Studio 66 in Breach x2 (A 2-4-1)!

When i made that post about complaining of lack of sexual content it was purly a joke, but if only we could make complaint like that to offcom im sure there would be more complaint on the lack of content than the stupid complaints such as 2 women touching each others thighs and waving their bums at the camera.

(09-02-2013 22:54 )theblob Wrote:  When i made that post about complaining of lack of sexual content it was purly a joke, but if only we could make complaint like that to offcom im sure there would be more complaint on the lack of content than the stupid complaints such as 2 women touching each others thighs and waving their bums at the camera.

I know, but it started me thinking. Ofcom is legally required to ensure a wide range of channels and regularly investigates radio stations that that don't deliver their agreed content, for example talk or classical music, so why not complain about not delivering what it says on the tin?

More bullshit today for Studio66.




Clear evidence that a major overhaul is needed at Ofcom. All this fuss based on a solitary complaint.

^^^ This is the same breach(es) reported and discussed the other day in the main Ofcom thread.

It still narks me somewhat. S66 argued that there was an age verification on the phones that recieved the pics/vids, and that should be sufficient.
It is my understanding that all new phones supplied today are supposed to be locked from accessing adult content until you provide age verification, either in the form of credit card details, or by visiting your network providers store and convincing them you are an adult. That system seems to be fine for everyone else, but apparently not Ofcom because apparently a 'person under the age of eighteen' may use 'an adult's mobile phone to call the onscreen shortcode'.
Well whoopdee friggin do. On that logic we could ban everything! Ban cars as a child may gain access to them using the adults keys. Glues and knives can only be bought by adults, but a child could gain access to the adults glues and knives, so ban them completely. Ban alcohol as a child could gain access to it. Credit cards as age verification are no good after all, as clearly a child could use an adults card. What else could be used, fingerprints? But then a child could chop off an adults finger (assuming all out knives are not banned) to use their fingerprint to gain access to something 'harmful'.

The audacity of this unelected quango is breathtaking. If they have an issue with the age verification system on mobile phones, surely they should take that up with the phone regulatory body, not arbitrarily impose sanctions on the tv channel because they have decided the system is not good enough!

I think the age verification should be much better than it is, kids can easily make up a DOB and say it to a girl. I think S66 is going down a slippery slide in terms of they don't seem to be listening to what ofcom are saying, as there seems to be the same breaches on more than one occasion. I do think from reading what ofcom have put that time is too early and is very obviously going against the non-topless before 10pm. You'd know if an advert has topless in it before showing, they can do a VERY easy thing, but they seem unable to.

Yes all phones these days are age verified. When I signed up to a contract mobile recently I had to show proof of id. The man inside the shop also very kindly unlocked my phone too so that I could access adult websites such as this one without any problems.

Also apologies as this subject has already been discussed. I did my usual and typed in ofcom babe channels into the search engine and this was the latest that popped up. Yes pure madness by Ofcom. Studio66 as far as I'm concerned never broke any rules. The very fact that the advert was also censored say's it all.

The problem with ofcom is that they look into too many what if scenario's. What if a minor was somehow able to watch the babe channels. What if a minor was also able to access hardcore pictures. In this life you can never ever be 100% sure on anything but where do we draw the line.

Let's say a parent has just purchased booze and fags from the shops. What's to stop her/his minor drinking the bottle dry and then smoking the fag's too. Life is full of what if scenario's. Always has been and always will be and this is all Ofcom has to justify their rules and regulations on. Whatever happened to the word trust.

(20-02-2013 20:44 )Scottishbloke Wrote:  ...
The problem with ofcom is that they look into too many what if scenario's. What if a minor was somehow able to watch the babe channels. What if a minor was also able to access hardcore pictures. In this life you can never ever be 100% sure on anything but where do we draw the line.
...

Spot on.

Picture the scene, little Johnny or Jemima, sat up unsupervised at 3 in the morning, one eye on the babeshows, one eye on the anal fisting scene they are streaming from the net, G & T in one hand, Marlboro Light dangling from the lips.
Now 'what if' we don't put the blame for this on the supermarkets that sell the fags and booze. 'What if' we don't blame the internet service providers that give access to the net. 'What if' we don't blame the babeshows for attempting to broadcast some erotica at that hour of the night.
What if we actually blame the parents for not having adequate control over their kids!

Ofcoms job should be to regulate the tv channels, not to nanny every single child in the country, through every possible scenario however unlikely. Ofcom is supposed to be the broadcasting regulator, not the bad parenting regulator, we have social services to deal with that!

Scottishbloke, a minor could drink the alcohol though, that'd be legal as it would be on private property and they are over 5. Would be worried if a kid was drinking at or before 5, but that's the law.

I also can't see how you can say they haven't broken rules, when often have proved they have. however what strikes me is ofcom never provide photographic evidence, and never have done, even though committee's are shown the relevant offending material.

(20-02-2013 21:12 )RCTV Wrote:  ...I also can't see how you can say they haven't broken rules, when often have proved they have. however what strikes me is ofcom never provide photographic evidence, and never have done, even though committee's are shown the relevant offending material.

It does nark me when the bulletins describe what the presenters were wearing in letchworthy dribbling detail "to set the scene", something they do not do for other categories. Despite this they never quantify how long the supposed offence lasted. Clearly there is a difference between a 2 second flash of outer anal ring in a full body length shot when a presenter shifts position and a full on 30 second lingering close up.

Time and again I read the bulletins and cannot make the connection between the strength of babeshows as desribed and the tame content what I am forced to sit through night after night.

When it comes to stills and video evidence, there is no reason why Ofcom should publish this in its bulletins, which after all are no more than a summary, and a summary written by the prosecution at that. I suspect that magistrates and Crown Courts judgements are text only too.

HOWEVER there is no reason why copies of evidence cannot be requested under the Freedom of Information Act.

RE Length of supposed content. Think I will get moaned at for this, but, it is more likely that a babe channel will have longer rule breaks than most other channels, purely due to nature of the channels, obviously nip slips could be quick, but others could be longer.