New Ofcom Rules

(19-12-2010 01:45 )mrmann Wrote:  

(19-12-2010 01:37 )mikedafc Wrote:  Given the above rules:

Why is SportXXX Babes channel allowed to go full frontal. Is it because performer(Serena) has hair covering her lower private parts?

They aren't allowed to. It's just that in the past, and present, some women have shown a bit more. What we currently see is basically just some pubic hair, but not the labia or opening. Also, it seems Ofcom hasn't had many complaints about them, which is why we might see some women taking it a bit further and showing us what we want to see. Not like Ofcom can do anything about it now, as any complaint would have been made public already, unless of course an Ofcom minion is reading this and wants to pretend a new complaint has been made.

It`s probably because the channels that Sport use are so fuzzy and weak signalled that it is hard to define anything properly,most of the time if they did show crack or arshole you wouldn`t be able to distinguish it

So we are all talking about the new `Rules` that Ofcom has proposed [and let`s not forget that rules are made to be broken and challenged] and not many people are happy about them.
But let us not all give up in doom as I am sure these godforsaken idiots that are Ofcom are just letting off there final bit of steam before they are disbanded and all of them are put out to grass.
Let us all hope that this is done sooner rather than later and get rid of all these bullying Quango`s that have never been wanted nor have never been aproachable by ordinary earthlings like us

@mrmann, according to my manual, my rather old and cheap STB retains all parental settings even after a rescan and/or EPG position change. It would make a nonsense of parental controls if all a savvy kid had to do was perform a rescan to remove all blocks. Moreover, the child would have to remember all the previous settings and PIN numbers in order to cover their tracks - "Who's been playing with the TV receiver?" said daddy bear. And of course, to make fundamental changes to the parental settings, one needs to first enter the PIN to access the controls - if the kid can do that then they don't need to do a rescan because they already know the PIN...

I think I've already mentioned this but, according to OFCOM, 'only' 30% of households actually use PIN controls..."so a ban on adult material is justified". The thing is, only 30% of households contain children under 18 so, we can reasonably assume that ALL households that want to protect their children from unsuitable material are in fact already doing so (as everyone else just finds PIN a complete annoyance)...and OFCOM are twisting the facts to suit their puritanical grip on all our viewing choices.

In my submission to OFCOM's original public consultation I stated that, in regard to pornographic material, "offensive and harmful" covered such things as child porn, bestiality, urolagnia, scat, fisting and...everything else the BBFC already cut from true 'hardcore' porn to pass it at R18. R18 is the safe and legal standard for porn in the UK - OFCOM have simply chosen to IGNORE the legal precedent set by the High Court in 2000 and, off their own self-righteous backs, have decided the High Court, the law of the land and the BBFC are all wrong and the R18-standard is not safe and legal but, indeed, so potentially dangerous, offensive and harmful that it can (and must) be banned.

I'm sure people understand that to be offended by the sight of naked people and/or sexual intercourse, one must hold a rather strange opinion of the human body and the sex act. I think it goes without saying that 99.99% of people have, do and will see other naked people and have sex without experiencing any offence or sufferring any harm - almost all get naked and bonk at some point in their lives and many visit topless beaches and nude resorts all over Europe (including the UK). So, as any offence felt by some is clearly a matter of personal opinion and belief, it falls under Article 8 of the HRA - Freedom of Thought, Conscience and Religion - as such, personal feelings and beliefs CANNOT legally be used to restrict or inhibit the fundamental rights of others. So, OFCOM CANNOT be interpreting the Comms Act 2003 in such a way as to make it compatible with the HRA 1998 (as they're required to do by law) if they believe the Comms Act allows them to use complaints from easily offended viewers to curtail everyone else's rights to watch UK-legal R18-type material on TV.

In order to do what OFCOM have chosen to do, they MUST provide proof of HARM. The High Court ruled that "based on the available evidence R18-type material poses an insignificant risk to children". The evidence for non-harm is plentiful, so much so OFCOM themselves openly admit they have no ability to ban R18 under the TVWF Directive or indeed, place any other restriction upon pornographic material other than appropriate watershed scheduling OR PIN-controlled access if the material is viewable "when children ARE LIKELY to be watching".

The most blatant disregard for what the law actually says comes in OFCOM's attitude to potentially harmful gratuitously violent material in 'torture porn'/'slasher' horror films, which under OFCOM's watch are permitted to be broadcast when children are most certainly likely to be watching. These are given 18 ratings because they CAN cause physical, psychological or moral harm to children who may view them - causing everything from nightmares to paranoia and possibly sparking an interest is self-harm and/or psychopathic serial killing. Nothing like this ever has or can result from viewing people having sex, which all normal people are in fact born to one day do to perpetuate our pathetic species.

In short, what OFCOM have implemented is totally and utterly unnecessary, unwarranted, unwanted, dispicable and illegal under UK and European law. OFCOM have failed to protect children and vulnerable people from truly potentially harmful violent material and, instead, instigated a ban on material which merely offends against some notion of 'good' taste and decency according to the opinions of misguided cretins.

I've said it before and I'll say it agin. If we're talking about 'harm' to children here, then Ofcom should be concentrating on the torture porn the (fta) Horror Channel churns out night after night.

I mean, I ask you, what would you rather your 12yr son/daughter stumbles across - some bird laid on a bed playing with her tw@t, or some bird tied to a table having her tw@t cut off?

(22-12-2010 19:01 )StanTheMan Wrote:  I've said it before and I'll say it agin. If we're talking about 'harm' to children here, then Ofcom should be concentrating on the torture porn the (fta) Horror Channel churns out night after night.

I mean, I ask you, what would you rather your 12yr son/daughter stumbles across - some bird laid on a bed playing with her tw@t, or some bird tied to a table having her tw@t cut off?

the horror channel that i have (which i can only assume is exactly the same as yours) certainly doesn't churn out torture porn every night. talk about a complete exaggeration!

(22-12-2010 20:25 )beardedbob Wrote:  

(22-12-2010 19:01 )StanTheMan Wrote:  I've said it before and I'll say it agin. If we're talking about 'harm' to children here, then Ofcom should be concentrating on the torture porn the (fta) Horror Channel churns out night after night.

I mean, I ask you, what would you rather your 12yr son/daughter stumbles across - some bird laid on a bed playing with her tw@t, or some bird tied to a table having her tw@t cut off?

the horror channel that i have (which i can only assume is exactly the same as yours) certainly doesn't churn out torture porn every night. talk about a complete exaggeration!

You know the point I'm making, beardedbob. Why did you find it necessary to pull me up on such a trivial detail? There's as much torture porn on the Horror Channel as there is explicit action on the babeshows - even more so now with Ofcom cracking the whip.

(22-12-2010 19:01 )StanTheMan Wrote:  There's as much torture porn on the Horror Channel as there is explicit action on the babeshows

so very little or none is what you meant to say (as opposed to churning it out night after night)

(22-12-2010 22:43 )beardedbob Wrote:  

(22-12-2010 19:01 )StanTheMan Wrote:  There's as much torture porn on the Horror Channel as there is explicit action on the babeshows

so very little or none is what you meant to say (as opposed to churning it out night after night)

You sound like an Ofcom employee.

(22-12-2010 23:10 )mrmann Wrote:  

(22-12-2010 22:43 )beardedbob Wrote:  

(22-12-2010 19:01 )StanTheMan Wrote:  There's as much torture porn on the Horror Channel as there is explicit action on the babeshows

so very little or none is what you meant to say (as opposed to churning it out night after night)

You sound like an Ofcom employee.

What I thought I was the only one

3 No nudity before 11pm. A performer can be fully nude and use a static straight hand with straight fingers to cover themselves. Ofcom accepted that this does not constitute masturbation.

dannii harwood on xcitedtv.com stream 2 as broken this rule right now by being naked before 11pm, good for her.