Mainstream TV nudity vs babeshow nudity

(07-01-2013 23:53 )mrmann Wrote:  122 SKY Amsterdam Nights.

Some nudity and sex before 11

That's okay. Sex and nudity are allowed after 9pm. Why do people keep putting the watershed back? The watershed is 9pm.

Anyone catch Magaluf Weekender on ITV2/3 last night, a few flashes in that.

Although was suprised that ITV showed one the male contestants jumping around naked.

I saw What Happens in Kavos on Tuesday (Channel 4, 11:10-12:15). Some boobs but plenty of cock. Some pratting around and lots of medical treatment.

(11-01-2013 03:15 )eccles Wrote:  I saw What Happens in Kavos on Tuesday (Channel 4, 11:10-12:15). Some boobs but plenty of cock. Some pratting around and lots of medical treatment.

So did i..

News at ten ITV just shown video with adult male penises and testicles in with NO warnings,,it was a religeous festival and never god damn expected that sick sexist cunts..Men with no clothes on running into sea and with a rerun of Eurotrash on Pick tv full of cock and blurred out fannys ive had enuf..Going to see a solicitor Wednesday for free 30 mins consultation ,,

Did anyone see front page of guardian i think it was ,rape is off the scale and sexual offences with 556,000 reports in 2001. Before ofcom it was 512 reported cases,,strange that its erupted when ofcom arrived in 2002..

OK just understanding what solicitor said,

Taking ofcom to court would not be beneficial you should not have to its a public body and should play fair.Ofcom set a programme of rules for the tv companys to adhere too these rules can be changed and act as a GUIDE.

He said about a petition but warned how much companys spend on reaching people with their product you would have to spread word to get as many people on board,,this could then challenge the rules.

So as i said in beggining what if rule was clit,labia minora,urethra can be shown but male genitals cannot be shown unless medical,,that could be the rule instead and would be in force..So rules can be overturned,,maybe court of european human rights as something to consider.

I did have to leave the room for over 10 mins while he scouted round and asked collegues not actually in the building but online ,etc.

If programmes are sponsored by a firm write to firm expressing your disgust that they sponsor a sexist programme.

One reply he got was this,,

:What you can do, is as OFCOM is a public body is Judicially Review their decision.

This is where the Court examines the decision to see if it is legal and reasonable.

A Court can affirm, quash or change the decision.

The Court will see if they have taken into account irrelevant factors or failed to take into account relevant factors :.

Whatever that means in terms of what we can do.

Anyhow this to do with sexism but if female genitals are BANNED on uk tv unless medical there is no hope with Babestation allowing slips or any other female bits.We have to change things that cause the problems to solve other problems.

Thanks for doing that Fedup, you are braver than me. Writing to advertisers and complaining that they are supporting sexist (one sided) censorship sounds interesting, who knows, they might take notice.

There are several problems with Judicial Review. I am not sure if anyone other than the channel operator can bring a case. The court might rule that there are alternatives available. The outcome could be a clampdown on all nudity. Also it costs hundreds of thousands of pounds and can take years. Another huge problem someone pointed out is that Administrative Courts tend to rely on expert opinion, and when it comes to broadcasting regulation, Ofcom is the recognised subject matter expert, and the are going to back themselves.

Even if a court case was successful, at the end of the day a large fraction of the population would still be opposed to tasteful nudity on TV. Some people love writing to complain about things they have not seen because their newspaper tells them to. There would still be political pressure from them to change the law and make it more restrictive. Ofcom would even help write more restrictive laws.

What may be easier and more effective than legal action is to change public opinion. Marginalise the censorship lobby. Get popular figures to come out and say they watch porn with their loved one and are fed up with tame crap on late night TV or having to trust their credit card to some unknown dodgy online service in Croatia. Get newspapers and magazines to stand up. Expose some of the absurdities. Put Ofcom in a position where they have to change.

[edit] Online porn is hugely popular. Ofcom really are shooting themselves in the foot by clamping down on it.[/edit]

Sky Arts 1 is showing episode 3 of Hard right now, probably repeated later through the week. Its about an uptight middleaged womn who inherits a porn production company. Her mother in law has just aken her through a variety of props with explanations, geisha balls, rabbit, nipple clamps, double ended dildo, and in the next scene she has seen a sample of a film being edited, cuts away from the explicit stuff (to show her reaction) but still a mile away from The One Show. She is now having an argument with the transvestite chicken man. Dont ask.

(18-01-2013 00:46 )eccles Wrote:  Thanks for doing that Fedup, you are braver than me. Writing to advertisers and complaining that they are supporting sexist (one sided) censorship sounds interesting, who knows, they might take notice.

There are several problems with Judicial Review. I am not sure if anyone other than the channel operator can bring a case. The court might rule that there are alternatives available. The outcome could be a clampdown on all nudity. Also it costs hundreds of thousands of pounds and can take years. Another huge problem someone pointed out is that Administrative Courts tend to rely on expert opinion, and when it comes to broadcasting regulation, Ofcom is the recognised subject matter expert, and the are going to back themselves.

Even if a court case was successful, at the end of the day a large fraction of the population would still be opposed to tasteful nudity on TV. Some people love writing to complain about things they have not seen because their newspaper tells them to. There would still be political pressure from them to change the law and make it more restrictive. Ofcom would even help write more restrictive laws.

What may be easier and more effective than legal action is to change public opinion. Marginalise the censorship lobby. Get popular figures to come out and say they watch porn with their loved one and are fed up with tame crap on late night TV or having to trust their credit card to some unknown dodgy online service in Croatia. Get newspapers and magazines to stand up. Expose some of the absurdities. Put Ofcom in a position where they have to change.

[edit] Online porn is hugely popular. Ofcom really are shooting themselves in the foot by clamping down on it.[/edit]

Thanks was anxious and angry but 30mins seemed like 4 seconds..ofcom are being unfair allowing mens bits and banning womens so thats 100% sexist and in our favour tho.

The other very unfair thing i read and its in ofcoms reports is these people they have talked too to get feedback..Well no-one on here has been asked what offends us so its an unfair reprsentation.No-one i know male,female is offend by the vagina if anything it raises a giggle..So they need to do full uk survey to find out real peoples attitudes..

I will not give up the subject that offends me and we should not be even talking about it ,ofcom are being unfair allowing male bits and not fermale bits thats pure sexism Period ..

That helicopter that crashed in London was only few miles from ofcoms offices maybe he had enuf of them..

Edit,,i have dealt withis solicitor 4 times over past years but dont know him personnelly..I bet something happens now where i could use a solicitors free advice but in my mind it was worth it just for some bit of guidance.

This is beyond a joke. Right now, at 11.13am, on ITV there is a full medical exam showing how to check for testicular cancer. A close-up of a cock is not what i want to see while eating breakfast.