Ofcom Discussion

(10-12-2010 19:44 )gazfc Wrote:  The key word your missing is 'mainstream', Those are indie/arthouse, we already know it happens on occasion in arthouse/indie films (most of them will never appear on Tv, unless heavily edited so ofcom would never even have to deal with them)

A number of them listed have been shown on tv, fully uncut.

(10-12-2010 23:34 )StanTheMan Wrote:  

(10-12-2010 19:44 )gazfc Wrote:  The key word your missing is 'mainstream', Those are indie/arthouse, we already know it happens on occasion in arthouse/indie films (most of them will never appear on Tv, unless heavily edited so ofcom would never even have to deal with them)

A number of them listed have been shown on tv, fully uncut.

Never seen them myself so I'll take your word for it, Brings me to the point I made in the other thread that maybe ofcom cant do anything about something thats been rated and approved by the BBFC

(10-12-2010 23:41 )gazfc Wrote:  Never seen them myself so I'll take your word for it, Brings me to the point I made in the other thread that maybe ofcom cant do anything about something thats been rated and approved by the BBFC

Very true, and this is the core of the problem. The BBFC decide what certificate a film is given - that's their job. Ofcom, however, have appointed themselves the job of deciding what the Babeshows are allowed to show. They're a completely made-up set of regulations - with little or no basis in any laws. There's absolutley no law against detailed full frontal nudity on tv after the watershed, yet Ofcom don't allow it on the Babeshows.

Some 1 else is in trouble with ofcom lol http://uk.tv.yahoo.com/10122010/19/ofcom...jokes.html

(11-12-2010 01:12 )Tintin Wrote:  Some 1 else is in trouble with ofcom lol http://uk.tv.yahoo.com/10122010/19/ofcom...jokes.html

Channel 4 know exactly what they are doing. They will argue that there should be no sacred cows and part of his humour comes from being rude about "untouchable" groups and subject instead of treating them with kid gloves. Saw Live At The Apollo on BBC1 at 9:30 on Thursay, and while the delivery was less offensive, there were jokes in there about being the victim of peadophillia and committing it. Perhaps by contrast jokes about the disabled are LESS offensive, and its just that the delivery is very in your face.

Where it does get difficult is that he makes one named kid the butt of his jokes.

As I said, Channel 4 know exactly what they are doing and will have thought it through before putting the footage together.

(10-12-2010 23:41 )gazfc Wrote:  

(10-12-2010 23:34 )StanTheMan Wrote:  

(10-12-2010 19:44 )gazfc Wrote:  The key word your missing is 'mainstream', Those are indie/arthouse, we already know it happens on occasion in arthouse/indie films (most of them will never appear on Tv, unless heavily edited so ofcom would never even have to deal with them)

A number of them listed have been shown on tv, fully uncut.

Never seen them myself so I'll take your word for it, Brings me to the point I made in the other thread that maybe ofcom cant do anything about something thats been rated and approved by the BBFC

Er, yes they can. Heres the guidance on Broadcasting Code Rule 1.23: "1.23 BBFC 18-rated films or their equivalent must not be broadcast before 2100 on any service (except for pay per view services), and even then they may be unsuitable for broadcast at that time. "

Interesting by the way that guidance for Rule 1.21 says: "1.21 Nudity before the watershed must be justified by the context."
which strongly implies that after the watershed (and a gentle transition) nudity does NOT need any context. Generally Accepted Standards might still apply - a separate Rule - by Context is not an issue.
Actually "imply" is the wrong word. Under the British legal system something is legal unless banned. Rule 1.21 says banned before 9pm, no rule anywhere says banned after 10pm, so nudity at night is legal without any messing about with context.

Seems Ofcom do not know their own Rules and may have made a mistake or two when fining and bnning BangBabes.

(11-12-2010 03:06 )eccles Wrote:  Er, yes they can. Heres the guidance on Broadcasting Code Rule 1.23: "1.23 BBFC 18-rated films or their equivalent must not be broadcast before 2100 on any service (except for pay per view services), and even then they may be unsuitable for broadcast at that time. "

Interesting by the way that guidance for Rule 1.21 says: "1.21 Nudity before the watershed must be justified by the context."
which strongly implies that after the watershed (and a gentle transition) nudity does NOT need any context. Generally Accepted Standards might still apply - a separate Rule - by Context is not an issue.
Actually "imply" is the wrong word. Under the British legal system something is legal unless banned. Rule 1.21 says banned before 9pm, no rule anywhere says banned after 10pm, so nudity at night is legal without any messing about with context.

Seems Ofcom do not know their own Rules and may have made a mistake or two when fining and bnning BangBabes.

Ah, context. What a wonderful word. Such a pity Ofcom hasn't a clue what it means in relation to their own broadcasting code. Anyone who has seen Antichrist will know what the opening shower sequence is like - and given the film's notoriety so should Ofcom and Sky. This perplexed me somewhat as being a BBFC 18 rated film it was broadcast for more than a month on Sky box office 24 hours a day - all box office films are unencrypted for the opening 5 minutes, which was more than enough time for Willem Dafoe's body double to stick his cock in his co-star. I'm sure anyone tuning in to see what the film is like would immediately grasp the the context of wanton fucking = child neglect followed by rapid mental health decline. Or is that an issue to be debated ad infinitum by the Southwark mafia.

You should complain to them. They should know that the material on the non adult channels is more explicit than what we see on the babe channels.

I'm going to complain to them as well, regarding other shows like Sexcetera and Sexarama, and the other violent programs.

I doubt they will do anything though, as they allow those programs and don't have issues with them. Ofcom can't fine those channels, whereas they can give the adult channels rules to obide by, with hope that they will be broken so they can make up a fake complaint, which will give them a reason to fine the channels. Just think about it, if anyone has been complaining about some of the stupid things that Ofcom has reported, then we'd have tons of complaints each day!

Anyone who's up at these late hours, and watching these channels to complain has some serious mental issues. Not that a complaint should matter though, but we've already gone over this.

It's silly to think that an image of a vagina on adult channels after the watershed is grounds for a complaint.

If Ofcom lost the programs on the non adult channels that we mentioned, they'd likely lose a lot of money, but they know they aren't going to lose the babe channels, even if they set some ground rules.

Another example with Ofcom not knowing what is truly offensive, I was flicking through the movie channels on Sky and beleive it was on True Movies around lunchtime and heard the use of n****r in both aggressive and innocently approx 15 times within a 1hr on a movie that had no pin protection. So if that was in context with the film, then how is nudity not in context with channels that are aimed for a)adults b)arousal and c)placed in the adult section because what else are the babechannels there for. For fuck sake Ofcom, just FUCK OFF and let the babechannels do their job.

All i can say is it really is messing the models heads up, we don't know what we can do and what we can't do, i just want to arrive at the studio, put a big smile on your face and leave you happily dreaming the rest of the night away. I appreciate the water shed and why it is there but can we please have a little leeway here, i can't help jiggling my ass it comes naturally and being a statue on tv is no fun! Plus i am getting to hate big pants!!! Mel xxxxxxxxxx