Pornography to be allowed on TV

Fuck all this bullshit about protecting the minors, its a grown ups world and its so patronising. So long as the 9pm watershed which is law is obeyed then ofcom shouldn't even have a reason to question what material is then shown from 9pm onwards. Anybody who watches the 900's should fully expect to see R18+ material. Anybody who so accidently comes across the 900s and doesn't like well they know how to block the channels to avoid this happening again. As an adult I don't like getting told what to do or treated like a kid which is exactly what ofcom is doing. David Cameron, Nick Clegg sort this fucking mess out, 2 months now since the election and it still feels like a fucking Labour government. Fair enough you do have other policies to attend to but it wouldn't really take all that long to dispose of ofcom, economy wise the country is a mess and cuts do have to be made.

(05-07-2010 17:25 )KateP Wrote:  I would not say pornography is harmless at all I am not against porn but not all porn can be lumped into all porn is harmless

No argument there. Some porn is pretty vile because of the emotional content and some because of borderline harmful physical acts. The BBFC in it's submission to Ofcom's consultation warned that policing live broadcasts could be difficult if they were maximum strength. Don't know how you control emotional content - personally I always thought Beadle's About was pushing it. Genuine distress was caused to unwitting members of the public, and in my book having relatives secretly sign them up for it did not make it OK. "You thought you were going to get better, but we've taken the wrong kidney out! LOL!"

Quote:you will never get fta channels showing porn you dont even get that in the states its ppv and there porn industry makes billions while I agree that sex shops need to be look at in the states they have mega shops that sell porn dvds and stuff here we put them in dirty back alleys

Just look at France. The large supermarkets have 50 feet of shelving full of hardcore magazines with hardcore cover DVDs. Above the French equivalent of People's Friend and kids comics. It just doesn't occur to the French that strong sexual content is a different category from strong violent content, etc. They only have one category of adult.

Quote:is this just another way for the industry that is in trouble because you can get all the porn you want today for free online to make more cash

If my entire fortune was tied up in sleazy shops in unfashionable parts of town and my business depended on sales of magazines, online porn and encrypted TV channels I'd be shitting myself. In 5 years time no-one will buy magazines, not when they can go online so easily. The value of retail units generally might drop as internet purchases increase, and unfashionable locations will tank. And subscriptions to encrypted TV channels will decrease if stronger stuff can be obtained for free 24x7x365.

No, the way to protect income is to keep the foreigners out. Don't complain when Customs confiscate stuff at Dover. Support Sky in keeping serious foreign competion off 28 degrees. Support Ofcom control of Video-On-Demand. Keep adult satellite channels in the hands of just a few operators and tolerate each other. Gang up on any small newcomer. Even better keep the strong stuff off satellite and out of WHSmiths, forcing people to visit sexshops. Or is that a bit cynical?

(06-07-2010 01:30 )Scottishbloke Wrote:  Fuck all this bullshit about protecting the minors

Recent Ofcom complaints have hardly mentioned minors, they have concentrated on Generally Accepted Standards*, meaning the risk of the Verger accidentially tuning into 966 Club Paradiso instead of 986 BBC1 West for the 2am repeat of the Antiques Roadshow and getting some tattooed blonde wearing just her piercings. The Vicar would of couse be fine, he (she?) is training in human falibility, but the Verger is just a mass of repressed sexuality (why do you think they wear long black "gowns" - dresses to you and me) - and feels forced to watch while writing a letter to the Eastbourne Gazette. Slowly.

Quote:So long as the 9pm watershed which is law is obeyed then ofcom shouldn't even have a reason to question what material is then shown from 9pm onwards.

Ofcom's concept of a watershed is very flakey and would make a geographer cry. As you say, technically it is a clear dividing line. Rain one side runs into the Orinoko River, rain that falls the other side drains into the Amazon. (No corrections please). But to be fair it is a mess that they inherited, and I don't think anyone realy wants a sharp cut off.

However that is no excuse for not being clear about what all the little watersheds are. Just when is dramatically justified nudity OK? When if the F word OK in comedy? When are tits OK on adult channels? Revealing thongs? Nipple sucking? Why won't they tell us?

Oh yes, just remembered, it's because they can't make their minds up.

* Today's Ofcom Bulletin featured Ary Digital, again. Last time the featured a snake being skinned and eaten alive, as part of a "talent" contest. I don't think St Cheryl was judging. They even repeated it, during the day. The latest incident was on a show that "invited anyone to appear who could “amaze the audience and the judges by doing something extra-ordinary”. A man killed a chicken live on stage (it took several attempts) and drank its blood. Clearly something difficult to do. The channel's defence was that it "had to be seen in context" (of a talent show) and besides it was live.

Which doesn't explain why they repeated it twice.

Clearly killing a chicken live on stage in a telent show is totally different from killing a snake live on stage in a talent show and could not have been forseen. Ofcom let them of with a warning.

(06-07-2010 01:30 )Scottishbloke Wrote:  So long as the 9pm watershed which is law is obeyed then ofcom shouldn't even have a reason to question what material is then shown from 9pm onwards.

But as eccles says the 9pm watershed isn't the hard and fast line it sounds like. I saw an article in the Guardian once criticising Ofcom for not having a watershed that was actually a clear and definite watershed.

aaron, the watershed used to be crystal clear under the ITC Code - 9pm on terrestrial TV and 8pm on subscription channels. Ofcom fogged the whole issue by saying broadcasters must move to "more adult material gradually" post 9pm (or 8pm on $ky movies).

If a gradual move is necessary then I think any film starting at 9pm should be no more than 15 rated and after 10pm it can be 18 rated. Subscription channels SHOULD be able to show 18 rated material from 9pm and R18 rated material from 10pm.

Ofcom simply do not have the right or powers to deny the broadcast of any legally available material - that should be obvious to everyone. All they're supposed to do is decide when such legally available material can be shown - i.e. at a time when anyone under 18 is unlikely to be watching (NOTE: 'unlikely' doesn't mean 'never' and that's the whole point of the High Court ruling over the legality and safety of hardcore at R18 - it is NOT harmful to any child or some other 'vulnerable people' that might see this type of material).

Every adult in the land is supposed to be responsible enough to monitor their own viewing habits. Everyone has the capability to delete, block and choose not to subscribe to channels which they themselves do not wish to receive.

In essence, Ofcom are supposed to keep unsuitable material out of pre watershed/children's programmes. Adult programming is supposed to be exactly that - made by adults for adults. Only parents and guardians are in any position to protect the children in their care from harm and Ofcom cannot be respecting the rights of adults by choosing to make the whole of TV output suitable for under 18s 24/7/365.

The whole point of human rights is to stop fascist tossers dictating what we can and can't read, do, say or watch.

ANY and ALL arguments regarding "health and morals" were answered in 2000 by the High Court ruling - "Based on the available evidence a reasonable person would concluded that hardcore R18 material is not a significant risk to children who may see it". How DARE Ofcom argue with this High Court ruling without providing concrete PROOF that R18-type material CAN cause harm and thus needs to be banned or restricted in any way shape or form?

It seems to me the only people who believe hardcore material is dangerous are the religiously corrupted arseholes that are known to molest children - probably because they don't watch porn or indulge in proper sexual relationships with other adults like any NORMAL person on earth does.

Unless Ofcom UNDERSTAND the CAUSES of harm to health and morals they're in NO POSITION to know if what they're doing IS CORRECT. Ergo, they could be, indeed, ALL EVIDENCE suggests they ARE, doing more harm than good! But then that's the problem with mindless, self-righteous, corrupted, idiotic fascist wankstains like Ofcom - they only know what they believe even when what they believe is UTTER BULLSHIT and DANGEROUS BULLSHIT at that.

(06-07-2010 02:27 )eccles Wrote:  

(05-07-2010 17:25 )KateP Wrote:  I would not say pornography is harmless at all I am not against porn but not all porn can be lumped into all porn is harmless

No argument there. Some porn is pretty vile because of the emotional content and some because of borderline harmful physical acts. The BBFC in it's submission to Ofcom's consultation warned that policing live broadcasts could be difficult if they were maximum strength. Don't know how you control emotional content - personally I always thought Beadle's About was pushing it. Genuine distress was caused to unwitting members of the public, and in my book having relatives secretly sign them up for it did not make it OK. "You thought you were going to get better, but we've taken the wrong kidney out! LOL!"

I've often thought the same thing about prank, humiliation & mocking shows. Where do you draw the line with these shows? How far are these people in control of TV, and technology in general, prepared to go? Who's to say in the future that something similar to the film "The Truman Show" won't become a reality? Even though that film had comedy elements, the main theme is abuse of power and human rights (having his entire life broadcast on TV without his knowledge & consent).

Big Brother is a classic example... Even though people generally know what they're signing up for, shows like this have a much worse influence on UK culture than hardcore porn would on adult pay-per-view. This is supposed to be the final year of Big Brother... I wonder what sneaky show they'll come up with next?

It's strange how the regulators/authorities have such contrasting, contradictory views on what they think is acceptable/unacceptable...

Quote:you will never get fta channels showing porn you dont even get that in the states its ppv and there porn industry makes billions while I agree that sex shops need to be look at in the states they have mega shops that sell porn dvds and stuff here we put them in dirty back alleys

(06-07-2010 02:27 )eccles Wrote:  Just look at France. The large supermarkets have 50 feet of shelving full of hardcore magazines with hardcore cover DVDs. Above the French equivalent of People's Friend and kids comics. It just doesn't occur to the French that strong sexual content is a different category from strong violent content, etc. They only have one category of adult.

When I was going through the BBFC website a while back, to clarify ratings for some of my adult projects, the first thing I thought was why an R18 certificate is even necessary... One mainstream film project, which I consider potentially more controversial than the adult R18 project, would probably get an 18 certificate. The same 18 certificate that my alternative form of adult entertainment would get, which is harmless by comparison, and has to be on adult pay-per-view according to OFCOM regulations... What's wrong with this picture?

The fact that there is an R18 certificate for adult sex works, when an 18 certificate would suffice, is a clear indication of the prejudiced and narrow minded people involved in these organisations. If you look at the R18 guidelines, there are some content/context issues (similar to those OFCOM use) that are contradictory and must cause problems for those who direct/produce this kind of material...

Question is did the BBFC come to these conclusions for R18 independently, as they claim, or were they pushed?

Quote:is this just another way for the industry that is in trouble because you can get all the porn you want today for free online to make more cash

(06-07-2010 02:27 )eccles Wrote:  If my entire fortune was tied up in sleazy shops in unfashionable parts of town and my business depended on sales of magazines, online porn and encrypted TV channels I'd be shitting myself. In 5 years time no-one will buy magazines, not when they can go online so easily. The value of retail units generally might drop as internet purchases increase, and unfashionable locations will tank. And subscriptions to encrypted TV channels will decrease if stronger stuff can be obtained for free 24x7x365.

No, the way to protect income is to keep the foreigners out. Don't complain when Customs confiscate stuff at Dover. Support Sky in keeping serious foreign competion off 28 degrees. Support Ofcom control of Video-On-Demand. Keep adult satellite channels in the hands of just a few operators and tolerate each other. Gang up on any small newcomer. Even better keep the strong stuff off satellite and out of WHSmiths, forcing people to visit sexshops. Or is that a bit cynical?

The obsession with rules & regulations in the UK has resulted in an epic fail. It's had the opposite effect... History has proven many times that the more you try and control things, the more you will consequently lose control... Prohibition of Alcohol didn't work, prohibition of certain drugs doesn't work, prohibition of hardcore porn on TV, etc. All it does, in most cases, is push these things into the hands of the wrong people... It solves nothing.

To solve problems and make progress, there have to be compromises and a bit of give and take. Maybe in Holland they have the right ideas on how to handle issues like this...

(05-07-2010 22:58 )astonv1 Wrote:  

(05-07-2010 19:32 )StanTheMan Wrote:  My guess is that it would get an 18, but only just... kind of the weakest 18 cert you can imagine.

I think it would more likely be a 15A

I am not aware of a 15a rating but the BBFC guidance on a 15 rating is

Nudity
Nudity may be allowed in a sexual context but without strong detail. There are no constraints on nudity in a non-sexual or educational context.

Sex
Sexual activity may be portrayed without strong detail.
There may be strong verbal references to sexual behaviour, but the strongest references are unlikely to be acceptable unless justified by context. Works whose primary purpose is sexual arousal or stimulation are unlikely to be acceptable.

which is the category where i would place it.

Nudity is the least of concerns to the general public when watching films etc and this is backed up as far back as 1999 when the BBFC carried out their Sense and Sensibilities: Public Opinion & the BBFC Guidelines survey.

This was not some tiny survey of a select portion of the population but an independant survey conducted by three consultants involving around 3100 people using methods such as roadshows, internet surveys, postal questionaires, national surveys and Juries.

I was actually involved in one of the roadshows when the BBFC did a presentation at a three day licensing seminar that had an audience profile of local authority policy makers, solicitors/barristers/QC's representing the licensing industry and government officials, an audience of some 200 people.

The BBFC presentation was fair and balanced and the movie clips shown depicted various levels of violence, drug use, nudity (both fleeting and graphic), sexual intercourse (both consensual and forced), strong language etc.

The published results showed that out of a category of seven different elements of films, bad language, sex, violence, horror, blasphemy, nudity and drug use that nudity was generally of least concern to adults. Portrayals of drug use, violence and sex were the top three.

When the results were analysed comments were quoted as,

'There is an anomaly about not being able to watch sex but being able to have sex' and be a parent.

'At R18, both juries concluded that anything legal should be permitted'.

'If you are going to that extreme anyway, why do they say you can't have semen on your face'.

It was following this survey that the BBFC started to require film distributors to include in all advertising such phrases as

'This films contains two scenes of nudity and one offensive word' etc etc etc that we see on all film posters these days.

So whilst i'm taking this survey out of context with regard to the babe shows it is indicative of a more tolerant attitude of society to such things as nudity, sex etc even back in 1999.

Since then the internet has grown, satellites are beaming images all around the world, europe is all embracing AND Babe channels are a regular feature for adult viewing. Accept it Ofcom and let adults be adults and give parents back the responsibility of supervision of their children.


Remember
Tonight is part two of Channel 4's sex education show at 9pm and it's about the fanny. Last night was the penis and it was not that far beyond the watershed that close up live images were shown, but hey it's education and not titillation so whilst i guess there will be a lot of complaints from the usual groups Ofcom will no doubt state 'no breach' because it's in context.
I know why i'm going to be watching it, 'education' boll#cks.

(06-07-2010 20:20 )Gold Plated Pension Wrote:  

(05-07-2010 22:58 )astonv1 Wrote:  

(05-07-2010 19:32 )StanTheMan Wrote:  My guess is that it would get an 18, but only just... kind of the weakest 18 cert you can imagine.

I think it would more likely be a 15A

I am not aware of a 15a rating but the BBFC guidance on a 15 rating is

Thanks GPP ....Just to clarify, i knew there was not a 15A rating..it was said tounge in cheek to agree with stans original post about it being the weakest possible 18

Just to make a point about the watershed and times ect, now on Sky you can view a 15 or higher rated film during the day under pin protection, all the people with sky can stick pin protection on all the babe channels this will stop any minor of someone misclicking the channel ie 966 instead of 986 and will get a channel which is blocked.

I cant see the point with Ofcom or anyone else telling us what we can and cant watch on TV, Sky have made it so minors cant watch these channels just as long as the parents add the protection on it or even block the channels completely.

(06-07-2010 20:31 )astonv1 Wrote:  

(06-07-2010 20:20 )Gold Plated Pension Wrote:  

(05-07-2010 22:58 )astonv1 Wrote:  

(05-07-2010 19:32 )StanTheMan Wrote:  My guess is that it would get an 18, but only just... kind of the weakest 18 cert you can imagine.

I think it would more likely be a 15A

I am not aware of a 15a rating but the BBFC guidance on a 15 rating is

Thanks GPP ....Just to clarify, i knew there was not a 15A rating..it was said tounge in cheek to agree with stans original post about it being the weakest possible 18

Sorry Astonv1 i seem to lose myself in a red mist when on these topics. Perhaps they should have a 15a category similar to the 16 category in europe but then the more categories you have the more confusion there is with regard to content if the guidelines aren't sufficiently clear.
We know how confusing and subjective the broadcasting code is and whilst Ofcom state that every section should not be read in isolation but in context with other sections and decisions it is proving a nightmare for broadcasters.
It is ridiculous to suggest as Ofcom does that broadcasters must have regard to decisions against other channels to guide themselves through the broadcasting code. It would be like a local authority environmental health officer prosecuting a local Spirit Group pub on food hygiene breaches and then expecting all pubs operated by various owners/companies to read the outcomes and act upon them. It is not how the law works or should work.
Laws should be clear, concise, objective and readily understood and if they are not any good brief will ride cart and horse through them.
One of the most subjective and controversial laws is section 80 of the Enviromental Protection Act that deals with statutory nuisance. One person states that the music noise is too high whilst the person playing the music believes its a normal volume.
The Act ONLY allows a qualified EHO to decide on statutory nuisance, a person who is qualified to degree level in noise control and who can decide if such an activity effects the 'unreasonable interference with the enjoyment of your property'. If a nuisance exists a notice must be served and the outcome of that action is judged before a magistrate, an independant stipendary or lay bench who will subject the evidence against THE LAW.

NOT in Ofcoms world,

Ofcom have some deskbound pen pusher who decides whether something is in context, causes sexual arousal, shows clear labia/anal detail etc. What guidance are they using to ensure consistant decisions are made, NONE, it's on a wing and a prayer and it can effect the future of that broadcaster. If they are big players they are generally left alone but the small guys get hit. Look at Bang Babes, a shadow of their former selves STILL waiting for a final decision from Ofcom concerning their alleged breaches of the code.
Where is the justice in that.
The sooner Ofcom are reviewed the better for broadcasters and the general public.
End of rant, let's watch some babes.