world. Some people just can't handle a bit of banter anymore

The latest bullshit I read came from that twat Ed Miliband who said that if Labour come back into power that adverts for payday loans must not be allowed to air during children's programmes.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-24886804

All fine for that knob end to make such a statement, maybe he should try living in the real world before he tries to pass off such an opinion as fact.

For the record Ed makes £150,000 a year so my message for him is to go and get fucked and let us know when you've stopped talking directly right out of your arse

(10-11-2013 21:57 )Scottishbloke Wrote:  The latest bullshit I read came from that twat Ed Miliband who said that if Labour come back into power that adverts for payday loans must not be allowed to air during children's programmes.

So why is he wrong with this? Payday lenders are nothing more than legalised loan sharks. There may be a place for these companies but there is no reason they should be targeting kids. The only reason they do this is to get the kids (especially in the run up to Xmas) to guilt-trip the parents into buying stuff they really cannot afford. What other companies would spend money advertising their products to an audience who cannot actually buy them?

This is a totally different situation to the babeshows which are specifically targeted away from the children, as they should be. Trying to justify this advertising in the name of 'anti-censorship' (if that's what you're trying to do) flies completely in the face of your campaign for freedom for the babeshows on the grounds that they are targeted correctly, i.e. for an adult audience in a post watershed timeslot.

Well the reason I find his comments to be total bullshit is because it is. Ed has no idea what living in the real world is all about and I'd love to see where he did his research, I very much doubt that any kids watching the telly would turn round to a parent and say. "Look mum, why don't you just get a loan"

Where do we stop it, what about all of those workers compensation adverts, suppose we should ban then too during daytime telly.

We live in a free market, fuck me on German TV they advertise sexline adverts on mainstream telly and nobody gives a shit.

Fact - If a parent or guardian wants to take out a loan it will have nothing to do with any loanshark advertising, infact its more likely that they would take out a loan based on all the hard selling that we are now encountering as always in the lead up to Christmas. If its ok for the shops to advertise then it's ok in my books for the money lenders to do likewise.

(11-11-2013 18:51 )Scottishbloke Wrote:  I very much doubt that any kids watching the telly would turn round to a parent and say. "Look mum, why don't you just get a loan"

On the contrary, it's easy to see that scenario. Right after she's said "I'm really sorry, we can't afford it right now."

(11-11-2013 18:51 )Scottishbloke Wrote:  Where do we stop it, what about all of those workers compensation adverts, suppose we should ban then too during daytime telly.

Why? That is correct targeting, people stuck at home all day because they can't work through injury.

(11-11-2013 18:51 )Scottishbloke Wrote:  We live in a free market, fuck me on German TV they advertise sexline adverts on mainstream telly and nobody gives a shit.

What's that got to do with the price of fish? If the Germans stuck their arse in the fire would you do the same? (copyright: my dad )

(11-11-2013 18:51 )Scottishbloke Wrote:  Fact - If a parent or guardian wants to take out a loan it will have nothing to do with any loanshark advertising,

(10-11-2013 21:57 )Scottishbloke Wrote:  All fine for that knob end to make such a statement, maybe he should try living in the real world before he tries to pass off such an opinion as fact.

(11-11-2013 18:51 )Scottishbloke Wrote:  infact its more likely that they would take out a loan based on all the hard selling that we are now encountering as always in the lead up to Christmas.

Exactly, and who is alot of the hard selling aimed at? The kids.

(11-11-2013 18:51 )Scottishbloke Wrote:  If its ok for the shops to advertise then it's ok in my books for the money lenders to do likewise.

No-one is saying they shouldn't advertise. The issue is who they're targeting, just as no-one in their right mind would suggest babeshows should be specifically targeted at kids.

"blackjaques Wrote:I wonder why they have never been challenged on why they allow certain R18 activities but censor the rest.

Ofcom love ambiguity. The last thing they want is a clear line in the sand because they know channels will go right up to it and Ofcom wont be able to touch them. Thats why the rules are so vague. Channels know they can repeat the same show for years and suddenly Ofcom can come down on them.

Loan ads - it used to appal me when I work at home just how much financial hardsell there was during daytime kids shows. Far more than during Jeremy Kyle etc. It was so kids could pressure low income parents to buy them Christmas presents or take them on holidays they could not afford. Its about as ethical as advertising scratchcards during Jackanory. By all means advertise, but not when kids dominate the audience.

Having said that Milliband is fast turning into a control freak who thinks he can run a country by banning everything he (or his party) dislike. That takes no account of public attitudes, and ends up being controlled by a handful of political komissars that no one dares contradict. High energy prices? Freeze them. Much as I dislike high prices its obvious the energy companies will hike their prices as much as they can before the election. Followed by closing loss making capacity, laying off thousands of workers and refusing to sign up new customers to loss making tariffs. Far better to force them to switch customers in 24 hours (before tariffs change), make them pay UK tax, double the number of licenced suppliers and force them to publish annual profit margins. But I digress. Lets just hope Milliband stops taking lessons from the likes of Jack Straw and David Blunkett.

German TV ads for sex lines - not sure about that on kids TV, but the idea that under 18s should be totally insulated from any mention of sex is absurd. Are they meant to wait until 18 before they see a woman in a bikini, see a suggestive dance or hear a lewd joke? That's what Ofcom say. Despite being experiencing those things in real life from an earlier age. There should be a gradual transition.

I thought there was a rule, imposed by regulators, that Sky channel numbers had to be allocated in strict numerical order, apart from the must haves and BBC regional ones, within categories due to Skys market dominance. Otherwise Sky would give itself all the best numbers.

German TV ads again - reminds me of wandering through Amsterdam as a tiny and seeing large adverts for Emmanuel in respectable public squares, as well as posters for sex lines. In parts of Spain the pole dancing clubs have ads in the main shopping streets, ads that mention private dance and escort services. Different ways of thinking.

Do Ofcom reflect public opinion? No. They clamped down on R18 when there was no call for that and a lot of positivity about relaxation. They take a narrow moral line, the minimum consistent with Freedom of Expression laws, in the belied that they are doing their political masters (unspoken) will. They public accept that porn is widely available. They get far more upset about runaway energy bills, or being unable to block extreme porn from the other side of the world on their kids computers, or politicians lining their own pockets with money for the duck pond, than they do about antics on a few high numbered TV channels late at night with small audience numbers. Look at the complaints - most are from other channels. Compare that to X-Factor or Big Brother. But the public dont set Ofcoms budget or dish out knighthoods.

Excellent analysis by Eccles. Ofcom are a cultural straight-jacket, imposed on us by a control-freak something-must-be-done State that panders to every militant offence-taker out there - each benefitting (and how) from the existence of other.

Fortunately though, the same-faces-different-hats brigade at Westminster have been put on notice, and, in mortal fear for their way of life, will have to offer up all sorts of blandishments at the next election.

I wonder, Ofcom, if one such could be you...?