New Ofcom Rules

I keep hearing about this pin number business....it should only apply b4 the watershed folks...after that its fair game..and to be honest there are parental viewing options on most up to date systems...so theres no reason why we cant have our cake and eat it....Playboy need to get thier act together and put the shitters up Ofcom and let them dissappear into oblivion as far as I'm concerned...its just one big money making scam aimed at what they see as being violent and disgusting by such out of touch idiots and bigots......

(05-12-2011 21:26 )continental19 Wrote:  Well it's about bloody time someone as Powerful in the Adult Industry as Playboy has decided to take Ofcom on if what I've read on the forums are correct. All of us have posted in one form or another about the possibility of a SECURE PIN number.
So the question we all ask ourselves is when is Playboy going to start to get the Ball moving? Well if the chief executives at Playboy have seen there UK income getting smaller and smaller every year due to Ofcom then i think they'll move pretty quick to stop this once and for all. Plus the rumour mill will be rife in the offices at Ofcom, can you imagine the panic
If the rumours are correct then i think its only a matter of time will,when things will finally start to turn our way at long last

GO FOR IT PLAYBOY WE'RE ALL BEHIND YOU

(06-12-2011 00:37 )mart tilly-fan Wrote:  I keep hearing about this pin number business....it should only apply b4 the watershed folks...after that its fair game..and to be honest there are parental viewing options on most up to date systems...so theres no reason why we cant have our cake and eat it....Playboy need to get thier act together and put the shitters up Ofcom and let them dissappear into oblivion as far as I'm concerned...its just one big money making scam aimed at what they see as being violent and disgusting by such out of touch idiots and bigots......

True.

A girl with a strapon, banging her boyfriend in the ass is OK with them, and they pretend it's educational, but the thought of seeing a vagina on an adult channel is harmful? What a twisted bunch of people they are! They allow full frontal to be shown on the 300 channels even, as well as penises, and those are sex movies, yet must cover the vagina on adult TV. Hope they enjoy the hundreds of thousands of pounds they get from these channels

Thought these might be of interest:

ASSOCIATION FOR TELEVISION ON DEMAND
Minutes 29 September 2010
Item 4 - Minutes of previous meeting:
"“PJ met with Stuart Purvis (Ofcom) regarding the implications of the guidance the CPS had published for prosecutors which suggested that R18 and equivalent material which is accessible to children on line is likely to be considered obscene under the Obscene Publication Act.
PJ had also attended a round table discussion with enforcement agencies, Ministry of Justice, DMCS, and Ofcom on the same issue."
http://www.atvod.co.uk/uploads/files/Boa...290910.pdf

and

Sexually Explicit Material and Video On Demand Services
A Report to DCMS by Ofcom
4 August 2011
According to this surveys in 2009 and 2005 found some acceptance of stronger sexual material, but only with access controls (paras 6.19 to 6.23).
They commissioned Dr Guy Cumberbatch to review existing research in 2010.

It was concluded that while there is no firm evidence that R18 material harms children, it is not possible to perform experiments for ethical reasons, so this cannot be ruled out (para 7.5).

They are somewhat negative about so called R18plus material, the tone is that anything that would be refused a R18 certificate is harmful to adults. (Ofcom might like to consider how S&M material could harm defendants at the "Spanner" trial - they were found not guilty.)

Ofcom surveyed 20 countries to see how they were implementing the “seriously impair” provisions in the AVMS Directive. In a typically shoddy piece of Ofcom reporting, they fail to even name the 20 countries, let alone tabulate their responses or quote them verbatim. Instead we have to take Ofcoms version of what they said as the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, and free of distortion.

Apparently "A majority of [14] Member States who responded to Ofcom’s survey do not consider that R18 material is content “which seriously impairs” and therefore is automatically subject to mandatory controls. Nonetheless, a majority also believe such material in on- demand services in their jurisdiction should only be made available if there are appropriate restrictions. A majority of states have adopted various measures – either under existing legislation or by the introduction of new legislation – to ensure this happens." (para 7.10).

Right. So the likes of Holland, Belgium, Germany, France, Italy, Spain and Greece are going to introduce legislation to put all video porn behind mandatory paywalls? Somehow just I dont believe it. Perhaps some narrow technical definitions of television like material will be subject to age verification, but most wont.

"The significant point to emerge from the survey, Ofcom believes, is that the majority of Member States have decided to put additional safeguards in place to ensure that children are protected from R18 material on VOD services. Only a minority of Member States (for example Poland and Hungary) are providing protections for children from sexually explicit material by relying on the current restrictions placed on material that “might seriously impair” the development of minors." (para 7.11)

Ofcom recommends the Government introduce new legislation which would specifically prohibit R18 material from being included in UK-based VOD services unless appropriate mandatory restrictions are in place; and prohibit altogether from UK-based VOD services material whose content the BBFC would refuse to classify ie material stronger than R18. (para 7.21)
http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binarie...al-vod.pdf

I find some of this information quite antiquated..and sometimes boardering on boring...I just feel we need to put Ofcom out of a job or do something that is positive for everybody who wishes not to be dictated to by out of date peolpe who have no idea what the majority of the country want to view and want some freedom of choice !!!!....I tip my hat off 2 everyone who has got behind this cause and hope we manage to actually be heard by the people it needs to be aimed at...

(10-12-2011 15:57 )mart tilly-fan Wrote:  I find some of this information quite antiquated..and sometimes boardering on boring

Only sometimes? Its like watching shit dry. Ofcom cant make a point consisely, they state it about three times at length, then summarise it, outline it and finally reach a wordy conclusion. What makes it worse is that often the points are not supported by badly researched and inconclusive so called "research" and the result is unworkably vague. And sometimes it is badly written, sometime even using made up words.

Sweeter Peter Wrote:i only come here to say how bored i am ... the babes look as bored as i feel ... like a zombie

So much has been banned and so many fines issued that the babes, cameracrew and producers are scared of anything.
- oh, Sweeter Peters posts gone. Dont worry, it wasnt offensive.

All I can say is who ever thought that wanking and politics could go hand in hand to such an extent even if this country is run by a bunch of wanker's, correct me if I'm wrong but these channels are wank channels, I mean why else would you tune in for them, for the fucking plot or something, fucking rules shove them up your arse with broken glass, what a fucking disgrace and embarrassment that you aren't even allowed to have a wank in the privacy of your own home thanks to Ofcom for making these shows dull and totally unwankable, on the plus side I've saved an absolute fortune on buying kleenex PS - most time's the word wank has been used in a post ever

(14-12-2011 23:56 )Scottishbloke Wrote:  All I can say is who ever thought that wanking and politics could go hand in hand to such an extent even if this country is run by a bunch of wanker's, correct me if I'm wrong but these channels are wank channels, I mean why else would you tune in for them, for the fucking plot or something, fucking rules shove them up your arse with broken glass, what a fucking disgrace and embarrassment that you aren't even allowed to have a wank in the privacy of your own home thanks to Ofcom for making these shows dull and totally unwankable, on the plus side I've saved an absolute fortune on buying kleenex PS - most time's the word wank has been used in a post ever

its the bloody inconsistancy what gets me,you have a small channel like storm who have girls naked on very night all be it no pussy ,the other channels have to rely on their firm favorites before we see any bare arse ,with the likes of the fab danni harwood and camilla,they are just run of the mill daft crap most nights with the odd few up in arms when a half decent girl is on showing a bit of arse saying they are good shows ,are they fuck,i want to see risque teasing shows with the odd flash of flesh to keep me captivated not show room dummies going through the motions!

Scottishboke makes such an excellent point - doubltless going over the heads of all at Ofcom. IMy neck hurts from nodding in agreement so much.

When will folks understand that "tease" isn't about giving us NOTHING; it's porn, that filthy word, to a greater of lesser extent. It all amounts to the same ending, right? It just gets stupid when "porn" gets dressed as acceptable for the producers, by which time, it's had all of the life squashed out of it.

Christ, I know 2012 is going to be awful without these channels trying to conceal more of their conceit.

Peace out...or somthing like that....

Thanks to Rammyraskal for pointing out this guidance: "Daytime chat broadcasters should:
 ensure that presenters are wearing appropriate clothing, that adequately covers their bodies, in particular their breasts, genital areas and buttocks. Presenters should not wear revealing underwear, swimwear, gym wear or fetish clothing"

A lawyer would have a field day with this sentence.

Each comma forms a break. In a strict legal sense it says "presenters should not wear revealing underwear". The reference to swimwear, gym wear and fetish clothing is disconnected from the statement stating what should be worn, and has no strict legal purpose.

What exactly are they saying? They say what presenters must NOT wear. Going nude would satisfy that rule.

What is the effect of commas in "presenters are wearing appropriate clothing, that adequately covers their bodies, in particular their breasts, genital areas and buttocks"? It separates the requirement to wear appropriate clothing from references to covering bodies and lists of body parts.

What does "appropriate" mean? Have Ofcom seen young women sunbathing in Green Park on a hot day?

What is fetish clothing? Several times this week I have passed women in mainline rail stations with pervy footwear, including a young woman dressed up for Ascot. Thats Royal Ascot, renouned for being very sniffy about "proper" standards for clothing. Then there are the women wearing wetlook skintight liquid leggings.

Normal streetwear, banned by Ofcom.

OK, the guidance is not law, and is subject to interpretation, but this does illustrate the basic illiteracy people in a quasijudicial role.

Indeed, it is very clumsy.

As you say, how do they define 'revealing'? Furthermore, in this sentence:

"Presenters should not wear revealing underwear, swimwear, gym wear or fetish clothing"

The implication to me is that presenters can wear underwear, swimwear, gym wear or fetish clothing as long as it is not revealing, but 'revealing' is not defined.