Mainstream TV nudity vs babeshow nudity

(19-02-2013 23:22 )RCTV Wrote:  no, but as a co-opted member, I was there to support, and not cause arguments, ones that were needed, and have just been ignored. The babe channels could be very different, if several of the co-opted members/advisors had been listened to at the beginning.

Which babe channel did you work for?

(20-02-2013 00:00 )Digital Dave Wrote:  

(19-02-2013 23:22 )RCTV Wrote:  no, but as a co-opted member, I was there to support, and not cause arguments, ones that were needed, and have just been ignored. The babe channels could be very different, if several of the co-opted members/advisors had been listened to at the beginning.

Which babe channel did you work for?

I was freelance, so worked for several, used to do a fair bit for cellcast and bangbabes, was often called in when people were sick, inbetween work for BBC. My plan was to try and get a channel up and running in the UK, but ofcom don't like me. I don't take any shit if you can't tell.

(19-02-2013 21:44 )eccles Wrote:  And yet some dating website can show a naked mans arse in its advert, the one that shows them getting dressed and the woman walking down the street in stockings and high heels.

its the benaughty.com advert, just shown at 9:10pm on Dave.

after watershed Eccles, perfectly fine to. however, personally don't like that advert, especially with the programme it was in the advert break for. not a suitable advert at all.

(19-02-2013 23:22 )RCTV Wrote:  

(19-02-2013 23:16 )eccles Wrote:  Being asked to leave because of a different opinion just illustrates the moral bankruptcy of Ofcom. Rules should be based on object fact not personal opinion. Staff should apply rules impartially regardless of whether they agree or disagree with them. Obviously the regulators staff should agree with the principle of regulation, but that is not the same as systematic bias.

Would it be acceptable for Border Agency staff to regard all immigrants as freeloading criminal scum? Or prison warders to regard prisioners as bad to the bone and incapable of reform? No.

no, but as a co-opted member, I was there to support, and not cause arguments, ones that were needed, and have just been ignored. The babe channels could be very different, if several of the co-opted members/advisors had been listened to at the beginning.

" as a co-opted memeber I was there to support"

Which illustrates the problem. The clear implication of what you say is that co-opted members were NOT there to be objective, but to give Ofcom an excuse to do what it had already decided. The minute you didn't fall in line with their pre-judgements you were asked to leave.

Which goes to prove the point that there is little or no point to the Ofcom committees - the decisions have already been made.

My experience of local authorities is that the successful ones engage with their critics, despite it being hard work, and dont limit their background discussions to tame yes sayers.

It is much easier for everyone involved to anticipate problems and reach a shared understanding in a meeting room than to allow a situation to develop that eventually results in an external investigation, damaged reputations, court cases and internal recriminations.

Unsuccessful local authorities have sham consultations with tame groups resulting in ticks in check lists but not preventing bubbling resentment.

The same principles apply to government departments and private businesses.

The pornification of society reaches new areas, today stamps.

Elizabeth gives Mr Darcy a blowjob



“I am excessively diverted.”

Not sex related but interesting example of dual standards when it comes to potential for harm and offence.

On Sunday 24 Feb at 10pm Channel 5 showed extreme gorefest Saw: The Final Chapter on a "quality" public service channel available to every person in the UK without restriction. Ofcom research clearly states that expectations are higher for the main channels.

To those that say, ah that was after 22:00, the Horror Channel showed Hellraiser on Sky channel 319, Virgin channel 149 and Freesat channel 138 on Sun 24 Feb at 9pm. Any adult or child with access to satellite or cable could access the film without restriction.

Scope for offence? High.
Scope for harm? Clearly unsuitable for young children.

Quote:Year: 1987
Certificate: 18
Genre: Movies / Horror

Clive Barker's graphic tale about a man who loses his body to SM demons, the Cenobites, but then gradually gets it back with the aid of human sacrifices. Andrew Robinson stars.

Directed by: Clive Barker

http://www.horrorchannel.co.uk/shows.php...ode=272087

Thirst (18)

Korean ... a well meaning priest volunteers to test a vaccine for a deadly virus. He dies but a blood transfusion gives him a new lease of life plus an appetite for kinky sex followed by snacks of human haemoglobin ... definitely a vampire film for grown ups unlike the romanticised sexless Twilight films.

Film4 now (11:20-02:00) and Film4+1 from 00:20

Naked And Marooned with Ed Stafford
Discovery Channel, 9pm Thurs

A bit like Bear Gryls but in the nude. Not my kind of thing, lots of male bum crack, a bit like watching builders at work. Perhaps they will make a series with Holly Willoughbooby.