New Ofcom Rules

(24-06-2012 15:18 )Censorship :-( Wrote:  Ahh, but you're being reasonable, and logical - completely foreign concepts to 'Ofcon', I'm afraid.

Ah good point censorship, we have common sense, and Ofcom don't no the meaning of the word

(24-06-2012 15:25 )continental19 Wrote:  

(24-06-2012 15:18 )Censorship :-( Wrote:  Ahh, but you're being reasonable, and logical - completely foreign concepts to 'Ofcon', I'm afraid.

Ah good point censorship, we have common sense, and Ofcom don't no the meaning of the word

Ofcoms handling of Ed Richards application for the BBC Director General job has resulted in some criticism for percieved potential conflict of interest over several investigations impacting the BBC. A bit of common sense could have resulted in better handling.
http://www.babeshows.co.uk/showthread.ph...832&page=3

The whole quango is run by ninnies - has been from the day it was established and the assertion that is independent and not instructed by government is nonsense.
I can't wait til they get their teeth into VOD - that can't be too far off. In recent months I've been watching lovefilm on the xbox.
Among the fully 'contextualised nudity' such delights as Emmanuelle in America (full penetration, blowjobs, cunnilingus and complete with horse wanking scene ... I kid you not), Bare Behind Bars (penetration, 69, blowjobs) Baise Moi and Anatomy of Hell (enough said), Destricted (how avante garde) and lots more.
Think someone must have been tipped off about the 'animal content' as that particular title has been removed.
The political climate of conservatism plays straight into the hands of our censorial chums in Southwark. Unfortunately, you chaps aren't delivering the profits for the babe channels - their user base is somewhat younger and whether there is nudity or not, there will always be a stream of teenagers ready to text and phone the girls.
Ofcoms ambiguity provides the channels with an optimum business model - all cock tease with no pay off. Suits the channels down to the ground, so much so that they will accept censure every couple of years and not ever appeal in a court of law. Vote with your feet and fuck em all. There's far better content out there.

Bit worrying if a BBFC certified film is removed from their library because it is a not family friendly. Most adults I know dont want to live their lives in some Disney Waltons safe zone but be part of a grown up world where drinking, swearing and sex happen.

I refuse to buy from retailers that dont have a top shelf. Theres a newsagents near me without, it gets none of my business. Its all very well the shopkeeper saying its a family shop, I want reasonable steps to stop kids seeing porn, but apart from that the shopkeeper should not be dictating what their customers read. Gay News? Sorry, this is Christian shop. Horse racing magazines? Sorry, we are Muslims and dont believe in gambling. Irish Times? But we are Unionists. National Geographic? Sorry sir, we are Arab and they persist in writing about the "Persian" Gulf. Radio Times? No way, we are Man Utd fans and are boycotting the BBC until they apologise to Sir Alex. Guardian? No way, we dont like social workers and teachers.

Sad thing is the babe channels should be media giants. Desmond made a billion from porn mags. The market has moved away from mags. If TV had strong content they could easily get 1% of the adult population to pay £10 a month just on TV channel subs - £48 million a year turnover before a single premium rate call. What are they turning over now? A tenth of that? Slightly above breakeven.

(07-12-2011 00:55 )eccles Wrote:  Thought these might be of interest:

ASSOCIATION FOR TELEVISION ON DEMAND
Minutes 29 September 2010
Item 4 - Minutes of previous meeting:
"“PJ met with Stuart Purvis (Ofcom) regarding the implications of the guidance the CPS had published for prosecutors which suggested that R18 and equivalent material which is accessible to children on line is likely to be considered obscene under the Obscene Publication Act.
PJ had also attended a round table discussion with enforcement agencies, Ministry of Justice, DMCS, and Ofcom on the same issue."
http://www.atvod.co.uk/uploads/files/Boa...290910.pdf

and

Sexually Explicit Material and Video On Demand Services
A Report to DCMS by Ofcom
4 August 2011
According to this surveys in 2009 and 2005 found some acceptance of stronger sexual material, but only with access controls (paras 6.19 to 6.23).
They commissioned Dr Guy Cumberbatch to review existing research in 2010.

It was concluded that while there is no firm evidence that R18 material harms children, it is not possible to perform experiments for ethical reasons, so this cannot be ruled out (para 7.5).
http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binarie...al-vod.pdf

Hello all,

I'm a new member with an interest in censorship, here in the British Isles.

The statement above about supposed "ethical" reasons preventing scientific "experiments" (by which I assume they mean standard sociological research - even their terminology is biased) is a fraud.

It amounts to - we have a negative view of porn - therefore we don't want kids seeing porn so we won't allow them to see porn even in a carefully controlled environment especially if the results of this research would undermine our fixed view that porn is bad for children or adults.

Dr. Guy Cumberbatch is a respected social scientist, but as the head of the UK Drugs Advisory Panel found out when he ranked tobacco and alcohol alongside drugs like heroin and cocaine, the authorities only want to hear or see evidence that suits their predetermined policy, in this case, doing their utmost to restrict porn and sexy images (music videos etc) as much as they can.

IMO the only changes in a liberal direction will come from court challenges and not from elected politicians or their employees in the various quangos. The quangos are not independent, if that was the case, Ferman would not have been forced out at the BBFC for passing 'normal' hardcore at R18 as the law permitted.

I haven't signed the Ofcom petition as I am a resident of Southern Ireland and it requires a UK address.

I'm pessimistic about the chances of its success however it is important to stand up for what one believes, for what is right, regardless of whether one is successful or not.

Never mind porn they are even censoring episodes of Morse. The foul and disgustiung word "bugger" was cut from a recent episode.

(10-07-2012 05:58 )Norvik_1602 Wrote:  

(07-12-2011 00:55 )eccles Wrote:  Thought these might be of interest:

ASSOCIATION FOR TELEVISION ON DEMAND
Minutes 29 September 2010
Item 4 - Minutes of previous meeting:
"“PJ met with Stuart Purvis (Ofcom) regarding the implications of the guidance the CPS had published for prosecutors which suggested that R18 and equivalent material which is accessible to children on line is likely to be considered obscene under the Obscene Publication Act.
PJ had also attended a round table discussion with enforcement agencies, Ministry of Justice, DMCS, and Ofcom on the same issue."
http://www.atvod.co.uk/uploads/files/Boa...290910.pdf

and

Sexually Explicit Material and Video On Demand Services
A Report to DCMS by Ofcom
4 August 2011
According to this surveys in 2009 and 2005 found some acceptance of stronger sexual material, but only with access controls (paras 6.19 to 6.23).
They commissioned Dr Guy Cumberbatch to review existing research in 2010.

It was concluded that while there is no firm evidence that R18 material harms children, it is not possible to perform experiments for ethical reasons, so this cannot be ruled out (para 7.5).
http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binarie...al-vod.pdf

Hello all,

I'm a new member with an interest in censorship, here in the British Isles.

The statement above about supposed "ethical" reasons preventing scientific "experiments" (by which I assume they mean standard sociological research - even their terminology is biased) is a fraud.

It amounts to - we have a negative view of porn - therefore we don't want kids seeing porn so we won't allow them to see porn even in a carefully controlled environment especially if the results of this research would undermine our fixed view that porn is bad for children or adults.

Dr. Guy Cumberbatch is a respected social scientist, but as the head of the UK Drugs Advisory Panel found out when he ranked tobacco and alcohol alongside drugs like heroin and cocaine, the authorities only want to hear or see evidence that suits their predetermined policy, in this case, doing their utmost to restrict porn and sexy images (music videos etc) as much as they can.

IMO the only changes in a liberal direction will come from court challenges and not from elected politicians or their employees in the various quangos. The quangos are not independent, if that was the case, Ferman would not have been forced out at the BBFC for passing 'normal' hardcore at R18 as the law permitted.

I haven't signed the Ofcom petition as I am a resident of Southern Ireland and it requires a UK address.

I'm pessimistic about the chances of its success however it is important to stand up for what one believes, for what is right, regardless of whether one is successful or not.

I just don't get their way of thinking! What is so harmful about letting us see a normal female body part, even if just full frontal? That way the women will be able to put on better shows, without having to get yelled at everytime they get close to having a slip. It's ridiculous and offensive to suggest that a vagina is harmful!

(10-07-2012 05:58 )Norvik_1602 Wrote:  

(07-12-2011 00:55 )eccles Wrote:  Thought these might be of interest:

ASSOCIATION FOR TELEVISION ON DEMAND
Minutes 29 September 2010
Item 4 - Minutes of previous meeting:
...

Hello all,

I'm a new member with an interest in censorship, here in the British Isles.

The statement above about supposed "ethical" reasons preventing scientific "experiments" (by which I assume they mean standard sociological research - even their terminology is biased) is a fraud.
...
I haven't signed the Ofcom petition as I am a resident of Southern Ireland and it requires a UK address.

I'm pessimistic about the chances of its success however it is important to stand up for what one believes, for what is right, regardless of whether one is successful or not.

Hi, welcome aboard. All contributions welcome.

Research should be possible, R18 on TV is legal in most of the EU, it should be possible to interview young adults who accessed R18 when younger and do a comparative study of their well being. It is not necessary to deliberately expose a group of children to extreme material and see if they are harmed.

The petition is one way of showing solid support, 725 votes now, but not the only way. The more the merrier.

(11-07-2012 01:02 )eccles Wrote:  ...
Research should be possible, R18 on TV is legal in most of the EU, it should be possible to interview young adults who accessed R18 when younger and do a comparative study of their well being. It is not necessary to deliberately expose a group of children to extreme material and see if they are harmed.
...

I remember many years ago I attended a talk given by someone who was involved in the very early studies into whether exposure to violent films had harmful effects, back in the era when 'video nasties' were all the rage.
Their early studies indicated no measurable effect was evident, which clearly wasn't the result those who commissioned the study wanted. The group got kicked off the study before it could be concluded, and had their offices 'raided' and all their work relating to the study removed!
Soon after that 'new' studies emerged which indicated that watching violent videos led to violent crime, how convenient.

So don't trust any such 'research' to be entirely accurate

Quote:Research should be possible, R18 on TV is legal in most of the EU, it should be possible to interview young adults who accessed R18 when younger and do a comparative study of their well being. It is not necessary to deliberately expose a group of children to extreme material and see if they are harmed.

It does seem extraordinary that when far harder material is freely available on television in nearly every other country in the EU British youngsters should supposedly be so adversely affected by something as comparatively tame as the Babe channels. It is, of course, nonsense with the agenda dictated by The Daily Mail and The Express rather than by fact-based evidence or (that old favourite) 'generally acceptable public standards).

There is no doubt in my mind that youngsters are becoming sexualised today in a manner unknown by earlier generations, at least partially due to extremely poor parenting. But when they can access any sort of material they want through their phones or computers people should realise that the cat is already well and truly out of the bag and the sight of a stray nipple on Masti Chat at four in the afternoon is not likely to be the slightest bit of interest to them.

My point is that in getting so upset about any sort of slight censorship of the FTA Babe channels, would should really exercise the 'free choice' lobby is the censorship of the subscription channels which are not permitted to air material which is perfectly legal in the UK on a platform closely protected by subscription and pin access considerations. That is the real scandal of censorship IMHO.