Storm Attacked By Ofcom

Good question. Fact is the channels are sittting ducks for some continental operator to walk all over them. The publisher who started selling hardcore porn mags in newsagents and fought for the right to sell explicit R18 videos made a fortune. Big companies are pretty good at saying they are based abroad for tax purposes, and Ofcom is a pussycat compared to the taxman. If being closed and fined is an issue it really can't be too difficult to set up a group of companies and only operate each one for a short time, preventing fines from kicking in before the company is liquidated. Yes it would cost £2,000+£2,5000 per company but cornering the market would be worth it. One large operator set up 51 local lottery companies to get round rules controlling national lotteries, so these things can work.

Reading the Storm ruling again, one noticeable thing was that Ofcom said the presenter "wore a black thong, under the one piece outfit, and fishnet stockings".

Yup, she wore revealing underwear UNDER her clothing. Im naked under mine.

And fishnet stockings. (The presenter, not me). Apparently any use of fishnets is automativally de rigeur now. Not sure why. They reveal legs? They conceal legs?

(13-09-2012 02:38 )eccles Wrote:  Reading the Storm ruling again, one noticeable thing was that Ofcom said the presenter "wore a black thong, under the one piece outfit, and fishnet stockings".

Maybe Ofcom isn't opposed to tasteful nudity so much as brassy tartery, then! If the shows dropped the more obvious and cliched accroutrements of the sex industry (suspenders, stockings, that whole Ann Summers shtick), and went with a more natural, wholesome vibe, maybe they'd be cut some slack. I'd welcome that sort of development, personally (sick to the back teeth of the amount of nylon on some of the shows).

This is a quote from the recent Storm complaint made.

"From around 21:15, and until at least 21:30, the presenter adopted various sexual positions: she lay on her side with her legs apart (albeit away from camera) while thrusting her body up and down, stroking her breasts and inner thighs and pulling down her top to reveal her cleavage; she moved onto all fours and thrust her bare buttocks (albeit at an angle slightly away from camera) to mime sexual intercourse; and, she knelt upright on her legs and moved her body up and down to mime sexual intercourse. While adopting these positions her outer genital area was briefly visible"

What baffles me is just how fucking offended do you have to be if you choose to continue to watch the channel for another 15 minutes going into minuscule details. If I were that offended by any channel I would reach for the remote and change it immediately. Out of all the SKY Channels there are plenty on there that also offend me, but unlike the complainant I don't go fucking whining to ofcom.

(17-09-2012 17:15 )Scottishbloke Wrote:  This is a quote from the recent Storm complaint made.

"From around 21:15, and until at least 21:30, the presenter adopted various sexual positions: she lay on her side with her legs apart (albeit away from camera) while thrusting her body up and down, stroking her breasts and inner thighs and pulling down her top to reveal her cleavage; she moved onto all fours and thrust her bare buttocks (albeit at an angle slightly away from camera) to mime sexual intercourse; and, she knelt upright on her legs and moved her body up and down to mime sexual intercourse. While adopting these positions her outer genital area was briefly visible"

What baffles me is just how fucking offended do you have to be if you choose to continue to watch the channel for another 15 minutes going into minuscule details. If I were that offended by any channel I would reach for the remote and change it immediately. Out of all the SKY Channels there are plenty on there that also offend me, but unlike the complainant I don't go fucking whining to ofcom.

I'm confused, because I thought this was all allowed, right???

Nope. Models are not allowed to mimic sexual intercourse at any time. It's been this way for at least two years.

Furthermore, as this particular model's costume was see-through her breasts were therefore visible before 10pm, another no-no in Ofcom world.

Storm must be taken from this place and hung by the neck until dead, such is the gravity of their crimes.

Does anyone have a clip of this raunchy show,i have to see what the fuss is about!

Just the fact that storm of all channels are getting fined is comical in its self

Have any other channel been fined for their dayshows lately? Because this makes no kind of sense.

Not being able to mimic sexual intercourse or wearing fishnet stockings!

Well ok, as OFCOM rules say not before 10pm, I can if we have to accept, if being pedantic before 11pm not that I agree with that, but after 11pm and onwards I see quite a lot of the girls can or do mimic intercourse and wear fishnets.

On occasions some rules are rather or are interpreted rather ambiguisly

(17-09-2012 18:53 )babefinder Wrote:  Does anyone have a clip of this raunchy show,i have to see what the fuss is about!

Just the fact that storm of all channels are getting fined is comical in its self

Have any other channel been fined for their dayshows lately? Because this makes no kind of sense.

I have a video, though it starts at around 10pm (topless after a minute or so). I'll post it in the Sarah Louise thread.

Cheers it would be nice to see this "see through" outfit,shame you dont have the bit after 9 o clock.

(17-09-2012 17:15 )Scottishbloke Wrote:  This is a quote from the recent Storm complaint made.

"From around 21:15, and until at least 21:30, the presenter adopted various sexual positions: she lay on her side with her legs apart (albeit away from camera) while thrusting her body up and down, stroking her breasts and inner thighs and pulling down her top to reveal her cleavage; she moved onto all fours and thrust her bare buttocks (albeit at an angle slightly away from camera) to mime sexual intercourse; and, she knelt upright on her legs and moved her body up and down to mime sexual intercourse. While adopting these positions her outer genital area was briefly visible"

What baffles me is just how fucking offended do you have to be if you choose to continue to watch the channel for another 15 minutes going into minuscule details.

I may be wrong, but I believe this is Ofcom's assessment of the recording, not the complainant's description.