Is Ofcom Fit For Purpose

(14-03-2010 13:20 )MARCCE Wrote:  Now, if any of the babe channels had shown a naked fanny for any length of time at the same time as these films were showing exactly the same, they would have been facing a large fine.

Yes, it's baffling; apparently a live, covered vagina is more offensive than a bare, recorded one

I can only think there's some assumption that films etc. have already been classified in their entirety, so are fit for broadcast because someone else has taken on the legislative responsibility. Ofcom can refer back to that.

The under-18 warnings at the start of the babeshows should fulfil the same role. Maybe it's the 'but anything could happen because it's live and we just don't trust the channels' aspect that's making Ofcom twitchy about it all.

Retrospectively saying something's unacceptable seems unfair when other, stronger content can be seen elsewhere. But in a sense, any kind of live show is an open target for those kinds of 'complaints'. Maybe there's a bit of muscle-flexing on Ofcom's part, given the opportunity to go after these channels - Ofcom's pretty impotent where films etc. are concerned because it's already been decided what's allowable and what's not. And they have to justify their existence somehow...it would just be helpful if they did it in a more transparent and consistent way.

(14-03-2010 13:58 )Deb x Wrote:  

(14-03-2010 13:20 )MARCCE Wrote:  Now, if any of the babe channels had shown a naked fanny for any length of time at the same time as these films were showing exactly the same, they would have been facing a large fine.

Yes, it's baffling; apparently a live, covered vagina is more offensive than a bare, recorded one

I can only think there's some assumption that films etc. have already been classified in their entirety, so are fit for broadcast because someone else has taken on the legislative responsibility. Ofcom can refer back to that.

The under-18 warnings at the start of the babeshows should fulfil the same role. Maybe it's the 'but anything could happen because it's live and we just don't trust the channels' aspect that's making Ofcom twitchy about it all.

Retrospectively saying something's unacceptable seems unfair when other, stronger content can be seen elsewhere. But in a sense, any kind of live show is an open target for those kinds of 'complaints'. Maybe there's a bit of muscle-flexing on Ofcom's part, given the opportunity to go after these channels - Ofcom's pretty impotent where films etc. are concerned because it's already been decided what's allowable and what's not. And they have to justify their existence somehow...it would just be helpful if they did it in a more transparent and consistent way.

Deb, I think that seeing a "live" fanny IS more arousing than a recorded one; and this is what Ofcon don't like. Far too arousing. All through their nonsense, this is what they get uppity about.
They are not going to let us get too aroused.
Doncha just love them for their concern.

(14-03-2010 13:58 )Deb x Wrote:  Maybe there's a bit of muscle-flexing on Ofcom's part, given the opportunity to go after these channels - Ofcom's pretty impotent where films etc. are concerned because it's already been decided what's allowable and what's not. And they have to justify their existence somehow...it would just be helpful if they did it in a more transparent and consistent way.

That's exactly it. Ofcom can't go after films, but they go after these channels because they're the easiest target. It's got nothing to do with the material being offensive or us getting aroused. Ofcom as you say " need to justify their existence" and these channels they can get away doing this to. Because the reality is, if these channels were to disappear tomorrow, most of the British public wouldn't care. If channel 4 went tomorrow, it would be all over the news, the papers...

You can imagine.

(14-03-2010 14:16 )blackjaques Wrote:  Deb, I think that seeing a "live" fanny IS more arousing than a recorded one; and this is what Ofcon don't like. Far too arousing. All through their nonsense, this is what they get uppity about.
They are not going to let us get too aroused.
Doncha just love them for their concern.

Yes, how kind of them

I can just imagine the 'complainers' watching Babestation, getting turned on, and being absolutely outraged by that .

So Ofcom are declaring they're the judges of what turns people on and to what degree. How arrogant is that? When things get that arbitrary and inconsistent, anything becomes grounds for complaint. I wonder how Ofcom would react if people started complaining about bare feet on these channels; it would be an easy case to make - there's tons of footage (not a deliberate pun ) with camerawork helpfully lingering on closeups of wiggling toes... and loads of evidence to show just how erotic feet can be for some people.

Possibly there's a case to argue that if someone's getting turned on and unable to cope with their own sexual urges then they should probably be going to counselling, not whinging to Ofcom...

The foot fetish guys really do get some great wank material by watching these shows, especially during the daytime. Don't tell Ofcom that though.

(14-03-2010 13:58 )Deb x Wrote:  Yes, it's baffling; apparently a live, covered vagina is more offensive than a bare, recorded one

I can only think there's some assumption that films etc. have already been classified in their entirety, so are fit for broadcast because someone else has taken on the legislative responsibility. Ofcom can refer back to that.

But whilst the classification issue has been taken away from Ofcom, the problem as to who gets to see them is very much Ofcom's.

There are films that are shown across Sky Movies, BBC1, ITV, Channel 4 etc that have been classed as for 18's and overs only. That is fact. It can be argued that just about everything the fta's show would be worthy of a 15 rating at best.

Now how on earth can channels showing 15 rated material be fined and censured on the basis that minors may be watching and the possibility of harm and offence being caused, whilst a channel showing material that has already been classified as 18 rated not be when the likelihood of minors watching and someone taking offence at it is just as high, if not more so, seeing as the material in question is broadcast in a viewing area dedicated to films?

And whilst the issue of anything can happen on a live show is true, Ofcom have the powers to act on that if things do go too far. What is inherently unfair though, is that Ofcom are hammering these channels for showing far tamer material than can be seen in other areas of the Sky platform and forbidding them from showing the same strength material freely available in porn films regularly broadcast on the movie channels when those films are designed for nothing more than the purpose of sexual arousal themselves.

(14-03-2010 12:10 )Deb x Wrote:  These shows aren't meant to be watched like they're films, or documentaries, or reality tv shows. They are live, and they are interactive. These complaints, whether genuine, or from rivals, are presented as if they're on behalf of, or coming from a casual viewer, but casual viewers aren't the primary audience (for the channel). Casual viewers aren't participating (i.e. making money for the channel which is its primary reason for broadcasting, and the reason it pays for airtime). Ofcom has consistently said that some sexual content is acceptable as long as it's in context, but the context of these shows is arguably significantly provided by that interactive aspect (i.e. phoning in) that is missing for the casual viewer. Any complaint is devoid of context. Any non-participating viewer has to accept that they aren't privy to the full context of what's showing onscreen. They can just enjoy what's there, or not bother (i.e. turn over) or fill in the gaps themselves. I'm not sure how someone can complain it's offensive when they don't have the full story.

Deb x, I can't remember if I posted a message along very similar lines - I refered to a recent case of a man accused of possessing 'realistic' animal porn (under the CJIB 'dangerous pictures' clauses) which was actually a cartoon. The Police/CPS went ahead with prosecution apparently without hearing the soundtrack. But it was the soundtrack which put the clip into its rightful context - namely the cartoon tiger turns to the viewer after shagging the woman and says "That sure beats the hell out of selling frosties". The court erupted into laughter and the case was dismissed as it was then clear this was not porn designed to turn people on but, comedy.

The real issue however is in the assumption made by Ofcom that material designed to turn people on has to suffer any restrictions whatsoever. This is not done out of a proven need or necessity, it is simply paranoid British tradition and has no basis in fact or reality. "Porn is evil", "dangerous", "harmful", "disgusting" - it is none of these things. Porn is beneficial to people's health and wellbeing - proven. Porn reduces sexcrime or at least has no effect on increasing it - proven. Sex is a natural part of life and in terms of evolution cannot at any point be harmful to the creatures that must perform it (eventually) to perpetuate the species. Logic dictates Ofcom, the British public, the BBFC, the Goverment etc. etc. etc. are all deluded fools who can't follow simple logic and arrive at a reasonable decision. They allow centuries of anti-porn brainwashing and 'Britishness' to cloud their judgement.

We all know their reasons are deeply flawed because in none of the places where porn is freely available on the high street and on TV is there any evidence of the 'bad things' Ofcom et al. claim would ensue, indeed, they're conspicuous by their absense. Indeed, the exact opposite effect is seen and a far safer environment for youngters exists - i.e. far lower rates of teen pregnancies and STI cases and, kids leaving it later to lose their virginity. The facts speak for themselves. Ofcom, the BBFC, the Government et alia are WRONG, plain and simple. They doing ALL the wrong things for ALL the wrong reasons. Yet they doggedly persist in insisting they're correct when the whole world shows them to be insane. But then that's the definition of insanity - to keep repeating the same thing and expect different results.

(14-03-2010 12:10 )Deb x Wrote:  ... These shows aren't meant to be watched like they're films, or documentaries, or reality tv shows. They are live, and they are interactive. ...

Good point Deb-X. I'm sure I have ready responses to Ofcom surveys making the point that it is misguided to try and fit babeshows into inappropriate categories. They AREN'T teleshopping. They AREN'T drama,and don't pretend to be. Using regulations designed for GemsTV or Bergerac is just downright wrog and bound to fail.

And fail it does.

then why not draw up new regulations for the babeshows.stating what they can and cant show.or better still take it out of ofcoms hands.

(16-03-2010 02:35 )gray warden Wrote:  then why not draw up new regulations for the babeshows.stating what they can and cant show.or better still take it out of ofcoms hands.

Take it out of Ofcom's hands is by far the best soloution, but then the question, of course, is who is going to do that?