Ofcom did allow them to swear, but then changed their views and told them it was not allowed.
Was it not swearing but swearing in a provocative manner that was the problem? Good job KP is not RLC
(29-08-2012 16:26 )mrmann Wrote: [ -> ]Ofcom did allow them to swear, but then changed their views and told them it was not allowed.
Yes i seem to remember posts being made on this forum sometime in 2010 (i think) were it was mentioned that the rules were going to be relaxed so that the girls could swear (never verified), when the Elite girls started swearing on the mic i thought that the new language rules had come into force , if i remember correctly i even made a post in the BS threads asking why the BS girls weren't allowed to swear like the Elite girls do, i can't remember exactly what i posted and can't be bothered to check, but i seem to remember the BS rep more or less admitting that the girls could swear but asked if we really need to hear them swear, or something like that .
This is the ruling from Ofcom:
at no time broadcast sexually explicit language; and
ensure any sexual language broadcast is restrained, and avoid its use altogether
before midnight.
When does sexual language become sexually explicit language?
(28-08-2012 21:54 )Shawnwilson Wrote: [ -> ]One of the biggest difference's from the shows of the past to now is girl on girl interaction. did ofcom ban girls from kissing or have the channels stopped it themselves????
Yes, the teleshopping guidelines warn against kissing, thigh rubbing and other actions that could "cause widespread outrage" or something like that.
It's allowed on Causualty and other soaps but not sex channels. Also there seems to be an antigay agenda waiting to be challenged.
(28-08-2012 22:26 )Scottishbloke Wrote: [ -> ]Yes Rammy being optimistic is something you have to maintain because for as long as we have the channels and this type of entertainment then you still have a glimmer of hope, Playboy magazine is a perfect example of this how constant perseveres can eventually get you results. Back when that magazine started in the 50's they weren't allowed to publish any pictures showing full frontal nudity. Look at it now, it's stronger and bigger than ever.
Didn't Playboy have to fight a series of court battles in the USA?
One of many things that hacks me off is how little the babe channels seem willing to do to fight their own corner. As far as I can see not one has sought a High Court review of Ofcoms procedures or commissioned their own research into standards - £25k would probably be enough.
This is the root of the problem - the channels will not, under any circumstances, defend themselves. Even worse, they grass each other up. There have been various posts on this forum which maintain that it's up to us to effect change and not the channels, something I'll never understand.
In any event the channels themselves obviously find it commercially viable to run a business under Ofcom's ever-changing regime, and have decided that challenging Ofcom is not worth their while. I think they're wrong.
I've also seen comment on this forum that it would take years for any change to be brought about, but look how quickly Ofcom were defeated when challenged by Sky recently - it took a matter of months and Ofcom were publicly accused (by the court) of rejecting evidence which didn't suit their criteria. Sound familiar?
(30-08-2012 01:48 )Digital Dave Wrote: [ -> ]This is the root of the problem - the channels will not, under any circumstances, defend themselves. Even worse, they grass each other up. There have been various posts on this forum which maintain that it's up to us to effect change and not the channels, something I'll never understand.
In any event the channels themselves obviously find it commercially viable to run a business under Ofcom's ever-changing regime, and have decided that challenging Ofcom is not worth their while. I think they're wrong.
I've also seen comment on this forum that it would take years for any change to be brought about, but look how quickly Ofcom were defeated when challenged by Sky recently - it took a matter of months and Ofcom were publicly accused (by the court) of rejecting evidence which didn't suit their criteria. Sound familiar?
A matter of months? It was a 2 year legal process. They challenged Ofcom's position back in 2010.
I think it's quite evident that the channels, even all grouped together, would never be able to sustain a legal challenge of that magnitude with the costs it involves.
(30-08-2012 11:14 )MARCCE Wrote: [ -> ] (30-08-2012 01:48 )Digital Dave Wrote: [ -> ]This is the root of the problem - the channels will not, under any circumstances, defend themselves. Even worse, they grass each other up. There have been various posts on this forum which maintain that it's up to us to effect change and not the channels, something I'll never understand.
In any event the channels themselves obviously find it commercially viable to run a business under Ofcom's ever-changing regime, and have decided that challenging Ofcom is not worth their while. I think they're wrong.
I've also seen comment on this forum that it would take years for any change to be brought about, but look how quickly Ofcom were defeated when challenged by Sky recently - it took a matter of months and Ofcom were publicly accused (by the court) of rejecting evidence which didn't suit their criteria. Sound familiar?
A matter of months? It was a 2 year legal process. They challenged Ofcom's position back in 2010.
I think it's quite evident that the channels, even all grouped together, would never be able to sustain a legal challenge of that magnitude with the costs it involves.
maybe they want us to chip in , as if they dont make enough from 1.53 a minute !
Cynics might be surprised that the more money grabbing channels (or models) havent started a premium rate line to call.
Ring 0898-xxx-123 to support our legal challenge to Ofcom
Ring 0898-xxx-456 if you think Ofcom has got it right
(all calls charged at £1.53 per minute plus £2 connection fee)
Or how about getting supporters to buy legal expertise - is it Amazon that runs present lists?
Click here to buy 1 hour of a barristers time (£500)
Click here to buy 1 hour of a solicitors time (£100)
Click here to buy an investigative journalist (a drink and a favour)
There was a rumour that the channels were scared or retribution, but thats wearing a bit thin. Its gone on long enough for them to have organised a campaign with no traceable links, and it would be in their interests. Buy up a bunch of distressed channels cheap, keep them ticking over for a few years and make a massive profit when they suddenly able to show hard material.
Quite a few channels have changed hands since the early days and new owners will have bought them knowing what the sales volumes are, unlike the original owners who saw their sales and profits nosedive.
Fortunately Im not in this for the owners benefit and Im sure most people on this thread arent either.