Dan the reason I asked did porn cause 9/11 is because it was never meant to be taken as literal. It was used to highlight the idiocy of the rule makers at ofcom. I also don't want to see violence or swearing being banned either, a child doesn't learn what's right or wrong merely by what it views on the telly but by those who bring the individual up.
Fair enough do your best to protect them before the watershed but after the watershed why must the babe channels have such strict rules which no other channel outside of this genre has to abide by. For ofcom to say it's because they are classed as teleshopping channels is just plain and simple bullshit.
Also if a minor still so happens to be up at say 2am in the morning what's to stop them viewing the rest of the channels. For a start these channels shouldn't have an 18+ tag on them anyway. If you can get married legally at the age of 16, then why must you be 18 to view such material, it makes so sense, fuck me I was drinking in the pubs when I was 16. I had a fake ID back in 1994 you see
I'd also like to know why we have got a channel called Babestation Blue, I mean what's blue about a channel that doesn't show pussy
So because of all these fucking stupid and pointless rules in place we the adult population who tune into these channels for one thing have to endure what is effect very patronising shows.
I don't know about you but they are seriously beginning to offend me now, I must phone up ofcom and complain
Its just a buzz word to get people excited. Its like seeing products in supermarkets with words like amazing or unbelievable, it makes the product more attractive
If violence and swearing were banned from tv then that would be the final straw for me. I think I would stop watching tv if that happened. What would be the point, people are eventually going to witness such things, you can't stop the craving for something people want to see. I will throw sex into that equation too, as you become more and more anywhere of it, as you get older because it can be seen daily in our lives.
People who want to restrict such things are fighting a losing battle, because people will find ways to get what they crave for
I watched the interview on BBC1 a half hour ago with one of the women trying to get the lads mags off the shelf, and the man next to her was more on our side.
He thought if this censorship was to happen, that they should remove every magazine where men are portrayed as sex objects. The woman disagreed with him, stating that it doesn't matter if men are seen as sex objects, because we usually get better jobs than women and have it easier in life, whereas this image of women is keeping them down.
I can respect her opinion, but men are men, and we will always think of women as sexual objects. It's not meant to be something evil, but this is apart of human nature, and banning certain magazines isn't going to change our sexual desires.
The humor between the two was funny, and they seemed to get despite the differences.
(20-09-2012 00:42 )mrmann Wrote: [ -> ]The humor between the two was funny, and they seemed to get despite the differences.
She probably went back to his place for a shag after the recording
(20-09-2012 01:11 )StanTheMan Wrote: [ -> ] (20-09-2012 00:42 )mrmann Wrote: [ -> ]The humor between the two was funny, and they seemed to get despite the differences.
She probably went back to his place for a shag after the recording
Well she didn't mind him joking about her melons
(19-09-2012 09:59 )oldboy1047 Wrote: [ -> ]as i understand the main reason for the poor shows is because ofcon class these channels as selling channels.surely this could apply to all channels after all most programmes now are sponsored by some company or other and they wouldnt be doing that if the didnt think it would increase their profits.i think the babe channels should be reclassified as public service providers as they do provide a service to some people.Lol
If only that were true. Ofcom decided they don't want naked women for fun, then had to work out an excuse to ban them. I have seen the proof. Rules were tight when they were classified as editorial too.
Im not overly worried by one MP wanting to ban page 3, there are always a few. I dont think George Galloway's views are typical either. Travelling round today I passed a 5 foot high electronic advert for Marks and Spencer featuring two life size women wearing just bra and pants. Any child could have seen that before 10pm. There were also two women in full burkas with just narrow eyeslits. Dont get me started about womens rights, just dont.
(20-09-2012 01:21 )eccles Wrote: [ -> ]If only that were true. Ofcom decided they don't want naked women for fun, then had to work out an excuse to ban them. I have seen the proof. Rules were tight when they were classified as editorial too.
Im not overly worried by one MP wanting to ban page 3, there are always a few. I dont think George Galloway's views are typical either. Travelling round today I passed a 5 foot high electronic advert for Marks and Spencer featuring two life size women wearing just bra and pants. Any child could have seen that before 10pm. There were also two women in full burkas with just narrow eyeslits. Dont get me started about womens rights, just dont.
The man mentioned the giant sign as well!
What I meant to say was it is unclear how Ofcom can ban women in underwear at any time of day when ads like the Marks and Spencer one show that wearing nonrevealing underwear is in line with generally accepted standards and complies with advertising industry rules.
To a certain extent Ofcom thinks it has the channels where it wants them because when applying for broadcast licences they have to sign saying they accept and will abide by the Broadcasting Code. That forces them to abide by it even if they think it exceeds legislation passed by Parliament. However channels do not sign up the lengthy but vague rule by rule Broadcasting Code Guidance, nor do they sign up the brief Guidelines, just the Code, and that is subject to interpretation.
Ofcom might argue that underwear ads are functional, not sexual, but thats fantasy. They might not be stroke material but the entire point of putting two attractive models in nice underwear is to catch attention and create a slight sexual frission. Women like to think they could look like that, men can hope thats what they come home to. Anyone who says it is non sexual is deluding themselves.
Of course if the babes roll around in microscopic thongs opening their legs, performing pelvic thrusts while stroking imaginary penises and bending over that raises the temperature, but thats not what I was talking about.
It is inconsistent to maintain a ban on daytime and early evening presenters wearing underwear with the same coverage while adopting similar poses.
On a different note, Ofcoms weekly complaints list has been published. At this stage they only publish standards complaints where more than 10 people have complained.
Complaints received between: Tuesday 11 September 2012 to Monday 17 September 2012
Citizen Khan, BBC 1, Monday, 10 September, 2012 : 11
STV News at Six, STV, Friday, 14 September, 2012 : 11
No massive public outrage caused by semi naked young women then. No, the worst offenders, judged on complaints - the only thing that matters when it comes to offence - are a BBC sitcom and an independent news channel accused of political bias.
Not sure how accurate the following is, it may be humour?
BBC News Scotlandshire (sic) Wrote:Scottish Television Executives could face stiff fines and possible prison sentences after failing to adequately report the booing of the First Minister Alex Salmond at Friday's Olympic homecoming parade in Glasgow's George Square.
Hundreds of complaints have been made to OfCom by furious members of the "Better Together" campaign after STV news chose to ignore the booing and reported, instead, on the return of the athletes to their home country.
