+- The UK Babe Channels Forum (https://www.babeshows.co.uk)
+-- Forum: Channels (/forumdisplay.php?fid=8)
+--- Forum: UK Babe Channels (/forumdisplay.php?fid=9)
+---- Forum: Broadcasting Regulations (/forumdisplay.php?fid=138)
+---- Thread: Ofcom Discussion (/showthread.php?tid=14756)
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394
RE: Ofcom Discussion - mrmann - 09-01-2011 15:47
(09-01-2011 15:03 )StanTheMan Wrote: Re. Pants Off, Dance Off. It may well have been uncencored on VIVA, burnt toast, but it certainly isn't on MTV or wherever it is they show it on Sky. In fact it's little more than an advert for the MTV website as when it comes to the 'pants off' part, the picture freezes and you get a message saying, "Wanna see more? Visit (website) for the full strip..." - or words to that effect.
You are right Stan. There were only glimpses of the penises when the men had taken their underwear off and tucked it between their legs, but bare asses were shown for a few of the men, and even some breasts. Maybe not much genital content, but still a bit hypocritical.
RE: Ofcom Discussion - burnt toast - 09-01-2011 17:57
(09-01-2011 15:03 )StanTheMan Wrote: Re. Pants Off, Dance Off. It may well have been uncencored on VIVA, burnt toast, but it certainly isn't on MTV or wherever it is they show it on Sky. In fact it's little more than an advert for the MTV website as when it comes to the 'pants off' part, the picture freezes and you get a message saying, "Wanna see more? Visit (website) for the full strip..." - or words to that effect.
I'm not sure it was uncensored, there was messages about seeing more on the mtv site. It was around 14 months ago when it was shown on VIVA so could've been further edited since then.
RE: Ofcom Discussion - eccles - 09-01-2011 21:28
(09-01-2011 01:35 )StanTheMan Wrote: Sorry, eccles, I'm not sure if that's meant to be taken as a serious theory to Ofcom's logic Re. context, or purley ironically.
Either way it still doesn't explain - given that children can't be expected to understand context - why Ofcom think explicit nudity is harmful if shown on a babeshow, but not if in some 'controversial' film.
Not intended to explain anything about Ofcom. I was just trying to say that "context" makes some sense when talking aout a serious documentary, but I am much more skeptical when people use it as an excuse for sex/nudity in drama, film, flangumentatries on Bravo, Living, Five.
RE: Ofcom Discussion - nailpouchofmine - 09-01-2011 23:24
(09-01-2011 21:28 )eccles Wrote: Not intended to explain anything about Ofcom. I was just trying to say that "context" makes some sense when talking aout a serious documentary, but I am much more skeptical when people use it as an excuse for sex/nudity in drama, film, flangumentatries on Bravo, Living, Five.
To me it matters not ,whether it be documentory,drama,film or just for the sake of it,good fucking luck to these programmes and I hope to see lots more.
It is the only way forward that I can see,where there will become a time that nudity and sex will be a normal part of life.
Because at this moment in time it seems that the mere sight of genitals on tv throws all the British population into despair!
God knows, if these people that were so quick to complain actualy lived in another part of europe,their complaints would be laughed at, and `They `would be looked at as weirdo`s.
When is this country going to come to its` senses and realise that we are living in the 21st century,that not everyone is a bible carrying,whiter than white Jesus following sheep,and that sex is not a filthy course subject,which is only to be discussed by vile minded people in back alleys and houses of ill repute.
FFS Queen Victoria died a long long time ago and we are still living in the veil of her miserable reign,with some of our pornagaphy laws dating back to her days in power.
Come on Britain,get a grip,if people want to watch pornography,well so be it.
I say to all the moralists this!!!!!!
If I was to complain to Ofcom about all the God channels that are thrust down our throats on Sky tv,and just on the unlikely outcome of that,they actualy did an investigation and found out that there were actualy very few people in this country that did go to church and that these channels were in fact preaching to a load of people that were not even there watching their channel.
So Ofcom decided that because I have made a complaint[Me,1 person] that these channels should be fined £??????? because they have upset ME!
Then I wonder...just wonder.......
RE: Ofcom Discussion - eccles - 12-01-2011 01:48
Child gets Saw 3D advert banned
A TV trailer advertising the film Saw 3D has been banned after a 10-year-old complained that it was "distressing" and "inappropriately scheduled".
It began with a screaming man reaching towards the screen with a bloodied hand and featured images of saw blades.
The unnamed child saw the advert at 2029 in a break during The Gadget Show on Channel Five.
The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) said it was "likely to cause distress to young children".
The ASA ... said images in the advert which depicted people in a cinema "linked the scenes from the film with a recognisably real situation".
BBC
RE: Ofcom Discussion - IanG - 12-01-2011 03:47
@nailpouchofmine, it wasn't Queen Victoria's doing - as a matter of fact she wrote of how much she loved sex in her diaries...and had 10 kids to show for her love of sex.
No, it was the religiously-misguided pricks in Parliament that sought to FORCE the British people to their narrow-minded way of thinking with repressive anti-porn laws and draconian punshiments for offending "common decency".
This is supposed to be a progressive liberal democracy yet, the British mindset is incresingly being FORCED backward into the Victorian era by illiberal TV censors who seemingly answer to NOONE but the religiously misguided fucks that choose to complain about personal 'offence' caused by programmes they're clearly too immature to be fucking watching!
As for everything else you say, I couldn't agree more!
RE: Ofcom Discussion - mrmann - 12-01-2011 13:49
(12-01-2011 01:48 )eccles Wrote: Child gets Saw 3D advert banned
A TV trailer advertising the film Saw 3D has been banned after a 10-year-old complained that it was "distressing" and "inappropriately scheduled".
It began with a screaming man reaching towards the screen with a bloodied hand and featured images of saw blades.
The unnamed child saw the advert at 2029 in a break during The Gadget Show on Channel Five.
The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) said it was "likely to cause distress to young children".
The ASA ... said images in the advert which depicted people in a cinema "linked the scenes from the film with a recognisably real situation".
BBC
I think his parent's probably comlained
Who exactly are Ofcom protecting. - RESPONSIBLE ADULT - 20-01-2011 17:12
Who exactly are Ofcom protecting with this overzealous action on protecting the British public. Have we not had enough of the nanny state butting into every move we make. Could it be that this particular quango has to be seen doing something to justify it's very existence. With all the cuts that are now happening, are they like the rest of us, just fighting for their financial life.
RE: Who exactly are Ofcom protecting. - chrislatimer - 20-01-2011 17:19
there protecting themselves. simple as really covering their own backs incase of lawsuits.
RE: Who exactly are Ofcom protecting. - mrmann - 26-01-2011 22:37
Funny how the adult channels get screwed, yet the trailer for The Mechanic is shown in full gory detail
Let's see:
Head exploding after being shot? Check
Pole through leg? Check
Naked woman with partial buttocks exposed while having sex? Check
Car crash with a pole going through someone's bloody head? Check
Hmmm, interesting.