Ofcom stoops to a new low.

i dont understand any of this lol
y cant the babes just go back to slipping all the time !!!
it was great entertainment then and i wish ofcom would realize
they really need to chill out a bit more
its only a bit of flirty fun,

(23-06-2010 11:47 )pewack1976 Wrote:  ...its only a bit of flirty fun,

It's NOT!

It's Ebil!

Ebil I tell ya!

RUN!!!

(23-06-2010 00:29 )eccles Wrote:  also from Item 6: "On balance (although the Board was very evenly divided), the Content Board felt that there was insufficient evidence to indicate whether or not the physical, mental or moral development of minors might be seriously impaired by the transmission of such material, and therefore until such evidence was available they should take a cautious approach to this issue"

And of course completely ignoring the high court decision that R18 DVD and magazines HAD to be allowed precisely because there was no evidence of minors being "seriously impaired by the transmission of such material". Seems they deliberately ignored a court ruling there!

(23-06-2010 13:00 )Grawth Wrote:  And of course completely ignoring the high court decision that R18 DVD and magazines HAD to be allowed precisely because there was no evidence of minors being "seriously impaired by the transmission of such material". Seems they deliberately ignored a court ruling there!

Speaking of that case, they also mentioned this...

Quote:The European Convention on Human Rights is to be made part of British law. Article 10 guarantees the right to freedom of expression, but it also specifies that:
`The exercise of these freedoms ... may be subject to such restrictions as are necessary for ... [among other things] ... the prevention of disorder or crime [or] the protection of health or morals.'
If we cut or reject a film or video, we must always justify our decision by referring to this test."

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2000/341.html


As we know, that case was thrown out of court, but that didn't stop OFCOM re-iterating the sentiment ten years later...

Quote:Ofcom notes however that a broadcaster’s right to freedom of expression, although applicable to sexual content and pornography, is more restricted in this context compared to, for example, political speech, and this right can be legitimately restricted if it is for the protection of the public, including the protection of those under 18.

http://www.ofcom.org.uk/tv/obb/prog_cb/o...sue160.pdf

as long as no 1 calls them on it they will get away with it.
the sad fact is company's like cellcast wont call them on it because they can get away with ripping off there customers as there current foray into the soft porn market proves. infact cellcast could be hauled over the coals in the next few months for there advertising of B.S.Xtame by the A.S.A they advertise evry night saying switch to blah blah for xxx hardcore action.

XXX is not a permissible rating and to call something XXX is in breach of BBFC codes and guidlines.
saying something is hardcore is in breach of advertising rules for describing a product. you have to advertise the final product not the ingredients you used to make it. the programs may well be hardcore when they shoot them but they get censored and cut thus the final product is soft porn at best, and at worst not even that.

as long as company's like cellcast can get away with such fragrant violations and indeed covet ofcoms rules, things will not change.

(23-06-2010 14:02 )Hexit Wrote:  as long as no 1 calls them on it they will get away with it.
the sad fact is company's like cellcast wont call them on it because they can get away with ripping off there customers as there current foray into the soft porn market proves. infact cellcast could be hauled over the coals in the next few months for there advertising of B.S.Xtame by the A.S.A they advertise evry night saying switch to blah blah for xxx hardcore action.

XXX is not a permissible rating and to call something XXX is in breach of BBFC codes and guidlines.
saying something is hardcore is in breach of advertising rules for describing a product. you have to advertise the final product not the ingredients you used to make it. the programs may well be hardcore when they shoot them but they get censored and cut thus the final product is soft porn at best, and at worst not even that.

as long as company's like cellcast can get away with such fragrant violations and indeed covet ofcoms rules, things will not change.

They(Ofcon) really do not want R18 on UK television at all & will go to any length to distort by semantics, upholding dubious complaints of breaches in their code to ensure that fully explicit sex does not appear on their cosy view of what television should be.
What certificate would the current output from PBTV & TVX get from the BBFC?
Personally, I don't think it is 18 Cert.

(23-06-2010 10:58 )TheDarkKnight Wrote:  On gathering further information I now believe the decision against Asian Babes was based purely on racial grounds.

http://www.bectu.org.uk/news/593

Interesting. Ofcom wriggled out of complying with their statutory duty to monitor and enforce ethnic diversity claiming that "they had decided that the measures they had for enforcing companies’ compliance with their obligatory licence conditions on diversity – fining them or revoking their licence – were “draconian” and “resource intensive given the number of cases”. "

Unlike hounding Babe channels, fining them and closing the down, where investigating every little trade complaint is not "draconian" or "resource intensive" given the number of cases.

Not enforcing ethnic diversity.
Hounding specific channels, but not others.
Hmm, a group of policies that could almost have been written by right-wing newspapers.

(23-06-2010 20:57 )blackjaques Wrote:  

(23-06-2010 14:02 )Hexit Wrote:  as long as no 1 calls them on it they will get away with it.
the sad fact is company's like cellcast wont call them on it because they can get away with ripping off there customers as there current foray into the soft porn market proves. infact cellcast could be hauled over the coals in the next few months for there advertising of B.S.Xtame by the A.S.A they advertise evry night saying switch to blah blah for xxx hardcore action.

XXX is not a permissible rating and to call something XXX is in breach of BBFC codes and guidlines.
saying something is hardcore is in breach of advertising rules for describing a product. you have to advertise the final product not the ingredients you used to make it. the programs may well be hardcore when they shoot them but they get censored and cut thus the final product is soft porn at best, and at worst not even that.

as long as company's like cellcast can get away with such fragrant violations and indeed covet ofcoms rules, things will not change.

They(Ofcon) really do not want R18 on UK television at all & will go to any length to distort by semantics, upholding dubious complaints of breaches in their code to ensure that fully explicit sex does not appear on their cosy view of what television should be.
What certificate would the current output from PBTV & TVX get from the BBFC?
Personally, I don't think it is 18 Cert.

Hexit, the authorities have always taken the line that it's not their job to enforce immorality. You can't sue a drug dealer for taking your money then not delivering. You can't sue a tart for taking your money and keeping her knickers on. Well, you can sue, but would be laughed out of court.

You can't sue an advertiser for advertising something illegal. Though I'll concede you might be able to complain the ASA that advertising something they cannot legally deliver is miseadling and the ad should be pulled. But the broadcaster would probably claim legitimate exageration and that no-one seriously believed it (yeah), like those ads for "probably the best larger". And they will dispute the meaning of XXX.

Quote:What certificate would the current output from PBTV & TVX get from the BBFC?Personally, I don't think it is 18 Cert.

Really? The few bits I have seen go beyond cert 15 with short glimpses of open pussy, rubbing, and ejactulata landing on wobbly bits. The shows don't have to be 100% cert 18 to quality. If any part of a program is cert 18, the whole show gets a cert 18 rating, as Lord Harlech might have said long ago when people watched nudists in things called cinemas.

PS. What's a fragrant violation?

(23-06-2010 21:28 )eccles Wrote:  

(23-06-2010 20:57 )blackjaques Wrote:  

(23-06-2010 14:02 )Hexit Wrote:  as long as no 1 calls them on it they will get away with it.
the sad fact is company's like cellcast wont call them on it because they can get away with ripping off there customers as there current foray into the soft porn market proves. infact cellcast could be hauled over the coals in the next few months for there advertising of B.S.Xtame by the A.S.A they advertise evry night saying switch to blah blah for xxx hardcore action.

XXX is not a permissible rating and to call something XXX is in breach of BBFC codes and guidlines.
saying something is hardcore is in breach of advertising rules for describing a product. you have to advertise the final product not the ingredients you used to make it. the programs may well be hardcore when they shoot them but they get censored and cut thus the final product is soft porn at best, and at worst not even that.

as long as company's like cellcast can get away with such fragrant violations and indeed covet ofcoms rules, things will not change.

They(Ofcon) really do not want R18 on UK television at all & will go to any length to distort by semantics, upholding dubious complaints of breaches in their code to ensure that fully explicit sex does not appear on their cosy view of what television should be.
What certificate would the current output from PBTV & TVX get from the BBFC?
Personally, I don't think it is 18 Cert.

Hexit, the authorities have always taken the line that it's not their job to enforce immorality. You can't sue a drug dealer for taking your money then not delivering. You can't sue a tart for taking your money and keeping her knickers on. Well, you can sue, but would be laughed out of court.

You can't sue an advertiser for advertising something illegal. Though I'll concede you might be able to complain the ASA that advertising something they cannot legally deliver is miseadling and the ad should be pulled. But the broadcaster would probably claim legitimate exageration and that no-one seriously believed it (yeah), like those ads for "probably the best larger". And they will dispute the meaning of XXX.

Quote:What certificate would the current output from PBTV & TVX get from the BBFC?Personally, I don't think it is 18 Cert.

Really? The few bits I have seen go beyond cert 15 with short glimpses of open pussy, rubbing, and ejactulata landing on wobbly bits. The shows don't have to be 100% cert 18 to quality. If any part of a program is cert 18, the whole show gets a cert 18 rating, as Lord Harlech might have said long ago when people watched nudists in things called cinemas.

PS. What's a fragrant violation?

Eccles, my belief is that they actually show glimpses of what the BBFC would rate R18.
They are after all, in the main, cut versions of R18 films.
Erect penises is an R18 "activity" for example.
Every now & then too, Climax 3 shows a night or two of pissing scenes. Although you do not see the urine exiting the vagina, you do see it from side view. Is this 18 cert? What rating would the BBFC give to those clips that are regulary shown on our screens?
Are Ofcon colluding in the broadcasting of uncertified videos just to exclude full penetration & fellatio fro our screens? After all, you don't see much pissing on regular tv!!
I ask as I genuinely don't know.

(23-06-2010 22:02 )blackjaques Wrote:  Eccles, my belief is that they actually show glimpses of what the BBFC would rate R18.

They are after all, in the main, cut versions of R18 films.
Erect penises is an R18 "activity" for example.

You're probably right, I guess it depends on the R18 certificate criteria, surely an erection isn't enough to deem a film R18? I don't really undertand the need for an R18 classification, surely an 18 is enough - at 18 you're a legal Adult, why then add an extra restriction after an 18 cert. Sex is one of our most natural urges - it's the whole point of life - everybody has the sexual urge and everybody has a body and genitals, it's all natural we all have it, why this stuff needs such strict classification is beyond me. This stuff's for adults, you're an adult at 18 so give it all an 18 cert and leave it at that; porn is porn, people know what to expect.

(23-06-2010 22:02 )blackjaques Wrote:  After all, you don't see much pissing on regular tv!!

There's a Kate Winslet movie where she has a urination scene, that never made it onto the TV edit of the Film even though again you didn't actually see it exiting her body, and it was completely non-sexual.

(23-06-2010 21:28 )eccles Wrote:  PS. What's a fragrant violation?

A Fart?