(20-09-2012 23:40 )eccles Wrote: [ -> ]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.
Jail sentence for not reporting booing???? Who are these sick people who can make these laws?
(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.
Dont get me started on womens rights either we will be here forever with 10,000 word replys..
I just want to say that these page 3 and lads mags are done by women..They are not blokes dressed up as women or transgender they are women..The point is the men get the blame for it yet the women dont complain about the women posing for these mags.
As for religion this lass was asked to remove her cross necklace because it could offend other faiths yet the laases were allowed to wear burkas in same class as to not offend,,this was here in England 4 -5 years ago bloody double standards..So Uk scared of offending other religeons when its OUR country and Vaginas.
(22-09-2012 21:14 )fedup Wrote: [ -> ]I just want to say that these page 3 and lads mags are done by women..They are not blokes dressed up as women or transgender they are women..The point is the men get the blame for it yet the women dont complain about the women posing for these mags.
As for religion this lass was asked to remove her cross necklace because it could offend other faiths yet the laases were allowed to wear burkas in same class as to not offend,,this was here in England 4 -5 years ago bloody double standards..So Uk scared of offending other religeons when its OUR country and Vaginas.
You haven't got a load of neck tattoos, a dog that'll bite the face off any passing child unless it's wearing a Lecter muzzle and a big St George's Cross flag tacked up across a window, do you? I can't figure out whether you're anti-sexism or anti-feminism or what! I'll say it again: you're an Ofcom plant! There's no way you're on the level!
I think the reason for this Dan is because this programme is also repeated on a daytime slot aswell as being made available on the BBC IPlayer and viewer expectation is such that you don't expect to hear swearing in what is ultimately a family show.
I think the apology was more than justified on this occassion. Ofcourse it would be wrong for Ofcom to hand out a fine, commonsense would tell you that football is a passionate game, it won't be the first time or the last time that such an apology will have to be issued, I've heard many a curse word on SKY Sports Super Sunday.
Well Dan it looks like it's more than storm that Ofcom has a problem with to regard to body stockings. But fuck me what is this society coming to if you can't get away with showing something slightly risky. I mean Innuendo has allways been part of what makes us uniquely British. I mean just have a look at the numourous amount of Carry On films which a lot of them are aired during the day.
But part of me is I hope Ofcom try to take on ITV, piss off a massive corporation like them and they might just bite off more than they can chew. The babe channels aren't willing to take ofcom on but are ITV I wonder. Ofcom are getting far too big for their boots these days, since when was cheeky offensive.
The X-Factor does however have a history of airing material that might get them in trouble with the censors. How they got away this one a few years ago - I'll never know
