Mainstream TV nudity vs babeshow nudity

Nudity used for humorous effect seems to be okay, cos it's all a little bit saucy and seaside-postcardy but we all know it's just a giggle really.
Tonight's edition of The Tudors wasn't funny at all though (apart from how Henry VIII still looks pretty young and fit for an ageing and incresingly ailing monarch... ho hum ), but we were treated to lots of Catherine Howard romping around topless and naked* - hurray! for those randy Tudors, huh? There was a warning, of course, so would a warning on the babeshows not suffice to cover the eventuality of any likely nudity?

BTW Stan, nice clip and I can recall plenty of shows on 'old' Men & Motors (before they started showing car programmes and repeats of Minder) where the nudity was full-frontal (cos they'd 'forgotten' to edit the US video they were showing, he he he) and quite entertaining too.

*Not full-frontal

Missing key events. Talking bollocks. Making stuff up.
~~~SAVE THE KRILL!~~~

Had high hopes for tonights TV:
The Emerald Forest (BBC2)
Hot Fuzz (ITV1)
Kiss The Girls followed by Internal Affairs (Channel 4, where else)
Sex And The City (ComedyCentralX)
with The World Stands Up muh later
Dirty Sanchez (Comedy Central, the channel even has Come in its name FFS)
The [face] Sitter (Sky3)
Pawn Stars (Bio, popular with dyspeptics)
Bullseye (Challenge)
Inside Me (CurrentTV) (mistake - its Inside Mexicos Drug Wars)
and best of all
Female Perversions on True Ent

Sadly all but one were just using suggestive language to sex up unsexy shows and trick gullible people like me into watching. The other was tame woman friendly shit, or "erotica" to give it its respectable name.

Oh, and Five is using its hard earned Public Service Broadcaster licence on a Saturday night for Super Casino. Ofcom were asked to relax the rules so PSBs could broadcast teleshopping and gambling on terrestrial channels. But strangely this relaxation did not extend to adult phone in shows.

Im off to Channel AKA (Sky 370) which is showing XXXAKA, 18 rated music clips until 1am. Usually the same half dozen, and relatively tame, but they have a new one on right now featuring two birds in a bath and a wallaby.

(04-02-2011 16:19 )StanTheMan Wrote:  I know this isn't related to the babeshows, but GOLD's policy on sex and nudity appears to be about as (il)logical as Ofcom's. When they air the episode of Porridge titled 'No Rest for the Wicked' during daytime hours, there's a scene where Fletcher is laid on his bunk reading a girlie magazine and talking to Barrowclough about conjugal rights for prisoners. Barrowclough then complains that he doesn't even get conjugal rights at home and walks out. Now in the uncut version Fletcher calls him back and says "Your need is greater than mine." before unfolding the magazine to reveal a double page poster of a topless girl. GOLD always cut this 'punchline' out, but bizarrely leave in a later scene in which Mackay is showing a group of people from the Home Office around his cell and opens Fletcher's cupboard to demonstarte that prisoners are allowed to keep photographs of loved ones, only to find the inside of the door plastered with pictures of half naked women instead. Ridiculous.

All those saucy channels have slowly been removed from our screens by Ofc@m. Quote from publication.

The 2005 Broadcasting Code was seen as a significant relaxation and updating of regulations when announced.
However between 2005 and 2009 there has been a progressive, year-on-year clampdown on dedicated sex-themed channels by OfCom, with progressively tighter restrictions.
There is no evidence that Parliament intended this when the Communications Act 2003 was passed, or that there was any widespread public appetite for tighter regulation at the time or since. Although the number of adult channels has increased, the number of operators has decreased, innovation and variety has been stifled, and many channels are now indistinguishable.
Furthermore sexual content in general entertainment programmes has all but vanished.
The rich tradition of mixed format entertainment (Monty Python, Kenny Everett, Benny Hill, The End of the Pier Show [1970s satire], Saturday Night with Denise van Outen, etc) has all but vanished, as sexual content for the sake of entertainment is now considered high risk. General entertainment has been bowdlerised.

Ultimately the internet will be the only place to find 'sexually stimulating' material in the future.

Which publication are you quoting from?

(06-02-2011 05:08 )Digital Dave Wrote:  Which publication are you quoting from?

It is the independant publication commisioned by Ofc@m that analysed the public opinion results of the 2009 survey updating the 2005 Broadcasting Code to the 2009 code.
What i can't find, but will continue looking for, is the full and stated reason why Ofc@m took the precautionary approach to R18 broadcast material. All links found so far have been disabled, but it must be there, perhaps a FOI might raise it, we'll see.

(06-02-2011 04:42 )Gold Plated Pension Wrote:  

(04-02-2011 16:19 )StanTheMan Wrote:  I know this isn't related to the babeshows, but GOLD's policy on sex and nudity appears to be about as (il)logical as Ofcom's. When they air the episode of Porridge titled 'No Rest for the Wicked' during daytime hours, there's a scene where Fletcher is laid on his bunk reading a girlie magazine and talking to Barrowclough about conjugal rights for prisoners. Barrowclough then complains that he doesn't even get conjugal rights at home and walks out. Now in the uncut version Fletcher calls him back and says "Your need is greater than mine." before unfolding the magazine to reveal a double page poster of a topless girl. GOLD always cut this 'punchline' out, but bizarrely leave in a later scene in which Mackay is showing a group of people from the Home Office around his cell and opens Fletcher's cupboard to demonstarte that prisoners are allowed to keep photographs of loved ones, only to find the inside of the door plastered with pictures of half naked women instead. Ridiculous.

All those saucy channels have slowly been removed from our screens by Ofc@m. Quote from publication.

The 2005 Broadcasting Code was seen as a significant relaxation and updating of regulations when announced.
However between 2005 and 2009 there has been a progressive, year-on-year clampdown on dedicated sex-themed channels by OfCom, with progressively tighter restrictions.
There is no evidence that Parliament intended this when the Communications Act 2003 was passed, or that there was any widespread public appetite for tighter regulation at the time or since. Although the number of adult channels has increased, the number of operators has decreased, innovation and variety has been stifled, and many channels are now indistinguishable.
Furthermore sexual content in general entertainment programmes has all but vanished.
The rich tradition of mixed format entertainment (Monty Python, Kenny Everett, Benny Hill, The End of the Pier Show [1970s satire], Saturday Night with Denise van Outen, etc) has all but vanished, as sexual content for the sake of entertainment is now considered high risk. General entertainment has been bowdlerised.

Ultimately the internet will be the only place to find 'sexually stimulating' material in the future.

I strongly believe that this is Ofcon's ultimate objective.

Keep up the good work, GPP.

Just caught something on Sky Arts 2 (245) called The Beaches of Agnes (about the life of a (now) 80 year old French director)). Just as I switched on they were showing a clip from one of her films, in which a young couple with cloth sacks over their heads walk backwards and away from the camera. It soones becomes apparent that they're completely naked, but I have to confess I wasn't expecting the guy to have a full-on erection - and quite an impressive one at that.

It's nearly over now (been on since 22:00) but it's repeated on Thursday at 00:00 if anyone's interested. Probably one to record, mind, so that the uncultured ones among you can fast forward through the waffle.

(06-02-2011 05:44 )Gold Plated Pension Wrote:  

(06-02-2011 05:08 )Digital Dave Wrote:  Which publication are you quoting from?

It is the independant publication commisioned by Ofc@m that analysed the public opinion results of the 2009 survey updating the 2005 Broadcasting Code to the 2009 code.
What i can't find, but will continue looking for, is the full and stated reason why Ofc@m took the precautionary approach to R18 broadcast material. All links found so far have been disabled, but it must be there, perhaps a FOI might raise it, we'll see.

There was an early Content Committee decision that was finely balanced. Much of the discussion was redacted. But the published reason was that while quoted studies said R18 was not harmful, the "research" into PIN protection found that in 34% of households with multi-channel access, kids knew the PIN number, therefore Ofcom was obliged to protect children by preventing access to R18.

The 34% figure seems to be misquoted by Ofcom. What was actually sid in para 3.4 of the May 2005 research was

Research into the Effectiveness of PIN Protection Systems in the UK Wrote:3.4 Other PIN codes
Around one third (34%) of children say they know their parents’ PIN numbers for other items such as cash point cards (+/- 4%) (base = 1332).

Perhaps more relevant is the preceding para 3.3

Quote:3.3 PIN awareness: PPV PIN codes
74% (+/- 5%) of all children in premium subscription multi-channel households aged 11-17 say they are aware that PPV channels can be blocked by a PIN (base = 634)
Among children who know that a PIN number is needed to access PPV channels, half say they know the actual PIN number that is needed to access these channels
• 50% (+/- 6%) aware of PIN for PPV access (base = 451)
More than half of children say their parents gave them direct access to this information.
• 63% (+/-9%) for PPV access (base=194)
The remaining 37% say they found out the PIN number by other means
• 37% (+/-9%) for PPV access (base = 194)
Regardless of whether parents gave direct access to this information or not, children claim the vast majority of parents are aware that they know the PIN numbers
• 87% (+/-6%) for PPV access (base=195)
45% (+/- 9%) of children who say they know the PPV PIN number are at least occasionally using it without permission (base=197)

At first glance this seems stunning, suggesting that hordes of kids can access PPV without their parents permission, but like most Ofcom research, this is incompetent. First it is based on kids bragging. Second where is the massive backlash from parents annoyed at £5.99 appearing on their credit cards bills time and time again for Justin Bieber and Hannah Montanna PPV concerts? Or Sky Box Office? Its EXACTLY THE SAME MECHANISM. Shrek Forever is on right now, and I am 2 clicks and a PIN away from a £3.99 bill. (Seen it. Fiona forgets who Shrek is. He rescues her.)

The research does not say that parents prevent access or do not wish it.

It claims 9% occasionally use it without permission, but fails to distinguish between once, getting caught, a severe telling off, then never again, and accessing adult channels once a week.

CONTENT COMMITTEE BOARD and the FOI

A principle of Freedom of Information is that information can only be redacted while it is sensitive. It cannot be withheld forever. It would, for example, be difficult to argue that submissions by a broadcaster 6 years ago have any relation to the current commercial scene and are still commercially sensitive.

Content Board Minutes can be found here: http://www.ofcom.org.uk/about/how-ofcom-...-meetings/
but only cover the period 22/05/07 to 11/1/10. Older material has been removed and there is almost nothing from last year.

By the way, one reason many links no longer work is because the Ofcom website was severely redesigned a while back. How anyone finds anything these days with stupid popup menus is a mystery.

The following is interesting and might still apply:

Quote:http://www.ofcom.org.uk/about/csg/ocb/co...nutes_32nd
Minutes of the Thirty Second Meeting of the Ofcom Content Board, held at Riverside House on 10 & 11 October 2005
Disclosure of Content Board Minutes
31. The Content Board NOTED that in September 2005 Ofcom had been informed by the Information Commissioner (‘IC’) that an appeal against our decision to withhold Content Board minutes had been lodged. It was NOTED that although the IC had not yet made a decision on the application of sections 22 and 36 exemptions to Board Minutes, it was understood from informal discussions that section 22 should only be used when there was an agreed date or proposed period after which the information requested would be published and section 36 had a limited life and should not be used as a blanket exemption although it may apply to specific sections of information rather than the entire set of minutes. Members NOTED that the informal indication from the IC’s office was that Ofcom may be required to release the requested Board minutes. However, it was NOTED that the IC had intimated that if Ofcom changed its policy and decided to release full minutes subject to minimal redactions at an agreed reasonable interval after the meetings, this would be an acceptable response.
32. The Content Board considered the three policy options presented and RECOMMENDED that Ofcom should adopt the following policy:
Continue to publish notes of meetings, but release the full minutes after an agreed period (subject to any redactions because of FOI exemptions applicable at that date), of 6 months after the meeting.
Members considered whether the period of six months was appropriate, and AGREED that any period less than six months was too short to cover controversial or sensitive material and the amount of redactions necessary would be onerous to manage. It was NOTED that the IC believed that the section 22 exemption was unlikely to apply to any period longer than six months. Members NOTED that Ofcom would need to incorporate this change of policy in its publication scheme.

(Path: Home > About > How Ofcom Is Run > Content Board > Minutes...)

It's not for Ofcom to govern what the minors in this country get up to or not. Responsibility rests solely on the parents or guardians. Ofcom don't like porn that's the problem here but they should not be allowed to pass judgement. All the necessary procedures are in place on every single sky box. If it's the freeview box's that are the stumbling block here than pure and simple Ofcom should hound the manufacturers of these box's instead of the broadcasters. All and every new box sold now must have a parental control button on it and that should be the end of it.