Mainstream TV nudity vs babeshow nudity

(21-11-2011 02:23 )eccles Wrote:  

(20-11-2011 19:55 )mr mystery Wrote:  Sexstation was broadcast on Sky channel 909 from 10pm-5.30am and freeview channel 97 from 12am-5.30am last Friday night for a one off special .

I take it the show wasnt its usual strength?

Here's the answer in multiple choice style:

A) No

B) No

C) No

D) No

Swedish X Factor.
Cant decide if it would be banned or allowed in the UK.
Watch out for the Ant and Dec clones.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pla...H9IdbtFDtU

(21-11-2011 02:21 )StanTheMan Wrote:  

(20-11-2011 05:02 )eccles Wrote:  Well the rules now - sorry guidelines - say they can use sexual language after midnight provided it is restrained. So Tammy cant describe what she would like you to do to her with a Hoover several bottles of lube and a bag of icing sugar, but she is allowed to use ordinary adult conversational terms, including swearwords.

That's news to me. I don't mean that flippantly - it really is news to me. I thought swearing was a complete no-no.

Me too. Surely if swear words are now allowed (and they never have been before) Tammy wouldn't have been so apologetic?

I'm not having a go eccles as your contributions here are invaluable, but I've noticed from many of your recent posts that you seem to have some sort of inside track into the latest situation between Ofcom and the channels. Is your source reliable? I'm not sure it is.

I had a quick glance at the late films on 323-326 last night and they have been chopped to pieces.

Channel: Dave
Programme: Shooting Stars
Time broadcast: 19:45

Bob (to Vic): "So, Vic, did I tell you I bumped into an own friend of mine who told me he was getting engaged? I said, 'You twit-to-who?'"

Vic: "Alright, I've got one of those stories. I bumped into an owl and it was getting engaged. I said, 'You tw@t, who to?'"

what's that got to do with nudity? or were vic & bob naked at the time?

(21-11-2011 21:02 )beardedbob Wrote:  what's that got to do with nudity? or were vic & bob naked at the time?

Nothing to do with nudity. Just pointing out the ridiculousness of Ofcom's policy on swearing on an adult channel in the wee small hours of the morning.

(21-11-2011 04:10 )Digital Dave Wrote:  I'm not having a go eccles as your contributions here are invaluable, but I've noticed from many of your recent posts that you seem to have some sort of inside track into the latest situation between Ofcom and the channels. Is your source reliable? I'm not sure it is.

Er, no inside information, and any impression that I have is unintentional, just a tendancy to quote from the rules and findings.

What I meant to say was that under Ofcoms reign of terror shes allowed to say it but the channels are so terrified that they self censor anyway.

To be boring and clarify, the Guidelines state broadcasters must "ensure any sexual language broadcast is restrained, and avoid its use altogether
before midnight."

Even if "fucking" was said in a sexual context ("Ill be your funcking fantasy") thats pretty restrained. If used in a stubbed toe/dropped drink way its not even sexual and the rule doesnt apply.

A headline from yesterdays Daily Mail is also relevant: "Licence to swear: Profanity is so common that it can't be offensive, judge rules". Mr Justice Bean, a High Court judge ruled that swear words are now so common that they no longer cause distress (though that does not extend to descriptions of sexual acts.) http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...ds-newsxml

On that basis we could see Connie Huk on Blue Peter talking about getting some fucking sticky back back plastic to make Advent decorations out of sodding coat hangers for the arsing old folk. Not that she would because shes a sweetie.

Slightly off topic, but here a picture of Kitty Brucknell in a revealing photoshoot. Breasts not visible, but you know they are there.

Its from the Daily Mail.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/art...image.html

(22-11-2011 03:18 )eccles Wrote:  A headline from yesterdays Daily Mail is also relevant: "Licence to swear: Profanity is so common that it can't be offensive, judge rules". Mr Justice Bean, a High Court judge ruled that swear words are now so common that they no longer cause distress (though that does not extend to descriptions of sexual acts.) http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...ds-newsxml

On that basis we could see Connie Huk on Blue Peter talking about getting some fucking sticky back back plastic to make Advent decorations out of sodding coat hangers for the arsing old folk. Not that she would because shes a sweetie.

Also useful on this is a piece on the same case in the Telegraph

Swearing Not A Crime

If a 20 year old so-called yob can take on an offense case and win, how is it that the babe channels, with all the money behind them, can't!!

The most interesting quote from the judge is this:

"As for those watching the incident, the judge said it was quite impossible to infer that the group of young people who were in the vicinity were likely to have experienced alarm or distress at hearing these rather commonplace swear words used"

So if a group of people (including teenagers) in a public place is not going to be offended by hearing these "commonplace swear words" then I don't understand how someone accidentally accessing the babe channels in the middle of the night would be either. Especially as, at that time of night, there is frequently swearing on ALL channels!

I take it as final proof (if we needed it) that the babe channels just don't WANT to take on Ofcom.