(20-10-2014 10:58 )mr mystery Wrote: Ofcoms latest Bulletin came out today, Studio 66 have been found "in breach" on two separate occasions, one was on the 4th of June and the other was the 6th of June, full details can be found here http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binarie...obb264.pdf
Both seem to be for over knickers and under knickers pussy rubbing from what i can make out .
It's interesting that S66 tried to plead in its defence that other channels feature far harder material in their free promo slots (eg TVX freeview). Coincidentally this is something we discussed here recently.
It turns out TVX comes under the broadcasting code because it's deemed to have 'editorial content' i.e. programmes. Therefore they can advertise those programmes in the style of the programme, even free to air.
Babe channels are one long advert (in Ofcom's view) and therefore come under the BCap code, which is far more stringent. The irony is that in 2010 Ofcom reclassified babe channels as long form advertising for the specific purpose of reining them in.
However, either erotic images in the 900 channels (such as models touching their genital area) free to air at 2am have the potential to contravene 'generally accepted standards' or they don't - you can't have it both ways by allowing them on TVX and not on S66. They are both catering for the adult entertainment market.
Yet Ofcom do attempt to justify their position in a totally lame manner.
Ofcom:
"We also noted the Licensee’s assertion that certain non-PRS ‘adult’ channels (regulated under the Broadcasting Code) broadcast much stronger material by way of free-to-air and unencrypted promotional clips than the Licensee’s channels.
Ofcom noted that these kinds of
promotions for ‘adult’ services are typically very short in length, and consist of a rolling series of very brief, tightly cut clips shown on editorial services which are specifically licensed to broadcast ‘adult sex material’, subject to various restrictions.
The content which is the subject of this Decision was of a significant duration and consisted of a series of long, lingering shots. It was also broadcast on a service specifically licensed only to broadcast advertising content.
Further, the content was at odds with both the Guidance and, according to the Licensee, its own internal guidance.
We therefore considered that the two kinds of broadcast material were not comparable, either in terms of their content or audience expectations."
A proper lawyer would have a field day with this. The expectations in questions are purely and simply whether generally accepted standards are being breached. Apparently, in Ofcom world a granny tuning into the TVX freeview will not be offended by pussy rubbing because of the content of the channel, whereas if she tuned up the EPG and saw similar images on S66 she would be offended because it's so-called advertising material, even though Ofcom themselves imposed this bogus definition on babe channels in the first place.
Ofcom have also left themselves wide open to a challenge in the visual treatment of free to air erotic images - it seems to be ok (in their words) if it's shot in a fast visual style, whereas long lingering shots are unacceptable. I hope S66 do a sequence of fast cutting shots whilst a model surreptitiously touches her groin, and then quotes this judgement back at Ofcom if a complaint is made.