Is Ofcom Fit For Purpose

(22-03-2010 16:16 )Digital Dave Wrote:  You make an interesting distinction but to be honest Ofcom are even affronted by scenarios that are obviously simulated.

Time after time you read in their salacious reports that e.g. 'the female presenter, scantily clad in a minuscule thong, appeared to simulate fellatio'.

So when something's obviously mimed (especially given that there's no man on the bed with the presenter!) it's still offensive to Ofcom. There's just no pleasing them.

I'd like to know what they consider 18 rated. Obviously full frontal nudity is hardcore to them, because they state that after 10pm or 12pm, that it's an 18 rated show with the intent to arouse, but that it can't be hardcore. So is hardcore fully nude to them or are they just crazy. I don't care about seeing hardcore material, just full frontal.

Digital Dave, as you know, the issues with phone sex channels is a different ball game... There's the problems with advertising premium rate services, and the verbal/visual content/context issues. Even though OFCOM know full well they would not allow the verbal content on free-to-air, they use this issue as a way to clamp down on the visual content, which is a total contradiction. It's all been done over countless times...

Personally, I've never really liked the format that much, but I think OFCOM should ease up on them a bit...

This is how useless Ofcom are, they can broadcast " Hostel : Part 2 " which graphically shows the removal of male genitalia on channel5 and yet full frontal nudity is not allowed on the babechannels.

(23-03-2010 03:19 )amandasnumerounofan Wrote:  This is how useless Ofcom are, they can broadcast " Hostel : Part 2 " which graphically shows the removal of male genitalia on channel5 and yet full frontal nudity is not allowed on the babechannels.

Ofcom's argument will be that it wasn't real male genitalia on Hostal 2.

(23-03-2010 03:44 )seth Wrote:  

(23-03-2010 03:19 )amandasnumerounofan Wrote:  This is how useless Ofcom are, they can broadcast " Hostel : Part 2 " which graphically shows the removal of male genitalia on channel5 and yet full frontal nudity is not allowed on the babechannels.

Ofcom's argument will be that it wasn't real male genitalia on Hostal 2.

My argument is that it looked real enough but I do understand your point and just wish Ofcom would fuck off the babechannels back.

Boxing - not real, right?
or Jackass - didn't Steve O go on TV saying he now has to use a catheter due to perforating has bladder in a TV stunt?
Dirty Sanchez - didn't someone's ear get torn off from sticking a fish hook through it, tying it to a weight and throwing the weight off a bridge?

How about the very real suffering caused by X Factor? And that's just the audience.

What about Rugby or Football injuries?
How many horses die each year in the Grand National?

On Saturday I watched Jeremy Clarkson drive a 30 tonne lorry into a brick wall, risk whiplash, apparently get struck in the face by brick fragments and have his ankle "popped" by a pedal.

And don't even get me started on "What Katie Did Next".

Seriously though, of course it is possible to find examples of extreme porn and argue that the content is real and unpleasant. But that is not the same as women parading around naked, exposing themselves or even having straight consentual sex - things they do normally to some degree.

I agree with what everyone is saying on this thread, but I suppose that we also have to accept that Ofcom is largely responding to complaints that they receive.

It therefore begs the question why is it that Joe Public seems very keen to complain about comparatively minor sexual matters on a adult channel, but is quite happy to say nothing about the examples that H-H gives?

If it wasn't for these channels i'm sure there would be a lot more pervs on the streets instead of staying at home to call a pretty girl who is getting paid to listen to their filth, these channels perform a service much like the NHS,very much so when the girls are dressed as nurses. My grandad fought in a war to give us the freedom to watch oiled up naked women grinding against each other (amongst other things) and we should be allowed to do so out of respect for those who lost their lives protecting our freedom. Ofcom say they are only doing their jobs well so did the Nazis and look how that ended up,and what about the likes of Eastenders and the other soaps teaching kids that the heart of any community is the local pub,alcohol does more damage than a couple of greased up girls kissing each other,and who are these people who complain? if one girl touching another girl offends them why the fuck are they watching adult channels,i know sometimes one channel complains about another channel but thats just stupid i mean this is England there are plenty of pervs for every channel,just stop all this complaining and let us have the filth we want,and thats my last word on the subject i'm off to watch some of this so called filth because thats what grandad would have wanted.

(24-03-2010 22:44 )Sootbag1 Wrote:  I agree with what everyone is saying on this thread, but I suppose that we also have to accept that Ofcom is largely responding to complaints that they receive.

It therefore begs the question why is it that Joe Public seems very keen to complain about comparatively minor sexual matters on a adult channel, but is quite happy to say nothing about the examples that H-H gives?

Well said.

Why does Ofcom feel the need to appease the complainers? I think it's very unlikely that anyone offended by these channels would pursue legal action against them, so why would Ofcom buckle to their complaints? Can't they just tell the people not to watch if they are offended, or to keep a better eye on their children so that they aren't staying up late and watching the show? I can't believe Ofcom are afraid of a small group of uptight people, when they really shouldn't be complaining at all! This is supposed to be an 18 rated channel, and 18 rated means that full frontal nudity is allowed! The complainers are OK with seeing two women lick each others breasts, smack their asses, kiss each other, but can't bare the site of a woman's vagina or anus. Everybody knows what they look like, and anyone can go online and see whatever the hell they want, so this is very tame in comparison.

These complainers should Put a block on these channels, make sure their kids are in bed, be better parents, and if these channels offend them, then they should STOP watching them!!!

This world is crazy

Hi folks, I did a bit of digging around the legal aspects of the Appeals Court ruling to pay child support to the family (not residing in the UK) of a foreign national who was working in the UK but is now claiming incapacity benefit in the UK.

According to EU treaties, UK courts MUST confer rights granted in EC Directives above all contradictory domestic legislation. So, whereas the UK has legislation which denies payment of child benefit for any child not resident in the UK for that week, this is superceded by the EC Directive that says the family are entitled to all benefits even if not resident in the UK where the income provider is working/receiving benefits in the UK.

What's all this got to do with Ofcom being unfiit for purpose?

Well now, Ofcom stated on several occasions that the TVWF did not permit a ban on the broadcast and reception of R18-type material. The TVWF Directive thus grants, confers and preserves the right to Freedom of Expression unless concrete evidence of "serious impariment to minors" prevents it. There is no such evidence - R18 would not be on sale on video/DVD for consumption in the home where children might come into contact with it if it were a serious threat to their physical, mental or moral development - the law/courts/BBFC etc. simply would not allow it (see the High Court ruling against the BBFC in 2000 for details).

So, by placing their perceived 'duty' to "protect" some unknown "vulnerable people" according to the Comms Act above the strict test in the TVWF and thereby crush Freedom of Expression and deny the Rights confered by the TVWF Directive to broadcast (safe) R18-type material, Ofcom have not abided by the "generally accepted standards" of European Community law and treaties.