Open letter to Ofcom

in the end its all about the license these channels hold.
a general entertainment license can broadcast more explicit material than a teleshopping license, and as a fair amount of the babeshows don't have the right license for there content they pretty much are bound by a bunch of rules that have a more restrictive content policy. some have adult entertainment, some tele shopping but none can get a general entertainment license as they are bound to 12 mins of advertising per hour.
the adult entertainment license means they could be made to encrypt if the content is to strong.
and teleshopping mean no nudity (ofcom lift this restriction in a limited way for the babeshows)

(13-07-2010 16:42 )Hexit Wrote:  in the end its all about the license these channels hold.
a general entertainment license can broadcast more explicit material than a teleshopping license, and as a fair amount of the babeshows don't have the right license for there content they pretty much are bound by a bunch of rules that have a more restrictive content policy. some have adult entertainment, some tele shopping but none can get a general entertainment license as they are bound to 12 mins of advertising per hour.

But considering the the Great British squeamishness concerning adult entertainment, how would they attract the advertisers? Even the general entertainment channels have constant advertising for adult chat lines late at night (lines that may well be run by the babe channels)

They'd probably be put in the position where they'd have to spend 12 minutes advertising their own competition.

I also remember channel 4 in the mid nineties showing a very explicit red light zone season aswell as the customary french art house movie at least once a week, TFI Friday another product of the channel 4 glory days broadcasting out live at 6pm every friday, also The Word and Eurotrash back in the days before we had fucking ofcom going around with a fucking censor. The babe channels however back then were yet to be thought up but its debatable if they did exist in the niineties just what kind of a show we would have got I'm guessing it would have been very explicit as we lived in more liberal times back then. We are in a new decade now and in relative terms the babe channels have only been around for 8 years only really taking off in a big way 5 years ago. Whether ofcom like it or not they have to allowed more freedom to evolve and also they make a lot of people happy thats why we have this forum. I'm not saying for one minute that the people on this forum are only interested in going home each night and watching the 900's as sky does have more to offer as I myself have subscriptions to Sky Sports and ESPN and also enjoy watching the late night stand up comedy channels but the freedom given to those channels should also apply to the babe channels. Some of the late night comedians such as on comedy blue tell the filthiest of joke and I've yet to hear about ofcom telling them off for material they find unacceptable. We live in a world of hate, war and terrorism and Tv is seen as a great way to escape from all the troubles and stress's of the world without some fucking facist organisation killing of any fun left in the world and that effectively is all the babe channels are, just a bit of harmless fun to keep us entertained and make us smile once again. Ofcom look at the bigger picture and then ask what is more important death and destruction or happiness. Terrorists are corupt and guess what most of them just happen to come from countrys with suppressed societys and attitudes particularly towards women.

That's what I don't get! In England there are tons of escort agencies, which is essentially legal prostitution, as well as strip clubs, yet grown men can't even see full frontal on the adult channels well after the watershed! Not to mention all of the hardcore porn that is available in most convenient stores.

Thanks Moron50 and everyone else for the clarification.

I was aware Film 4 had been able to go further in 'very serious' films but not that other channels had (very) occasionally been a little more adventurous.

Never tuned in to movies4men or some of the other channels assuming it was nothing but soft-core like what I now believe the BBFC used to pass at 18 - boobs, pubes and limp dicks (and: Inner Labia Out Outer Labia In, no erections). From a wiki entry on the '18 certificate' it seems to suggest they are now allowing more anatomical detail if not real sexual activity.

I'm curious to know if anybody watches or has seen BBFC 18 rated stuff and if the rules have at some time changed and if there's now a difference re: anatomical detail between what can be seen in 'sex works' at 18 and the level of explicitness allowed on TV.

phil33, this is a list of softcore raunchy films by Indigo Entertainment that PB (and sometimes PBOne) used to show http://www.imdb.com/company/co0043274/ .

You're probably also aware of the typical PB centrefold specials - very tasteful, natural nudity with a hint of suggestive strip and tease but nothing at all that categorises explicit sex for the purpose of sexual arousal. It's more about celebrating natural beauty and inherant sexual attractiveness than trying to cause a stiffy. I used to love the Sexy Girls Next Door programmes where 3 wannabe PB models and amateurs would show off their modelling talent and naked bodies and one or more would eventually turn-up as a cyber-girl or actually make it into an edition of PB magazine.

Anyone who finds any of this type of softcore material 'offensive or harmful' should probably be behind bars for their own safety and that of the wider public. Ofcom are of course top of the list because the ITC sure as hell didn't have anything against this type of material, nor have the BBFC or those in Government ever had anything against this type of material being freely available in any video/DVD stockist, newsagent and corner shop. Ofcom are completely off their tiny rights-abusing trolley if they believe any of what they've done is actually condoned by law - it isn't and NEVER has it been.

What has attracted no comment outside this and similar forums is that Ofcom effectively created its own certification category, despite the clear expertise of the BBFC including results iof legal challenges down the years. Bear in mind that the BBFC is not and did not start out as a liberalising organisation. They only allowed explicit sex in R18 because they lost a court case.

Despite this, Ofcom invented a totally new "18+" category more or less defined as "audience over 18 and containing fun sex but less than R18".

Very little comment in the two Broadcast Code consultations apart from a few audience comments.

The BBFC quite simply do not distinguish between "Adult non sexual" and "Adult sexual" ~ both can be sold in Tescos. Both can be purchased on DVD and watched in the home, and Pause, FreezeFrame and SloMo used. (The BBFC does occasionallly distinguish between home and cinema releases for those reasons).

eccles, indeed, we at melonfarmers call the TV stuff 'telecore' or, as I've now dubbed it, 'Ofcomcore'. It's not BBFC '18 rated sex works' and certainly is not 'R18 rated sex works'. It's something else not defined publically anywhere. It of course began life under the ITC's illegal ban of R18. As we established recently, until the High Court ruling in 2000, ALL 'adult' channels carried R18 material because it did not break the ITC's rule (53 iirc) of "No real sex can be broadcast at anytime". Following the High Court ruling, Jackboots Straw held an emergency 'R18 Review' meeting after which the ITC published a brand new version of their Code, replacing "No real sex..." with the now infamous "No R18...". However, to BAN a LEGAL standard in this way goes against EVERY principle of Freedom of Expression, thus, the ITC and now Ofcom were/are BREAKING THE LAW.

As you also point out, the BBFC do indeed trim extra bits of supposed harmful material from general cinema releases for home viewing or, alternatively, they will up the age rating from say 15 to 18 for the DVD release. However, as R18 is only ever viewed in private film clubs or the home, 30% of R18 submissions are cut "to remove illegal and potentially harmful material" (quoted from the BBFC's annual report for 2009 published just last month) before they get their R18 stamp of BBFC approval. This is of course to bring R18 material firmly under that High Court ruling which we all surely know by now states that: "Based on the available evidence, a reasonable person would conclude that, the risk of harm to children from viewing R18-type material is insignificant".

What planet are Ofcom on? Indeed, what planet are they from? Because they clearly don't understand plain English or the rule of law!

Who the fuck do the Ofcom Content Board think they are to DEFY a High Court ruling? They farmed-out the R18 research review to some undergrad at the LSE (the girl's name escapes me). Ofcom didn't bother to review the evidence themselves (probably too detailed and scientific for their discriminatory, sanctimonious and twatish pea brains). They didn't understand the LSE's findings either because it's pretty clear there's no evidence of harm from porn to kids. Ofcom CANNOT be reasonable people because, as the High Court confirmed, reasonable people don't jump to the WRONG conclusion as Ofcom have clearly done.

All I need to know is, how do we, the oppressed viewers, get Ofcom before the High Court so that they can have their understanding CORRECTED as per the BBFC?

HELP! WE'RE BEING ABUSED! WHERE ARE THE COPS TO PROTECT OUR RIGHTS AND LIBERTY?

Apologies for taking so long to reply.

What I was interested in is what's being talked about - whether there is any longer a difference between 'telecore' or '18+' and what the BBFC now passes at 18.

'Further reasons for R18 as opposed to 18 include vigorous and/or extensive genital touching (brief genital touching may be passed "18"), implied triple penetration, extreme close ups of spread female genitals or anuses (erections are now permissible at 18 however), and certain fetish material- especially urination and potentially dangerous sado-masochistic activities.'
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/18_certificate).

I know the BBFC consultation in 2005 showed a significant number of respondents felt what was being passed at 18 was too tame and wondered whether this had led to a slight loosening up of what could be seen. Unsurprisingly no one here seems to bother with BBFC 18 rated stuff.

Thus I wondered, as Eccles suggests may be the case, are OFCOM taking a different attitude to 18 rated sex works passed by the BBFC compared to 'normal' 18 rated films - the latter being shown on FTA channels the former in some cases not, but being regarded as only suitable for encrypted channels depending on the level of explicitness.

phil33 asked

Quote:What I was interested in is what's being talked about - whether there is any longer a difference between 'telecore' or '18+' and what the BBFC now passes at 18.

The softcore cert 18 porn DVDs that can be found perfectly legally in newsagents that specialise in DVD mags are rated cert 18 by the BBFC, but Ofcom classifies them as Telecore.

If a film contains softcore sex for fun, Ofcom calls it "Adult sex at 18".

So the answer to phil33's question is No, there is no difference.