shandyman Wrote:DocSteve, Dani T & Tiffany are getting away with it at teh moment, but all it takes is offcom to take 1 look and fine them or pull them off the air, if they also look at the other channels at the same time, then the cellcast ones are safe. So playing it safe is the best thing they will do as a company wanting to make money, rather than risking it. BSD & PP have tried to vary the positions and that, but I do agree that its frustrating the the pad are doing what they are doing and BSD/PP aren't
I like your post tho, alot of thought and detail! 
i'm with you on the website issue totally. Tho to be honest, i only had a quick gander at the anyway
Thank you for your comments, ShandyMan - it's great to be appreciated
. I deliberately made no mention of OFCOM because I wasn't sure it would be appropriate in this thread. However, since this behemoth has raised its ugly head, here's what I think.
First of all, let's be realistic. It would be naïve to expect Joe Public to use his common-sense and set the parental controls on his digibox (a measure that OFCOM considers inadequate), or just not tune into programmes / channels which aren't to his taste. It would be equally naïve (and futile) to take OFCOM to task for infringing the fundamental democratic right to free speech / choice in this country. This being the case, it's a sad but incontrovertible fact that OFCOM is here to stay in an Orwellian "Big Brother" capacity to protect us from ourselves. I believe their decisions are perverse and their regulations are open-ended, despite their claiming to be fully compliant with the Government's "Plain English" initiative.
Cellcast are pussy-footing around to avoid OFCOM's wrath - and rightly so, if they've formally complained about other channels, as CherryRyder says. The Pad girls might well be risking their livelihoods and I dare say the days of gyrating and sofa-humping are numbered. All the more reason to enjoy it while we have the opportunity, I say. But consider this - despite viewer expectation of a channel being listed in the adult section of the Sky Programme Guide, OFCOM doesn't classify any of these shows as "adult sex". As far as I can tell, it's for this reason alone that the programmes are available on a free-to-air basis instead of being encrypted and PIN-protected. So, imposing an additional 10pm watershed may make some convoluted sense to OFCOM, but it makes no sense whatsoever to me. Hopefully someone out there could clarify this for me?
There are two OFCOM rules which seem to be at the heart of this matter:-
Rule 2.1 - "Generally accepted standards must be applied to the contents of television and radio services so as to provide adequate protection for members of the public from the inclusion in such services of harmful and/or offensive material".
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, humiliation, distress, violation of human dignity, discriminatory treatment or language (for example on the grounds of age, disability, gender, race, religion, beliefs and sexual orientation). Appropriate information should also be broadcast where it would assist in avoiding or minimising offence."
By way of an example, Bang Babes fell foul of both these rules last October, purely because seven months earlier, one of the girls started her usual post-10pm antics a full 17 minutes too early!!! Even so, "OFCOM acknowledges that the images and language on Tease Me 2 were materially less explicit than in a number of examples of free-to-air ‘adult’ chat service content that it has previously investigated." Since the viewing material in question contained simulated masturbation and prolonged close-ups of jiggling naked breasts, I can't help but wonder if this statement contains small ray of hope. By comparison, the Pad girls' little routines are so much tamer. All their bits are covered, which by implication should be enough to satisfy the OFCOM rules - shouldn't they? Incidentally, if anyone wants more information on this particular case, the report is freely available at
http://www.ofcom.org.uk/tv/obb/prog_cb/o...sue120.pdf (scroll down to page 18).
Obviously, there is a rule 2.2 as well - "Factual programmes or items or portrayals of factual matters must not materially mislead the audience." I reckon the website issue I mentioned in my previous post would probably fall foul of this rule, if somebody were to lodge a formal complaint about it. Don't get me wrong, I've no reason to be a whistle-blower - but perhaps channels should give equal consideration to this rule before advertising virtually non-existent websites, or making exaggerated claims about updated content. It certainly seems to have been overlooked recently.
Real Ecstasy
Hot & Wet
Live Sex Latinas
Babestation
Search
Member List
Help
/
Whats Missing?
As much as the girls make it seem like they're talking dirty, they're not. You get some really good suggestive stuff that's almost like 'code' but never out and out filth.