Ofcom Discussion

(09-01-2011 15:03 )StanTheMan Wrote:  Re. Pants Off, Dance Off. It may well have been uncencored on VIVA, burnt toast, but it certainly isn't on MTV or wherever it is they show it on Sky. In fact it's little more than an advert for the MTV website as when it comes to the 'pants off' part, the picture freezes and you get a message saying, "Wanna see more? Visit (website) for the full strip..." - or words to that effect.

You are right Stan. There were only glimpses of the penises when the men had taken their underwear off and tucked it between their legs, but bare asses were shown for a few of the men, and even some breasts. Maybe not much genital content, but still a bit hypocritical.

(09-01-2011 15:03 )StanTheMan Wrote:  Re. Pants Off, Dance Off. It may well have been uncencored on VIVA, burnt toast, but it certainly isn't on MTV or wherever it is they show it on Sky. In fact it's little more than an advert for the MTV website as when it comes to the 'pants off' part, the picture freezes and you get a message saying, "Wanna see more? Visit (website) for the full strip..." - or words to that effect.

I'm not sure it was uncensored, there was messages about seeing more on the mtv site. It was around 14 months ago when it was shown on VIVA so could've been further edited since then.

(09-01-2011 01:35 )StanTheMan Wrote:  Sorry, eccles, I'm not sure if that's meant to be taken as a serious theory to Ofcom's logic Re. context, or purley ironically.

Either way it still doesn't explain - given that children can't be expected to understand context - why Ofcom think explicit nudity is harmful if shown on a babeshow, but not if in some 'controversial' film.

Not intended to explain anything about Ofcom. I was just trying to say that "context" makes some sense when talking aout a serious documentary, but I am much more skeptical when people use it as an excuse for sex/nudity in drama, film, flangumentatries on Bravo, Living, Five.

(09-01-2011 21:28 )eccles Wrote:  Not intended to explain anything about Ofcom. I was just trying to say that "context" makes some sense when talking aout a serious documentary, but I am much more skeptical when people use it as an excuse for sex/nudity in drama, film, flangumentatries on Bravo, Living, Five.

To me it matters not ,whether it be documentory,drama,film or just for the sake of it,good fucking luck to these programmes and I hope to see lots more.
It is the only way forward that I can see,where there will become a time that nudity and sex will be a normal part of life.
Because at this moment in time it seems that the mere sight of genitals on tv throws all the British population into despair!
God knows, if these people that were so quick to complain actualy lived in another part of europe,their complaints would be laughed at, and `They `would be looked at as weirdo`s.
When is this country going to come to its` senses and realise that we are living in the 21st century,that not everyone is a bible carrying,whiter than white Jesus following sheep,and that sex is not a filthy course subject,which is only to be discussed by vile minded people in back alleys and houses of ill repute.
FFS Queen Victoria died a long long time ago and we are still living in the veil of her miserable reign,with some of our pornagaphy laws dating back to her days in power.
Come on Britain,get a grip,if people want to watch pornography,well so be it.
I say to all the moralists this!!!!!!
If I was to complain to Ofcom about all the God channels that are thrust down our throats on Sky tv,and just on the unlikely outcome of that,they actualy did an investigation and found out that there were actualy very few people in this country that did go to church and that these channels were in fact preaching to a load of people that were not even there watching their channel.
So Ofcom decided that because I have made a complaint[Me,1 person] that these channels should be fined £??????? because they have upset ME!
Then I wonder...just wonder.......

Child gets Saw 3D advert banned
A TV trailer advertising the film Saw 3D has been banned after a 10-year-old complained that it was "distressing" and "inappropriately scheduled".
It began with a screaming man reaching towards the screen with a bloodied hand and featured images of saw blades.
The unnamed child saw the advert at 2029 in a break during The Gadget Show on Channel Five.
The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) said it was "likely to cause distress to young children".
The ASA ... said images in the advert which depicted people in a cinema "linked the scenes from the film with a recognisably real situation".
BBC

@nailpouchofmine, it wasn't Queen Victoria's doing - as a matter of fact she wrote of how much she loved sex in her diaries...and had 10 kids to show for her love of sex.

No, it was the religiously-misguided pricks in Parliament that sought to FORCE the British people to their narrow-minded way of thinking with repressive anti-porn laws and draconian punshiments for offending "common decency".

This is supposed to be a progressive liberal democracy yet, the British mindset is incresingly being FORCED backward into the Victorian era by illiberal TV censors who seemingly answer to NOONE but the religiously misguided fucks that choose to complain about personal 'offence' caused by programmes they're clearly too immature to be fucking watching!

As for everything else you say, I couldn't agree more!

(12-01-2011 01:48 )eccles Wrote:  Child gets Saw 3D advert banned
A TV trailer advertising the film Saw 3D has been banned after a 10-year-old complained that it was "distressing" and "inappropriately scheduled".
It began with a screaming man reaching towards the screen with a bloodied hand and featured images of saw blades.
The unnamed child saw the advert at 2029 in a break during The Gadget Show on Channel Five.
The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) said it was "likely to cause distress to young children".
The ASA ... said images in the advert which depicted people in a cinema "linked the scenes from the film with a recognisably real situation".
BBC

I think his parent's probably comlained

Who exactly are Ofcom protecting with this overzealous action on protecting the British public. Have we not had enough of the nanny state butting into every move we make. Could it be that this particular quango has to be seen doing something to justify it's very existence. With all the cuts that are now happening, are they like the rest of us, just fighting for their financial life.

there protecting themselves. simple as really covering their own backs incase of lawsuits.

Funny how the adult channels get screwed, yet the trailer for The Mechanic is shown in full gory detail

Let's see:

Head exploding after being shot? Check
Pole through leg? Check
Naked woman with partial buttocks exposed while having sex? Check
Car crash with a pole going through someone's bloody head? Check

Hmmm, interesting.