+- 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 stoops to a new low. (/showthread.php?tid=21599)
Ofcom stoops to a new low. - vostok 1 - 21-06-2010 13:45
Ofcom received a complaint about "Asian Babes" Sky Channel 949.
The person complaining stated that the show featured full nudity including close-up shots of the presenters genitals, specifically: clear anal and labial detail as well as shots of masturbation with fingers.
Does anyone remember seeing this show? Can anyone recall "Asian Babes" showing close up's?
The channel responded, stating that there was no maturation. No close up's. No nudity. They suggested that the person making the complaint was mistaken, that flesh coloured underwear gave the person complaining the impression that no underwear was being worn.
Ofcom reviewed the footage. Regardless of the inaccuracy of the complaint, they decided to find the channel in breach anyway.
http://www.ofcom.org.uk/tv/obb/prog_cb/obb160/Issue160.pdf
A few forum members have recently said that "The broadcast code is the law of the land"... Is this law being correctly policed?
A little analogy here: Your neighbour reports you for growing cannabis. The police investigate, they find that you are growing tomatoes. They decide to find you guilty anyway. Is that fair?
And why do the Broadcasters continue to go along with this?
RE: Ofcom stoops to a new low. - rickhardo - 21-06-2010 13:50
Now that's ridiculous.
RE: Ofcom stoops to a new low. - mrwotzup - 21-06-2010 13:55
Prehaps this has been asked/covered in another thread if so I aplologise.
Is there not an Appeals procedure ?
RE: Ofcom stoops to a new low. - SOCATOA - 21-06-2010 14:00
Hopefully with all the talk of cuts and reviews, the prima donnas at Ofcom will be right in the fireing line. Wonder if they would manage to cope with a real job, the tossers
RE: Ofcom stoops to a new low. - TheDarkKnight - 21-06-2010 14:04
"After viewing of material between 22:00 and 23:00 it was apparent that the
presenters were wearing flesh coloured underwear. However in Ofcom’s opinion, the
flesh tones of the g-strings were intended by the broadcaster to give the impression
to viewers that they were in fact not wearing underwear, in particular by the presenter
in a red skirt."
So, they got accused of not wearing underwear, OfCom saw that they were wearing underwear, but found them in breach because it looked like they weren't wearing underwear.
Fuckers.
RE: Ofcom stoops to a new low. - TheDarkKnight - 21-06-2010 14:08
(21-06-2010 13:55 )mrwotzup Wrote: Prehaps this has been asked/covered in another thread if so I aplologise.
Is there not an Appeals procedure ?
I've been looking the last couple of days. It seems that the only appeal docs I can find are appeals to OFCOM themselves.
I need to assertain that for certain and get stats on how much an appeal costs as well as how many appeals have been succesful.
Enough rope can hang anyone.
RE: Ofcom stoops to a new low. - Chilly - 21-06-2010 14:14
(21-06-2010 14:04 )TheDarkKnight Wrote: "After viewing of material between 22:00 and 23:00 it was apparent that the
presenters were wearing flesh coloured underwear. However in Ofcom’s opinion, the
flesh tones of the g-strings were intended by the broadcaster to give the impression
to viewers that they were in fact not wearing underwear, in particular by the presenter
in a red skirt."
Erm, or how about the simply fact that some girls just like wearing that colour of underwear. Did they consider that? Nah, because Ofcom always know best. Pathetic!
RE: Ofcom stoops to a new low. - mrwotzup - 21-06-2010 14:27
(21-06-2010 14:04 )TheDarkKnight Wrote: "After viewing of material between 22:00 and 23:00 it was apparent that the
presenters were wearing flesh coloured underwear. However in Ofcom’s opinion, the
flesh tones of the g-strings were intended by the broadcaster to give the impression
to viewers that they were in fact not wearing underwear, in particular by the presenter
in a red skirt."
So, they got accused of not wearing underwear, OfCom saw that they were wearing underwear, but found them in breach because it looked like they weren't wearing underwear.
Fuckers.
Okay prehaps the broadcaster/model sexed it up a bit.....but at the end of the day 'everything' was covered up so how could anyone be offended,no 'naughty bits' could be seen. Madness.
Prehaps Ofcom have become the 'thought' Police.
RE: Ofcom stoops to a new low. - TheDarkKnight - 21-06-2010 14:46
(21-06-2010 14:27 )mrwotzup Wrote: Okay prehaps the broadcaster/model sexed it up a bit.....but at the end of the day 'everything' was covered up so how could anyone be offended,no 'naughty bits' could be seen. Madness.
Prehaps Ofcom have become the 'thought' Police.
I've seen her, I might have even seen the broadcast in question.
You had to watch for quite a while before you saw under her skirt. It was every now and again she'd wiggle about enough for her skirt to raise and give a 'quick flash'.
Maybe she should have just taken the skirt off so it was perfectly clear what she was wearing.
RE: Ofcom stoops to a new low. - TheDarkKnight - 21-06-2010 14:58
On another note...
Keep talking guys.
Although there are a ton of better ways to get things changed than to rabbit on about our grievances on an internet forum, I've noticed that the things we are saying HAVE had an affect on OFCOMs publications. They are now making much more of an effort to *cough* clearly *cough* define the things they are saying and the reasoning behind them.
This is what we want. The more they nail it down and define it, the further they back themselves into a corner. One of their main weapons is ambiguity and us 'clueing them in' to the arguments that they may have to sometime face in front of a judge, forces them to remove some of that ambiguity.
Power to the people. o/