(12-11-2013 23:06 )Nice Cannes Wrote: [ -> ]Excellent analysis by Eccles. Ofcom are a cultural straight-jacket, imposed on us by a control-freak something-must-be-done State that panders to every militant offence-taker out there - each benefitting (and how) from the existence of other.
Fortunately though, the same-faces-different-hats brigade at Westminster have been put on notice, and, in mortal fear for their way of life, will have to offer up all sorts of blandishments at the next election.
I wonder, Ofcom, if one such could be you...?
No, I fear more promises of greater control will be given as a sop to mumsnet in order to gain their vote. Cracking down on perverting pornographers has a more moralizing ring to it. Remember its about politicians preaching do as we say not do as we do.
I share that fear. I really hope though the new kid on the block can play up its libertarian credentials and win explicit public support for a smaller, more narrowly defined role for the State.
It would keep the Tories honest (no more "bonfires of the quangos" that weren't)... and Labour, quite possibly in power but emasculated to a degree it could never have been if the only opposition to its ambitions were Cameron-style Conservatism.
It won't be easy with that £3.6 billion gorilla in the room (the BBC) but they've had their troubles lately and may decide, through gritted teeth, to sit this one out.
Hi there. Since this is where the legal experts hang out, thought I would throw you a query about the use of oil on the BS channels.
From what I can work out, they don't like us to see the oil pouring out of the bottle because the camera always seems to zoom in too close when the girls apply it.
I guessed at first that they were hiding the hairy arm popping out of the side of the screen to deliver the bottle but there must be more to it than that. Can remember Lolly looking worried once, as if she'd showed too much on screen, and I don't get what the problem is.
The thing is, I remember Charlie C, Caty, etc pouring it out regularly and never trying to hide it.
Just what happened to the rules and WHY?
Nope, cant help on that one. The only thing is Ofcom ban anything that looks like ejaculate. Their definition of what looks like ejaculate differs from yours and mine as it seems to include anything that remotely resembles splashes of a white/cream/translucent fluid as seem by someone with a severe visual defect who has never seen the real thing. They include medically impossible quantities and stuff that is too fluid that "might" or "could" be mistaken for it, in a bad light.
If anything seeing the bottle should be safer. Unless the sight of a hairy armed man interacting with a semi naked model from a distance "outrages public decency".
Ironically the justification is number of complaints, about mainstream TV channels, not babe ones, that were not upheld.
I would guess they might also ban someone pouring lemonade over models, though strangely they don't ban choking gestures. Typical Ofcom, given the choice between banning something associated with actual harm, or something harmless that they themselves have ruled fit for broadcast, they ban the harmless one.
(15-11-2013 02:33 )eccles Wrote: [ -> ]The only thing is Ofcom ban anything that looks like ejaculate.
Thought it might have something to do with that, but surely they used to spurt blobs of cream over themselves (There's probably caps of it to be found in here somewhere). Either it was okay and then it wasn't, or the channels were pushing their luck.
Why don't they just put the oil in a spray bottle and mist it over themselves. It looks quite ridiculous to act all furtive over such an innocuous activity and then simulate BJ's with the phone.
Having said that, I don't really care how it gets there. Great demonstration of oiliness last night by Tori.
(15-11-2013 17:38 )circles_o_o_o Wrote: [ -> ] (15-11-2013 02:33 )eccles Wrote: [ -> ]The only thing is Ofcom ban anything that looks like ejaculate.
Thought it might have something to do with that, but surely they used to spurt blobs of cream over themselves (There's probably caps of it to be found in here somewhere). Either it was okay and then it wasn't, or the channels were pushing their luck.
It WAS OK. Then the sleeping panda that Ofcom is woke up, decided it did not like it and said some broadcasts had broken the "generally accepted standards" rule. When challenged on whether there was any proof that the public found it distasteful Ofcom manufactured an excuse, based on complaints that it had rejected.
It reality does not stand up to scrutiny.
(15-11-2013 17:38 )circles_o_o_o Wrote: [ -> ]Having said that, I don't really care how it gets there. Great demonstration of oiliness last night by Tori.
My preference would be for one babe to smother herself with oil and apply it to another by full body massage
COMPLAINTS
From the Ofcom weekly list of shows with more than 10 complaints.
Tuesday 5 November 2013 to Monday 11 November 2013.
- Crimewatch, BBC1, 14 Octocber [sic] 2013 : 19
Tuesday, 29 October, 2013 to Monday, 4 November, 2013
- Pickpockets and Proud, Channel 5, 28 October 2013: 11
- The X Factor Results Show, ITV, 27 October 2013: 95
Tuesday, 15 October, 2013 to Monday, 21 October, 2013
- Emmerdale, ITV, 16 October, 2013: 28
- The X Factor, ITV, 19 October, 2013: 58
- The X Factor Results Show, 20 October, 2013: 119
That's over 200 complaints against ITV in 2 weeks. No doubt Ofcom will take the view that the acid test of offence is that the audience are actually offended and complain, launch an investigation, find ITV guilty, fine it and warn it that as a repeat offender repeat breaches might result in its licence being revoked.
OK, I forgot.
The big 5 broadcasters are almost never found guilty of anything, despite a larger audience that all other channels combined and higher audience expectations. Ofcom even have a special "resolved" category that they only use for those channels, when they cant find them not guilty.
Ofcom Up For Sale
Your chance to own a specialist UK regulator!
Quote:Agents instructed to market £120m Thames-side Ofcom (HQ)
13 November 2013 | By Nick Johnstone
IVG ImmobilienFonds, the fund management arm of German property company IVG, is putting up for sale South Bank landmark Riverside House, the headquarters of communications watchdog Ofcom.
Ah, its just the building
Property Week
(15-11-2013 22:33 )eccles Wrote: [ -> ]COMPLAINTS
From the Ofcom weekly list of shows with more than 10 complaints.
- The X Factor Results Show, ITV, 27 October 2013: 95
- The X Factor, ITV, 19 October, 2013: 58
- The X Factor Results Show, 20 October, 2013: 119
Let's see if they can set a new record this weekend, with Miley Cyrus due for an appearance.
(10-11-2013 22:46 )Digital Dave Wrote: [ -> ]Ofcom have nothing to do with the allocation of channel numbers on the Sky EPG. It's a commercial decision taken by Sky.
May well be commercial decision by sky, but who influenced it could well be another matter.
ofcom and sky are very cosey to say the least.