OFCOM: Bang Babes & The Pad

Rammyrascal · 08-07-2009 19:53

i agree i saw a naked woman at 12:30 till 1 today and it proves ofcom are unfairly targeting the channels. when you can see topless/naked women in newsagents and on tv and ofcom does nothing

killyourself · 08-07-2009 21:33

rickhardo Wrote:I don't think you need to pin protect them (although it might be a compromise measure), there's an option to remove the adult channels altogether on your sky box - if anybody doesn't want them on their service, they can use this option perfectly simply. It's just another example of people being too lazy to look after themselves and their offspring.

Some of you may or may not have noticed that in the change over between The Pad and Bang Babes Bang media run a short public info film informing the public how to lock out adult channels from your sky box,something as I understand is not required by law for adult channels to do but something the company has chosen to do off thier own backs.I don't expect offcom will either praise them or take that into account when they are handing out the next fine.
And to everyone at Bang media,thanks for making the day shows watchable again,and good luck fighting your corner,it's nice to see someone sticking up for themselves for a change and not kissing Offcom butt-eh celcast.

DanVox · 08-07-2009 21:38

Don't for one second think that the Tories would allow the babe channels to be more explicit. Half their supporters are too old to have any sex drive, and many are active in their local Church. Nothing wrong with that, but don't expect them to favour explicit sex. Many of their local activists and committee members look like Anne Widicombe, and make her seem moderate. No Tory MP is going to stand up in front of his local supporters and say he's voting for something they detest. Don't believe me ? What's their record on gay rights ? Sorry, but most AREN'T like Dave "Dave" Cameron.

Sorry for dragging the tone of this forum down by mentioing politics, I won't do it again unless it's strictly relevant.

And PIN protection - yes, if OfCom really wanted to protect kids it would make PIN protection compulsory for babe channels. And it would cost sod all, what costs is subscription, and getting on the Sky EPG in the first place. They could also insist on non-obvious PIN numbers, not the last 4 digits of the card number. The cost would be the cost of one letter, or less.

But OfCom WON'T put these simple child protection measures in place. Whenever a channel is sanctioned, OfCom says PIN protection isn't a defence because it's optional. They wouldn't be able to say that if it was compulsory.

Greatest threat to our kids ? It's OfCom. Write to your MP. Oh bugger, I've done it again.

SuperDirk · 10-07-2009 00:40

Interesting part in that Ofcom report where they actually state:

"Whilst showing a bare breast and nipple before the watershed is not a breach of the
Code where it is justified by context, in this case the sexual nature of this material in
addition to the visibility of the presenter’s breast and nipple meant this partial nudity
was shown in a clearly sexual context."

Wonder by what context they mean?! Sounds like they are talking rubbish/contradicting themselves, otherwise it is ok to show a bare breast and nipple before the watershed as long as the model is not being sexual in any way?! But i guess showing a bare breast is acutally in fact being sexual......im confused Rolleyes

homerdrive · 10-07-2009 07:23

There is a great deal of inconsistency over what is allowed in different situation. The obscenity laws rely on the likelihood of something to "deprave" or "corrupt", and the legal interpretation takes into account how easy it is to find. That was the main plank of the Girls Aloud accused's defence, that his story was effectively hidden in a private newsgroup and so unlikely to deprave or corrupt as no-one would stumble across it and the only people seeing it would be those looking for it, who are presumably already depraved and corrupted. Its content was irrelevant compared to its level of exposure.

The broadcasting code appears therefore to be different; a nipple on a channel in the 900s is only likely to be seen by those looking for sexual content, at any time of day. A nipple on Channel 4 at midday is likely to be happened upon by anyone. If the same standards as the obscenity laws were applied, Bang Babes would be in the clear and C4 would be in trouble.

Also, OFCOM's response is odd. Is sexual programming before the watershed now OK as long as everything's covered? Does that mean that those awful American softcore films where people shag while dressed or bounce up and down with only their head and shoulders showing can be shown through the day? I mean, if material of a sexual nature appears to be OK as long as there's no naughty bits...

killyourself · 10-07-2009 20:46

I think we all have to accept that Offcom dislike this genre of television and while legally they can't ban it just because they don't like it the tactic they've adopted it to bully them into submision.

Scotsman · 10-07-2009 23:12

So, so pathetic. Pathetic that people complain and pathetic that these people waste their time policing such a stupid issue. Why the fuck would children be browsing the 900 channels at anytime, especially lunchtime when they should be at school? The capabilities to block these channels are there anyway.

I love how the 'Decision' section is always 'Yeah we''ve listened to what the channel has to say but we're going to completely ignore it anyway. Breach!'.

KateP · 16-07-2009 16:35

its funny that they ignored the watershed being at 9pm also I have never seen any of the girls as they seem to say with there anal area out

I have always wondered why the channels are not pay per view say £5 a month for all of them and this way they could do more stuff than they can now and if would stop all these prudes who ring ofcom

Threaded Mode \| Linear Mode OFCOM: Bang Babes & The Pad
Author	Message