Quote:Similar to the language clips, respondents were shown each clip in turn and asked to respond to a number of questions contained within a self completion booklet. Questions within the response booklet included:

• Overall level of offence (on a scale of 1-10 where 1=not at all offensive and 10=extremely offensive
• What time the clip should have aired on key channels
• How appropriate the actual transmission time was

As with the language clips, women were far more offended than men in general (though again, it should be pointed out that there was a high proportion of British Asian women in the session, which would have boosted the ‘offensiveness’ rating among women).
Teens and older people (55+) were more likely to be offended than other groups, with the 35-54 year olds being the least likely to be offended overall.
Of all ethnic groups, British Asians were most likely to be offended, with African-Caribbeans and whites having a very similar response overall.

Friendly TV: Babecast 2100

Interactive show available on multi-channel platforms. This clip involved two scantily clad women reading out text messages they were being sent and carrying out what the texts requested them to do. This included turning around and showing their bottoms to the cameras.

Context session response
This clip caused high levels of offence, with almost a half scoring it either 8, 9 or 10.
It was considerably more offensive to women, British Asians, older people and parents of older children than it was to other groups.
A third said that this type of content should never be shown on BBC or ITV and a fifth said it should never be on either Channel 4 or Five.
The time restriction for non-youth targeted digital channels was considered as no earlier than 2200, with a later slot at weekends.
The majority thought the transmission time was not suitable.

Focus group response
While this was thought to be one of the most offensive clips it did not generate much discussion in the focus groups. Many people simply dismissed the clip out of hand as being completely unsuitable for mainstream television at any time, and the personal response findings back this up.
The clip was thought to be both graphically too explicit, and distasteful because of what was happening. For example, the sidebar screens showing women ‘touching themselves’ and this particularly offended some, while the women on the main screen turning round and ‘shaking their arses’ upset others. For many it was also the casualness of the women’s discussion about the length of men’s penises and women’s vaginas which disturbed.

“The language and the way they were displaying and doing.” (Female, parent of younger children, British Asian, C2DE, multi-channel)

“I didn’t like the two girls spinning round showing a little bit of arse.” (Male, non-parent, 18-25, African-Caribbean, C2DE, terrestrial)

“Distasteful, rubbish” (Male, non-parent, 55+, C2DE, multi-channel)

There were just a few who found the clip inoffensive, but even for them, this type of material should be on after 2100 or 2200 even if on a satellite or cable channel, while the majority felt this material should be on a premium or subscription only channel. The focus of their concern, unsurprisingly perhaps, was that if it were on free-to-air satellite or digital channels that children might find it while surfing through channels.

“I would say after midnight, because that thing’s X-rated.” (Male, parent of older children, African-Caribbean, C2DE, terrestrial)

“Not on BBC or the five terrestrials.” (Female, non-parent, 26-34, BC1, multi-channel)

Summary points
• To these participants, imagery which suggests a casual attitude towards sex and which shows sexual display is not acceptable in this type of entertainment/interactive context
• The clear majority view of these participants is that such material should be on subscription channels only and/or confined to late night viewing (after 2200 at the earliest)

(23-12-2011 03:11 )IanG Wrote:  We have a committee of egotistic anti-porn wankstains churning out reams of worthless 'guidance' in response to the pathetic whims of a bunch of small-minded, religiously-corrupted, unreasonable tossers.
[...] they rely solely on hearsay, feelings and other inadmissible bullshit as the supposed 'evidence' to support their unreasonable censorial regime.