Viewer Expectations : Audience Survey

Certainly making interesting reading this thread. Whilst i admit i'm not too concerned about any possible "outcome" due to only watching the dayshows, i am intrigued by the merits of all the points being put across.

Having said this, i certainly agree with the disgust of Ofcom's inconsistency, at the very least, by not acting on the complaint(s) about the Morning Show issue.

Perhaps there should be an influx of complaints about that programme from the members of this board. Ofcom would certainly then have to take note and/or act. Possibly also stating the/your disgust of Ofcom's tirade against the Babechannels, specifically using the "dildo" example as a direct comparison.

Ofcom, by their very nature, would have to respond.. one way or the other - it is a duty of a government dept.

(17-03-2010 18:42 )SxciiSooky Wrote:  

(17-03-2010 13:37 )MARCCE Wrote:  which although you say you're not misunderstanding but you quite patently are

Have none of you even stopped to comprehend the fact that many of the girls themselves do not want to go any further than they currently are?

Quite right. Some - many - girls working on the softest of softcore shows are doing so because they choose to work in that sector. And there are plenty of secretaries who would be deeply uncomfortable working as fashion models, engineers, mountain rescuers, etc.

There are also women out there working in strip bars etc who have no issues with explicit nudity who would jump at the chance. Change the work and you change the people its good for.

(17-03-2010 21:49 )schmoo Wrote:  Ofcom, by their very nature, would have to respond.. one way or the other - it is a duty of a government dept.

Is Ofcom a government dept?

(18-03-2010 01:32 )H-H Wrote:  

(17-03-2010 18:42 )SxciiSooky Wrote:  

(17-03-2010 13:37 )MARCCE Wrote:  which although you say you're not misunderstanding but you quite patently are

Have none of you even stopped to comprehend the fact that many of the girls themselves do not want to go any further than they currently are?

Quite right. Some - many - girls working on the softest of softcore shows are doing so because they choose to work in that sector. And there are plenty of secretaries who would be deeply uncomfortable working as fashion models, engineers, mountain rescuers, etc.

There are also women out there working in strip bars etc who have no issues with explicit nudity who would jump at the chance.

Not to mention, of course, the girls on these channels who already work in the hardcore industry. However, I don't recall it ever being suggested during this debate that every girl on these channels - regardless of her wishes - should be made to get ruder should the opportunity arise. This is merely an asumption on your part, SxciiSooky, and an incorrect one at that.

I think Sooky's just spoiling for a fight for some reason, wilfully misunderstanding and misrepresenting the argument and throwing up numerous strawmen in defence. Attention seeking at its worst.

To others who want to propose the strawmen counter arguments we've already seen in these threads, let me save you the bother:

No we're not saying we want to see hours of close up penetration,
No we're not saying we want all the babe channels to be hardcore,
No we're not saying that the models should be railroaded into performing beyond their comfort zone,
No we're not saying that the models must swear like dockers at every opportunity.

To reiterate, the expectation being referred to is not based on what the current channels are currently offering, it's based on what they should be allowed to offer (not forced to offer) in the context of an adult zone of the epg, lockable and hideable by parents, in keeping with European law and recognising that this is the 21st century in a western secular society.

Personally I would like to see more freedom for the channels in how far they go so that genuine choice will be on offer to the viewer. Whilst keeping the channels in the realm of softcore I think that this freedom should extend to occasional full frontal views, should the channel wish.

I also want to see an end to the victimisation of these channels by Ofcom simply because they're easy targets, especially when that policy is based on poorly considered, hypocritical and contradictory arguments.

(18-03-2010 08:35 )elgar1uk Wrote:  Is Ofcom a government dept?

I better clear up this issue before it's get off topic etc.

I apologise, my wording wasn't quite correct.. it's not a government dept. in the true sense. However, it is a government appointed body. Ofcom was set up from the creation of Communications Act of 2002 and whilst it runs independently of the government, it answers to Parliament.

The chairman et al are appointed by the Secretary of State.. and as such, the "government" could shut Ofcom down if it so wishes.

With this little amendment to what i said in my earlier post, everything else I stand by.

^^^Just to add to the above post^^^

The Ofcom Broadcast Code has never been laid before Parliament and therefore is not law and can only be used as a guide and should comply to current legislation, specifically the EU Television Without Frontiers directive and subsequent DCMS directives.

The Broadcasting Code is simply a set of guidelines and nothing more as it is not on the Statute Books and has not been laid before Parliament.

If you want me to stop interfering with your 'campaign', then if somebody would be so kind as to answer the points I make, rather than nitpick a couple of random points so as to appear to be responding, but really addressing nothing.

I'll reiterate the key points that nobody has even hinted at an answer to:

1)

SxciiSooky Wrote:If you must have issue, take it up with the pin protected, subscription based 'porn' channels

I would expect porn from them - instead of the watered down stuff they broadcast.

2)

SxciiSooky Wrote:have none of you considered the fact that the shows themselves may well not want to be too explicit? What would be the point in having more explicit photos etc available on their subscription websites if you could see it for free on the tv?

3)

SxciiSooky Wrote:Also, having had a glance over the BACVA blog a few nights ago and subsequently looking at it now - I find it interesting that particular non supportive posts that were made on one of the entries are now 'absent'....now who is guilty of censorship?

It's easy to try and dismiss a difference of opinion as "spoiling for a fight", but how about you actually try and address the points made, rather than hiding behind what is fast becoming little more than 'soundbites'.

In regards to the issue of content - a softcore film is totally different from a live show. The babechannels are classed as softcore. While softcore may include an element of genitalia on display, as a rule it tends not to, relying instead on the hint or suggestion rather than the full reveal. Softcore does not, however, display 'aroused' genitalia. While this can be controlled in a pre-recorded film, it can not be in a live environment.

(18-03-2010 13:44 )SxciiSooky Wrote:  I'll reiterate the key points that nobody has even hinted at an answer to:

1) If you must have issue, take it up with the pin protected, subscription based 'porn' channels

I would expect porn from them - instead of the watered down stuff they broadcast.

Wanting to answer this question as best I can, I have been searching for the last hour to try and find the Ofcom document that details the meeting between the UK based subscription channels and Ofcom from several years ago where they struck the deal to agree not challenge Ofcom's code in court.

Unfortunately, as the names of the broadcasters attending was withheld at their request it is pretty much "unsearchable".

I had previously bookmarked it, but it is no longer at that page.

Can anyone help?

(18-03-2010 13:44 )SxciiSooky Wrote:  If you want me to stop interfering with your 'campaign', then if somebody would be so kind as to answer the points I make, rather than nitpick a couple of random points so as to appear to be responding, but really addressing nothing.

I, for one, do not want you to stop commenting, your voice is one of the most valuable as you are on friendly terms with people both in-front of the camera and behind the scenes on various channels. How they feel about the campaign is of the highest relavance.

SxciiSooky Wrote:I'll reiterate the key points that nobody has even hinted at an answer to:

1) If you must have issue, take it up with the pin protected, subscription based 'porn' channels

I would expect porn from them - instead of the watered down stuff they broadcast.

Hopefully when and if the link I need materialises it should add weight to this:

The broadcasters of subscription based 'porn' channels are happy with Ofcom's stance. They do not want to change their current output. They are content to pay the fines that are issued.

From time to time Ofcom will fine subscription based 'porn' channels.
If they refuse to pay the fine then Ofcom will threaten to remove their broadcast license.
If it goes to court there will be all the publicity of how you can legally see much stronger material than they are currently showing.

A Judge would rule in the channels favour. Why?:

The Department of Culture Media and Sport state that "In order to encourage free movement of broadcasts, all broadcasting must comply with the European Directive, "Television Without Frontiers" or TVWF. Broadcasting matters covered by the Directive include sports rights, right of reply, advertising, sponsorship and protection of minors."

Article 22:
1. Member States shall take appropriate measures to ensure that television broadcasts by broadcasters under their jurisdiction do not include any programmes which might seriously impair the physical, mental or moral development of minors, in particular programmes that involve pornography or gratuitous violence.

2. The measures provided for in paragraph 1 shall also extend to other programmes which are likely to impair the physical, mental or moral development of minors, except where it is ensured, by selecting the time of the broadcast or by any technical measure, that minors in the area of transmission will not normally hear or see such broadcasts.

3. Furthermore, when such programmes are broadcast in unencoded form Member States shall ensure that they are preceded by an acoustic warning or are identified by the presence of a visual symbol throughout their duration.

So by explicit instruction from the DCMS, the above, from the TVWF Directive, must comply with the Broadcast Code and current Broadcast Legislation.

Ofcom's "code" says that R18 can not be broadcast.
However:

Now the High Court said that R18 is not obscene and not likely to seriously impair the moral or psychological development of minors. That is the current legal position, it is now a matter of Case Law and legal precedent made at a Judicial Review. And then subsequently ignored by the Ofcom Code.

Article 22(2) extending to 22(1), says that programmes that are `only` likely to impair minors, can be transmitted at an appropriate time when minors are unlikely to be viewing OR, where technical measures prevent likely access.

The PIN system is deemed effective in allowing violent films to go out at times of the day when children ARE likely to be viewing but, deemed totally ineffective for late night broadcasting of R18 type material when minors are NOT likely to be viewing. Now `porn` and `violence` are not allowed to appear together at R18, and the BBFC enforce that rule with truly religious passion. So exactly what did the Ofcom Content Board Members find so `strong`that in their opinion R18 was more harmful to minors than either the BBFC allow or, the High Court could find evidence for?

22(2) actually states that if there is only a likelihood that children could be impaired by certain material, but not `seriously` then, the transmission can go ahead at an appropriate time or at any time where technical measures permit pre-watershed broadcast. For a decision to ban R18 to be legal, it has to be accompanied by proof that there is a likelihood of `serious` impairment, which currently, simply does not exist.

Article 2(3) TVWF requires member states do not restrict the retransmission of TV programming originating in other EU states as long as it meets TVWF rules. ... In this way the TVWF creates a single market in the EU TV industry. So, as none of the foreign adult services (bar one) have been proscribed since 2000, we must assume that these services do indeed comply with the TVWF rules else the DCMS would have acted to proscribe them.

It follows then that Ofcom cannot have applied the TVWF rules correctly and indeed have created an isolated market actively excluding `EU strength` adult channels being carried by domestic cable and satellite services. This quite obviously goes against the stated objectives of TVWF to create a single market and, affects those `fundamental public interests` such as Freedom of Expression with regard to TV broadcasting.

So why wouldn't subscription based channels want this case presented before a court?

The simple answer is that it would break their current monopoly, the two main broadcasters have the hold on that monopoly. Rival channels would be able to start up in the knowledge that they are free to broadcast R18. It would dent the £200,000,000 a year that the "big two" currently turn over.

SxciiSooky Wrote:have none of you considered the fact that the shows themselves may well not want to be too explicit? What would be the point in having more explicit photos etc available on their subscription websites if you could see it for free on the tv?

Ofcom state that Bang Babes were too explicit. That is why Ofcom issued a formal directive against them a few days ago. I can only assume that Bang Babes wanted to broadcast at these levels. Are Ofcom justified in saying that their output was too explicit? I guess that is what the BACVA is asking.

SxciiSooky Wrote:Also, having had a glance over the BACVA blog a few nights ago and subsequently looking at it now - I find it interesting that particular non supportive posts that were made on one of the entries are now 'absent'....now who is guilty of censorship?

Hopefully someone at the BACVA will choose to answer this.

SxciiSooky Wrote:It's easy to try and dismiss a difference of opinion as "spoiling for a fight", but how about you actually try and address the points made, rather than hiding behind what is fast becoming little more than 'soundbites'.

In regards to the issue of content - a softcore film is totally different from a live show. The babechannels are classed as softcore. While softcore may include an element of genitalia on display, as a rule it tends not to, relying instead on the hint or suggestion rather than the full reveal. Softcore does not, however, display 'aroused' genitalia. While this can be controlled in a pre-recorded film, it can not be in a live environment.

I don't think the BACVA are campaigning for full on R18 strength to be shown on ftv Babe Channels. However Ofcom suggest that "simulated" masturbation and "simulated" oral masturbation (ie licking a phone!) should not be shown. I think that is the type of scenario that the BACVA are taking issue with.