Ofcom Broadcast Code Consultation

(31-10-2009 23:31 )Censorship :-( Wrote:  

(31-10-2009 23:02 )DanVox Wrote:  Censorship :-( asked what I meant by "how is 'Europorn' unregulated". ...

That is actual regulation; they apply the TWF, then license the broadcaster. In the UK, sadly, 'regulation', more often than not, means censorship.

Point taken.

I'm still waiting for equalities laws to be applied to men. The BBC works hard to reach different demographics regardless of spending power (kids, the old, women, opera lovers ...) but did anyone here enjoy BBC1 shows on Saturday early evening ? Strictly Come Dancing & Casualty ? 3 hours of cringe making garbage, and not able to say a word against it otherwise it's another night sharing the sofa with the dog.

Quote:

(31-10-2009 23:02 )DanVox Wrote:  And as Deputy Prime Minister Harriet Harman pointed out, nudism is legal.

OT, I know, but Harriet Hatesmen is not Deputy Prime Minister, she is merely deputy leader of the Labour Party.

Thank goodness for that. Mandelson may be a slimey creep, but at least he's a realist who knows banning sex won't win votes. Perhaps it's about time a few Labour MPs visited the back room of a working men's club.

(31-10-2009 23:02 )DanVox Wrote:  ...Go into your local TV dealer, buy a non-Sky satellite dish, decoder and dish, totally legally and over the counter, and you can have access to film of any sex act that is legal to do in France/Germany/Italy.

Erm..no.
You would need to buy a proper decoder with a card/CAM slot and then buy a subscription to a specific porn channel/suite of channels from a dealer.

...but then yes, you get whatever there is to get

I'm not being pedantic. In specific relation to Euro regulations versus UK ones, it's important. Euro porn is restricted to encrypted channels only, their FTA stuff is a lot tamer than ours.

(31-10-2009 23:02 )DanVox Wrote:  Here's an odd thing by the way. Public sex is LEGAL in the UK. Oral sex, masturbation, exhibitionism, group sex, multiple entry, p*ssing, f*sting are all LEGAL in public places. Unless a passer by is offended. Subtle difference, but important to note that public sex is not automatically illegal.

I wouldn't try that if I were you. If a copper walks past he'll arrest you on the likelyhood of people seeing you and being offended. That likelyhood, however small, will exist in a public place and will be enough for a conviction. You might get away with it in your back yard or in the middle of nowhere but even then, you're risking a lot of trouble for a few jollies.

(01-11-2009 02:06 )TheDarkKnight Wrote:  Euro porn is restricted to encrypted channels only, their FTA stuff is a lot tamer than ours.

The Euro FTA isn't exactly a free for all - as many seem to think - I'll give you that much, but what you say isn't strictly true, DarkKnight. Take Sexysat, for instance. A live babeshow much the same as ours, but naked breasts and over the knicker pussy rubbing during the day, and total nudity, open legged pussy rubbing during the night. Now by any stretch of the imagination you can't say that's a lot tamer than our stuff.

lol, the one exception.

I'll give you that. But, even sexysat is a shadow of the former glory it was before the regulations were applied strictly.

It's down to only one channel, the format is as stale and repetative as it gets, the broadcast quality sucks so bad it's barely watchable most times and the girls aren't exactly the best either. Neither in looks nor enthusiasm.

The only other one out ther that I know of that has a broadcast quality good enough to watch is Eurotica...which can just be wierd most of the time. Strange sets and bizarre voiceovers with the models standing around impersonating the people in famous paintings...
They do get nude...sometimes, but in as none a sexy way as you could possibly get.

I guess the 'tameness' i'm referring to is the way they show things rather than what they show. The Italian channels have girls getting their bits out, but they don't do any sex acts with it. Its all glamour type stuff. You don't see them masterbating or even pretending to and you don't see them bouncing around on someones pretend erection. It's more glamour than raunch. (which falls to pieces when you have the crappy broadcast quality some all of these channels have) It's all a lot...tamer, if you see what I mean

Nudity...yes, there's more, but 'sex'...nah, our stuff beats the poop out of their stuff.

(01-11-2009 02:40 )TheDarkKnight Wrote:  The only other one out ther that I know of that has a broadcast quality good enough to watch is Eurotica...which can just be wierd most of the time. Strange sets and bizarre voiceovers with the models standing around impersonating the people in famous paintings...
They do get nude...sometimes, but in as none a sexy way as you could possibly get.

eUrotic has lost the plot, mate. It is, as you say, quite possibly the wierdest fta babeshow around.

Let's not get bogged down in details.

The 2 points I was trying to make are that there is more public tolerance of soft and hardcore porn than Ofcom care to admit, and that Ofcom clamping down makes little sense when it is easy, legal and relatively cheap to get good quality material every night of the week, much of it with content that would be banned in an R18 DVD.

Ban one retail outlet when another is available and guess what happens ?

If Ofcom water down FTA Babe channels and the encrypted stuff, Ofcom will be responsible for more people watching stronger-than-R18 banned Euro porn.

Just another pathetic, unfathomable situation created by a bunch of pathetic, unfathomable mini dictators whos useful time on this planet has long since past. I don't know who they are, but they should be ashamed of themselves for acting like something Stalin himself would be proud of. They are not the voice of the people of this country.

Well I know who one of them used to be. Jonathan Edwards, gold medal winning athlete and committed Christian no less, was part of Ofcom at one point.

He's no longer part of it and has also now turned his back on Christianity I believe but I honestly can't think of anyone who is likely to be further away from me in views as to what is going to be acceptable or not on tv.

If that's the kind of profile of people regulating for Ofcom then God help us all is all I can say.

And regarding another point made in this thread, it is very interesting that certain channels did seem to suddenly decide to push things all of a sudden.

You would have to go back a good couple of years to find anything where channels were coming so close to showing full frontal stuff and given that it was 3 or 4 of the channels who suddenly did it at the same time, it almost seemed to be a concerted effort across the channels.

Most of the channels involved have very quickly drawn back again but I presume there was some kind of purpose behind it?

Just another pathetic, unfathomable situation created by a bunch of pathetic, unfathomable mini dictators whos useful time on this planet has long since past. I don't know who they are, but they should be ashamed of themselves for acting like something Stalin himself would be proud of. They are not the voice of the people of this country.

Er, no. Stalin never managed to clamp down on sex in Russia.

Most of the channels involved have very quickly drawn back again but I presume there was some kind of purpose behind it?
Again, No. Last night there were gash flashes again, but the previous couple of nights were quiet. Why ? And why does the heat go from channel to channel, rather than having one consistent hot channel ? It's almost as if the channels have been allowed a quota, but told to spread it round so no-one notices.

Anyway I'm going back to watching nude webcam girls now on "Naked Britian" (Sky 1, 9pm, unencrypted).

(02-11-2009 21:19 )DanVox Wrote:  Er, no. Stalin never managed to clamp down on sex in Russia.

...so, he would have been very proud of ofcom then.


[GuessMode = "on"]
I think the recent spate of flashing has to do with a re-interpretation of the ofcom rulings. I can't remember reading one that doesn't mention the length of time the flash occurs for. It's a factor. Flash for too long and you get a fine, make it brief enough and you don't.
I think what we're seeing might just be the producers taking the piss, not breaking barriers. They're just taking those rulings and throwing them back into ofcoms face by feeling out the system. There are no hard and fast rules, they could argue, and they HAVE to feel out where the barriers are.

Result...we get loads of pussy flashing and ofcom will probably come out with a new ruling drawing an invisible line in the sand on the number of 'wardrobe malfunctions' per performance that is 'acceptable to the viewers' or some other popycock that will just serve for them to smack someone with a huge fine whenever they feel like it.

Guys, if they wanted to break the barriers, we wouldn't be speculating about it. We'd just know. They wouldn't be flashing, they'd be lay there, spreadeagle pointing their bits to camera...at the very least.

...know what I mean?


[GuessMode = "off"]

As MARCCE indicates, the real issue lies in Ofcom's interpretation of 'harm and offence'.

Now who exactly is offended by images of naked women? I've literally seen thousands of such images (most featuring lingering and intrusive detail of the anus and genitals) of hundreds of different models and never once felt offended.

It would take a very brave moron at Ofcom to try and tell us that images of the naked human body are harmful (esp. in light of the High Court decision over explicit sex at R18).

As with the High Court decision re the BBFC's interpretation of the VRA, it is actually for the law and the courts to decide EXACTLY what 'harm and offence' means in the Comms Act legislation. This is a subtle point but valid nontheless: legislation is NOT the law - the interpretation and application of legislation IS the law.

Ofcom have no legal right or power to interpret legislation and thus dictate the law - this is the trap the BBFC fell into as the designated body. They 'believe' because an act grants them power to regulate that it magically instills them with powers not only to interpret legislation as they see fit but, in doing so, to dictate the law. Sorry Ofcom, it doesn't work that way.

The plain fact is, no matter what the Comms Act says about 'harm and offence' it also charges Ofcom to respect Freedom of Expression. Now plain old 'offence' is not sufficient reason to restrict a fundamental human right. Indeed, only serious harm can justify such a restriction like a blanket ban. The BBFC couldn't provide any evidence of any harm let alone serious harm - and neither can Ofcom. The BBFC were told in no uncertain terms that the 'precautionary principle' wasn't a lawful reason to restrict a fundamental right - and the same goes for Ofcom.

Legal precedent is quite clear on what Freedom of Expression exists for.
"Subject to paragraph 2 of Article 10 (art. 10-2), it is applicable not only to 'information' or 'ideas' that are favourably received or regarded as inoffensive or as a matter of indifference, but also to those that offend, shock or disturb the State or any sector of the population. Such are the demands of that pluralism, tolerance and broadmindedness without which there is no 'democratic society'. This means, amongst other things, that every 'formality', 'condition', 'restriction' or 'penalty' imposed in this sphere must be proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued." (Handyside v UK, 1976)

So what is Ofcom's legitimate aim? According to the TVWF Directive the protection of minors requires ONLY an appropriate time for broadcast when children are unlikely to be viewing, an audio warning prior to broadcast and, an on-sceen age restricted symbol (e.g. a little red circle with '18' displyed inside it or, indeed, a blue circle with 'R18' displayed inside it).

The very lack of evidence to prove harm is not reason to implement the 'precautionary principle', which is by its very nature disproportionate and without a legitimate aim, indeed, to ensure we do the right thing in our supposed liberal democracy, wherever there is reasonable doubt we grant the presumption of innocence. Pornography must be presumed harmless until someone proves beyond reasonable doubt that Ofcom have a right to interfere with it - that's how British justice works in our democratic society and it is the reason WHY particularly sexually explicit material is available at R18 in the first instance - it is HARMLESS.