What is now the point of these channels

(26-05-2011 04:45 )Addison Wrote:  Maybe they don't 'see sex as a category apart' or as being 'uniquely harmful.' Maybe they just tossed a coin and it landed 'heads' for sex instead of tails for 'violence' and that means they're going to take issue with violent content once they're through dealing with sex! If that's how it eventually pans out, then I guess it'll be of comfort to some here at least: no more explicit freebie sex, but no more police car chases, drunken street fights, cartoon brainings and domestic soap flare-ups to deal with either (supposing y'all were genuinely concerned about the amount of rough stuff documented or portrayed on TV in the first place, and not just grabbing 'violence' as the nearest stick with which to figuratively rap Ofcom over the knuckles whilst yelling 'double standards!' and not actually giving a flying cack about the amount of violence on telly before Ofcom's curtailment demands started affecting your wanking routines ).

First off, Addison, I don't fall into the category you highlight at the end of your post here. The portayal of violence on television has always concerned me, and it concerns me even more now because of this flood of reality tv violence we've had for the last three or so years. Even fictional violence in so-called torture porn is done in such a way as to try and authentically represent the real suffering such violence would cause. I was flicking through the free movie channels the other night, and happened across one such film on the Horror Channel. A woman had another woman and her boyfriend locked up in her basement. The female victim had her arms tied above her head and the killer them proceeded to begin torturing her feet by nailing them to the floor, burning them with a blow torch, cutting off her toes and bashing them to a pulp with a hammer.

Tell me how the FUCK seeing stuff like this is less harmful to kids than some woman lying naked on a bed???

Continued exposure to anything will eventually desensitise the viewer. If it were a choice between kids growing up desensitised to sex or desensitised to mindless violence, I know which I'd prefer!! If we didn't already have millions of teens desensitised to violence, then maybe those same teens wouldn't be quite as casual about punching some random person in the face while their mate films it on his phone.

i just love how you dont call the channels but are 1 of there loudest critics. if you really want to do something about it then get in touch with your mp. petition the house of commons and petition ofcom. actually do something instead of shouting about it on a website that ofcom doesnt care about..

(26-05-2011 15:42 )mrmann Wrote:  It's just because Ofcom doesn't like the women to be able to get away with having sex or showing their normal body parts on live TV. They don't agree with it, and therefor they want to push their moral views onto everyone else.

Now, if these women were in a public place, fully nude or doing sexual acts, then I'd be against it, because that's innappropriate. Unfortunately, Ofcom seems to think that these women are exposing themselves to the public, when infact they most certainly are not. They are on a TV channel, which the viewers have an option of turning to or blocking, and they are on at night, so it's beyond sad that they are still under the petty scope of Ofcom even to this day for just showing something natural.

2011 is the year for change! Lets make it happen!!!

What's the difference between it happening in public and on tv? How can you say one is inappropriate but the other isn't?

Both are pretty much the same thing, as you say, if it's on tv you can turn it off but if it's in public you can always look away.

(26-05-2011 19:48 )gazfc Wrote:  What's the difference between it happening in public and on tv? How can you say one is inappropriate but the other isn't?

Both are pretty much the same thing, as you say, if it's on tv you can turn it off but if it's in public you can always look away.

Well not really, gazfc. mrmann makes a good point. His point is that these channels are not forcing themselves on anyone, as the same kind of stuff done in the street would. Everyone knows what sort of channels are to be found in the 900s now, and that fact should mean the end of Ofcom's involvment

(26-05-2011 20:00 )StanTheMan Wrote:  Well not really, gazfc. mrmann makes a good point. His point is that these channels are not forcing themselves on anyone, as the same kind of stuff done in the street would. Everyone knows what sort of channels are to be found in the 900s now, and that fact should mean the end of Ofcom's involvment

May I ask why you think its forced in the street but not on the tv?

and also the bit I've highlighted, you do realize all the BBC regional channels are in the 900's aswell?

(26-05-2011 20:08 )gazfc Wrote:  May I ask why you think its forced in the street but not on the tv?

Do I honestly need to explain? If some woman was laid naked on a bed in the middle of a busy market, would that not be forcing her nakedness on the public? This is getting silly now, but that is why the same thing done in the street would be forcing itself on those who may not want to see it.

As for their positioning, what you say is correct, but if someone is watching BBC Scotland on 971 and they happen to see a channel called SportxxxGirls just two below, they'd have to be pretty stupid to presume it was a female athletics channel.

Fucks Sake Gazfc don't give these ofcom bastards any more reason to pick on the babe channels, they can be switched off via the parental control button, so all legal requirements in order to protect the minors have been met as far as I'm concerned. So yes the only channels in the 900's which are non adult ones will be the bbc regions, ITV London in my case and 994 and 995 channel 4 and + 1 respectively.

(26-05-2011 20:14 )StanTheMan Wrote:  Do I honestly need to explain? If some woman was laid naked on a bed in the middle of a busy market, would that not be forcing her nakedness on the public? This is getting silly now, but that is why the same thing done in the street would be forcing itself on those who may not want to see it.

Maybe, it depends on if I knew she was there before hand, same with the channels, not everybody knows they're a part of the sky package so if a new customer is flicking through the channels and happened to come across them, they may think its forced upon them and find them inappropriate same as an unsuspecting person stumbling across a naked body in the street would.


Anyway haven't most of you banged on about how a naked body is natural and non offensive? so i honestly cant see how you think a naked body in the street is any different to a naked body on tv.

Gazfc I think there is a big difference between a naked women walking past me in the street (if I should be so lucky) and a naked women on the TV, you're looking for problems that aren't there saying that if somebody is new to SKY they could be shocked by what they see on screen, well they know what they can do then, either change the fucking channel or block them via the SKY parental control in which the SKY installer will more than happily demonstrate when the system's up and running. Anyway how is the vagina more shocking anyway than the Breasts, who exactly decided that in the first place anyway. If you tune in for Prime Ministers questions there is nothing but c*nts on the screen but I bet you that Ofcom don't receive any complaints when that's on.

(26-05-2011 20:53 )Scottishbloke Wrote:  Gazfc I think there is a big difference between a naked women walking past me in the street (if I should be so lucky) and a naked women on the TV, you're looking for problems that aren't there saying that if somebody is new to SKY they could be shocked by what they see on screen, well they know what they can do then, either change the fucking channel or block them via the SKY parental control in which the SKY installer will more than happily demonstrate when the system's up and running. Anyway how is the vagina more shocking anyway than the Breasts, who exactly decided that in the first place anyway. If you tune in for Prime Ministers questions there is nothing but c*nts on the screen but I bet you that Ofcom don't receive any complaints when that's on.

No what I'm trying to work out is why mrmann thinks its inappropriate in the street but not on tv, afterall there's nothing offensive about a naked body.