Ofcom Discussion

Mention babeshows on general broadcasting forums and people will pop up and ask why bother, since images of female nudity are available elsewhere, on the internet and from the local newsagent. Or in the bedroom if in a relationship. (The local library is a new one, though round here it is closed at night, when I have quiet time, as is the art gallery, and the library is off limits after the notorious you-show-me-yours-and-i-will-show-you-mine incident. Strange how a phrase like "go on" can have two meanings).

I cant speak for anyone else, but I am not obsessed with erotic nudity on TV. I just want it to be there when I do want it, the same as other forms of entertainment.

The you can get it elsewhere brigade have never explained why it is acceptable - mandatory even - for them to have every other sort of broadcasting at their fingertips, now matter how controversial or offensive, with the sole exception of sex. And even then, it is only sex without the pretense of drama, art or documentary that is banned.

There are news channels funded by or encouraged by foreign governments that spout dodgy views. Religious channels of all types that veer towards extreme views including "curing" cancer by eating fruit. 24 hour shopping channels. Cage fighting. Womens cage fighting. Horror films that were banned outright 20 years ago. Torture films. Films with blasphemy themes (demons, angels gone bad, Da Vinci Code). Religious channels that bombard the faithful with requests for donations. And equally bad, religious channels saying donors will make profits. Do daytime kids shows still carry ads for payday lenders?

The message seems to be "We can watch what we like, you have to go to an obscure unsafe alternative on the margins."

For a society that prides itself in tolerance, where Kosher and Halal food is widely available in the high street, along with Polish and Arab newspapers, where gay characters kiss in family dramas such as Waterloo Road, Holby City, Coronation Street and Eastenders, that is surprisingly intolerant.

I just don't get this How come it's ok for mainstream telly to show pussy during the day yet the babe channels can't show it at night

This afternoon I was watching My Cat From Hell on Animal Planet

I seen plenty of full on pussy on that programme

Two sanctions announced today, against psychic broadcasts.

Psychic Today operated by Majestic TV (Sky 886)
Broadcast 6 May - 12 June 2012
Fined £12,500
Basically for claiming the psychic services were genuine.

BCAP Rule 15.5.2 states: “services that rely on belief in astrology, horoscopes, tarot and derivative practices ... must state the product or service is for entertainment purposes only”.
- 6 May 2012 onscreen graphic which stated that a particular psychic (“Mollie”) could give “accurate and precise” readings.
- 2 June 2012 a psychic referred to a previous reading given many years earlier. By referring to that reading she purported to have correctly predicted a number of events that had since occurred. The psychic also referred to evidence to confirm that her predictions had come true.
- 20 June 2012 the host and psychic referred to the psychic’s direct involvement with various police investigations, including the investigation into the abduction and murder of Milly Dowler. To suggest on air through various remarks that UK police forces had employed the psychic in this way was meant to show that the psychic could provide reliable and substantiated readings as demonstrated by her experience of working closely with various UK police forces to help them solve ‘cold cases’.

Big Deal channel (Freeview channel 32) licenced by Square 1 Management
Fined £10,000
Square 1 stated “content was produced by a third party and that it has now been removed from scheduling and is no longer being aired on Big Deal”.

Very interesting and surprisingly balanced article on the BBC website.

Should be required reading for all anti-porn campaigners and Ofcom

Do we know whether pornography harms people

As Grawth says, an interesting article with the BBC adhering to its duty to be impartial, unlike some of the gutterpress.

Here are a few selected extracts throwing doubt on some of the more sensational antiporn claims:

Neil Malamuths 1986 study of (just) 42 men suggested that if a man is already sexually aggressive and consumes a lot of sexually aggressive pornography, there is a greater likelihood that he will commit a sexually aggressive act.

In other words if someone has a leaning towards something and they see a lot of material in line with their pre existing inclination, obviously they perceive what matches their beliefs.

A comparison might be that if someone is inherently gay, but a virgin, they will be aroused by gay porn, but no amount of gay porn will turn a straight man gay.

Malamuths research does NOT suggest that a non aggressive man will become aggressive as a result of watching violent porn. It has to be in his personality to start with.

Most porn searches are for mundane categories. Lets face it, most men are really just after sexual satisfaction, the 'happy ending', and will achieve that by seeing an attractive healthy woman doing the sort of things that occur in many UK bedrooms on a Saturday night. Idealised looks and enthusiasm perhaps, but really just a version of the same thing. (OK, granny porn is a puzzle, but may be due to feeling safe with an older woman, or early sexual experiences).

Yes, there are a few people who have extreme tastes, but after 15-20 years of the internet and unlimited porn access, extreme content is still very much in the minority.

There is also the yuk factor. Some people watch odd porn for comedy value. But just because someone derives cruel pleasure from watching an ugly woman having sex, it does not mean they would have sex with ugly women. Just because they are entertained by watching women drinking excrement, it no more means they would want that to happen in their own bedroom, any more than watching Rambo means they really want to shoot up a small town.

The Childrens Commissioner asked Middlesex University to review evidence on the effect of porn on adolescents. A staggering 40,000 papers were submitted. But almost all were excluded because of bias, methodological problems or low relevance.

Only 276 papers met their standards for lack of bias etc.

Thats only 1 in 145, or 0.7% meeting basic research standards.

Almost all reports by pressure groups are "meta reports" that summarise original research by other people, or even earlier meta reports. It would be interesting to know how many of these meta reports that governments leap on are actually properly critical and reject inadequate research, and how many are wide eyed and credulous, uncritically regurgitating poor research that matches the authors preconceptions.

(27-06-2013 23:35 )Joey 27 Wrote:  how many people in the uk watch the babeshows and how many complain about them, people in this country go to bed very early normally, to early really, so how do these people that complain know about these channels or watch them if they are in bed and if its a minority why do offcom not just ignore the complaints?

Only 3 types of people are still up in the wee small hours of the morning, first off us lot who are lovers of womens flesh and eh..........the death people ofcourse, afterall that's the only time which is at night when they are able to see their shows with some bloke or women talking in sign language. last but not least the vampires so really we need to cater for their tastes too with the horror channel

The channel that combines all 3 genres stands to make a killing. Naked vampires using sign language for other shows. Just imagine the gestures a vampire babe would use for a Gordon Ramsey show. Or the weather forecast - "Tomorrow there will be bright sun", translator acts out shock, horror, recoils from glare, covers face with arm, and finally pulls skimpy blouse over head for protection, revealing ample chest.

(28-06-2013 00:41 )Scottishbloke Wrote:  

(27-06-2013 23:35 )Joey 27 Wrote:  how many people in the uk watch the babeshows and how many complain about them, people in this country go to bed very early normally, to early really, so how do these people that complain know about these channels or watch them if they are in bed and if its a minority why do offcom not just ignore the complaints?

Only 3 types of people are still up in the wee small hours of the morning, first off us lot who are lovers of womens flesh and eh..........the death people ofcourse, afterall that's the only time which is at night when they are able to see their shows with some bloke or women talking in sign language. last but not least the vampires so really we need to cater for their tastes too with the horror channel

i only work part time atm so sometimes i can stay up all night, daytime is overrated im sick of seeing screaming kids and goody two shoe parents about, and even when i work full time i still go to bed at about 1 or 2 in the morning, most parents who have young kids and old fuddy duddys are tucked up in bed by 10 so how do these people know about the babeshows to ring in and complain about them, do they watch a bit of downton abbey or corrie at 9 then straight away flick over to channel 172 on freeview at 10 just before bed? maybe they do,

if the babeshows started at 11 then normal daytime people would never see them and there would be no complaints

Useless!

Ofcom has today imposed a financial penalty of £10,000 on CSC Media Group Limited in respect of its service Scuzz TV – a digital satellite music TV channel that broadcasts rock and pop-punk music videos and related programming.

This penalty follows Ofcom’s finding, published on 17 December 2012 in Broadcast Bulletin 220, relating to a block of programming called ‘Rock All Stars’ broadcast on 19 August 2012. The programme included a music video by the band Hollywood Undead entitled Undead, broadcast before the watershed at 20:40. The video included frequent offensive language, numerous shots of sexualised imagery, nudity and the depiction of illegal drug taking.

The broadcaster was found in breach of the Ofcom Broadcasting Code in respect of:

Rule 1.3: Children must also be protected by appropriate scheduling from material that is unsuitable for them.

Rule 1.10: The use of illegal drugs, the abuse of drugs, smoking, solvent abuse and the misuse of alcohol:

• must generally be avoided and in any case must not be condoned, encouraged or glamorised in other programmes broadcast before the watershed (in the case of television)...unless there is editorial justification.

Rule 1.14: The most offensive language must not be broadcast before the watershed.

Rule 1.16: Offensive language must not be broadcast before the watershed...unless it is justified by the context. In any event, frequent use of such language must be avoided before the watershed.

Rule 1.21: Nudity before the watershed must be justified by the context.

Rule 2.3: In applying generally accepted standards broadcasters must ensure that material which may cause offence is justified by the context ...Such material may include, but is not limited to, offensive language, violence, sex, sexual violence... [and] violation of human dignity.

Ofcom decided that the Code breaches were serious and therefore a financial penalty should be imposed. The financial penalty is payable to HM Paymaster General.

Ofcom has also directed the licensee to broadcast a statement of the findings on a date and in a form to be determined by Ofcom.

The full Sanctions adjudication can be found here.

Cheers

Shylok

In fairness shylok as much as I hate ofcom you have to be honest here for a moment and say that Scuzz were somewhat to blame on all of this. A 10 grande fine to them is pennies when you look at the fines the babe channels have been hammered with for showing something less at half past 3 in the bastard morning.

The music channels unlike the babe channels can easily be accessed by children. This video was as you stated broadcast 20 minutes before the watershed which is a rule that has been in place before ofcom came to office. I'd go as far to say that ofcom's predecessors the ITC would have most likely hammered this channel equally for the content shown.

The ITC famously hammered Channel 4 with a hefty fine and warning back in 1996 after TFI Friday which was broadcast at 6PM live featured a certain Shaun Ryder using repeated use of the fuck word, not once, not twice but frequently at the time of broadcast.

TFI then made moves to either tone down their rowdy guests or pre record the show or air the show live but only after the 9PM watershed. I don't for one minute support censorship but I feel commonsense has to be applied.

SKY Movies for example has got a great remedy in use at the moment, they can air any movie certificate at any time of the day by simple pin protection. It's something I've always supported for pre-watershed material. Pity the babe channels can't do that too