Ofcom Discussion

Well if this is Ofcoms new guidelines, I don't expect to see underwear flashed on any tv program, ie fashion shows, I no longer expect to see tampons advertised, as i find those ads offensive, main stream tv will be pissed, they are going to lose a lot of advertising, perfume, aftershave, music videos, if they ban the girls on the Babe channels from wearing underwear on day shows, then technically they have to deal with every channel, not just these. Thats blatant discrimination. It looks like the tory government have gone back on yet another pledge, Ofcom powers were meant to be reduced, not increased.

I am getting slightly worried that OFCOM is going down the American route of tame as hell TV for all driven by religious values when most of the UK is atheist, Muslim (local Muslim lads clean our paper shop out of porn every week btw), or agnostic.

I agree on a watershed. I don't expect explicit nudity or abusive language on daytime or early evening but after 9pm there has to be more adult orientated drama and other programming.

I find the obscene commercialism of X Factor offensive. I find Jeremy Kyle's show offensive and demeaning and I find the majority of modern comedy painfully offensive in a "the BBC paid them how much?" way.

However I don't find a beautiful woman, who is well paid and working of her own accord, showing her assets on late night TV, remotely offensive. PIN protect if you want but in the 21st century, with the NET, magazines like loaded in every corner shop and more relaxed sexual attitiudes a nude woman is not wrong in any way. Now back to the Ashes.

(16-12-2010 06:00 )stoly Wrote:  It looks like the tory government have gone back on yet another pledge, Ofcom powers were meant to be reduced, not increased.

Well said. Prioritisation my arse!!

With millions of viewers (sorry - Daily Mail "readers") getting apoplectic about X Factor scantily cladness, it's hardly surprising that the right wing "Christian" element which infiltrates the thinking at Ofcom makes it clear that they need to tell us what we can and can't watch. After all we're too stupid to make decisions for ourselves and may subject ourselves to unimaginable harm unless they kindly check for us first. So yep, that table leg you were looking at is an example of your obsession with uncovered female bits and proves your depravity, all of course caused by too much Babe Channel watching

Unfortunately they do have one point (and only one). As a nation of good parents we are - in some cases - pretty rubbish, and there is a whole bunch of "families" where the kids can watch what they like till whenever they like without any kind of "parental" interference.

Regrettably a PIN block won't stop these "parental" embarrassments not bothering to lock the receiver.

Believe me, I teach the result of large numbers of these delightfully caring and protective parents. And it's not pretty, I can tell you.

What Ofcom fails to realise is that these morally neglected kids will be able to access much worse than anything they will ever see on fta TV. But then again, they would say that they have to ban whatever they can. It's such a frustrating argument.

I wish the government would devote as much time to banning unsuitable parents as they do to spoiling the pleasure of the millions of people who simply want to make their own decisions at no cost or harm to anyone else.

So thats the Marks and Spencers advert fucked.

You know, the one where Twiggy, Beyonce and someone else appear in tights, corsets and skimpy knickers.

Daytime babeshows are not allowed to be aimed at sexual arousal, so the same rules ought to apply to mainstream TV too. End of.

Just to let you know that, for what it's worth, I have now made an official Freedom of Information Act 2000 request to see what Ofcom's "generally accepted standards" are and who decides on them. They are legally bound to reply by 17th January 2011.

I encourage everyone else here to do the same. It's easy to do via the http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/ website.

I have also written to my MP this morning to ask her to follow up the sudden change in "generally accepted standards" which has been imposed upon the Babe Channels as from today. A sudden change in generally accepted standards sounds like a contradiction in terms to me.

Notice too that this publicly accountable, publicly funded organisation has imposed these changes without any public announcement.

Maybe the Daily Mail apoplectics are the public announcement. They seem to follow each other remarkably closely.

This looks like breaking the new "no lingerie before 9am" rule this morning.
http://www.babeshows.co.uk/showthread.ph...#pid697634
The new rules were supposed to have commenced from today

Guessing its a wind up then?

(17-12-2010 11:32 )TheWatcher Wrote:  This looks like breaking the new "no lingerie before 9am" rule this morning.
http://www.babeshows.co.uk/showthread.ph...#pid697634
The new rules were supposed to have commenced from today

9pm

I can personally tolerate the new rules for during the day so long as the night shows are allowed to continue as they are without ofcom fucking up the night shows too. But I see only the new day rules are only effecting the babe channels as it's still ok to show Lady Ga Ga prancing about in next to nothing on the music channels at any time of the day. Yet again double standards being applied by ofcom and the funny thing is youngsters are more likely to watch your MTV Channels than the 900's during the day. Another point is for as far as The X Factors last weekend show go's it looks like Ofcom will simply brush that under the carpet as they are being repeated on ITV 2 from 1655 to 2100 well before the so-called watershed after the much publicity and controversy surrounding last weekends shows. Ofcom won't dare fuck with the Simon Cowell empire and his handful of lawyers which is what the babe channels need to fight their corner with too.