What I'd like to know is why it takes the stupid waste of tax payers money six months to publish the breach in code! Does it really take 6 months to look at a program to decide if it is in breach or not, what a set of useless muppets we pay for, or was the cock wipe that was investigating the show too busy wanking over it then decided that it's too strong for tv. I agree with other comments, it's in the FUCKING ADULT SECTION and after the watershed.
If the channels keep saying "Yes Sir, three bags full Sir" then the outlook is grim for these channels, they will slither away as none adult entertainment. 2014 doesn't look good, the channels need to step up and question Oftwats findings.
In my opinion the answer is very simple, the Adult channels all have to come together and fight ofcom in the courts. Is it a risk? Of course it is, however it's better to go down with a fight, than to see your company wither away and die. I agree with a previous post, which mentioned that the adult channels have put there heads in there hands for far to long!
It's time for the Adult channels to FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT remember the best form of defence is ATTACK!! The time has come for them to consult there solicitors, to build a strong case and take on ofcom, there is no other alternative!!
Problem is the channels are very good at sniping away at each other instead of offering quality product. In the second decade of this century you can show two men beating the living crap out of each other on MMA on mainstream TV 1 minute after 9pm but whoah a flash of vadge and there'll be civil unrest. What makes me laugh is so many of these do gooders will happily head off to France or Spain on holiday and make no comment about topless sunbathers with a thread of a G string at lunchtime...
As I have always said and will continue to say is censorship is beatable. I don't expect Max Hardcore on CBBC but if a 4 digit pin is good enough to protect my Barclaycard then it is good enough to control ADULT viewing on television.
I agree with you, if your 4 digit pin is good enough for your credit cards, then it should be more than adequate for the Adult channels.
(07-01-2014 22:08 )SCIROCCO Wrote: [ -> ]In the second decade of this century you can show two men beating the living crap out of each other on MMA on mainstream TV 1 minute after 9pm but whoah a flash of vadge and there'll be civil unrest.
This attitude towards what MAY constitute harmful viewing makes my blood boil!
Take the Horror Channel. 11pm - some naked bird strapped to a chair begging for her life; perfectly acceptable as far as Ofcom are concerned. 3am - some pleasant, smiling lady flashing her vadge; an outrage
As others have said how shocking an adult show having the presenters touching each other, and why is this covered by "Advertising regulations" the mind boggles.
Reading further down that pdf a bit off topic but someone complained about National Lottery Live for a Gender discrimination/offence,
???? what the hell does that mean on a lottery show? Seems to me some people must spend their entire sad lives looking at tv programmes just to see if their's anything that offends their tiny minds.
(08-01-2014 18:45 )mark_suff Wrote: [ -> ]and why is this covered by "Advertising regulations" the mind boggles.
The whole of the babe channel shows are an advertisement, as it says in the scrolling small-print at the bottom of the screen. That may get them round some rules on one hand but also paint themselves into a corner in other ways.
The babe channels didn't used to be classed as advertising and come under advertising regulations, Ofcom decided to re categorise them in 2010 and brought out new rules for the babe channels .
Below is eccles original post on the matter .
.
(31-08-2010 14:22 )eccles Wrote: [ -> ]From midnight tonight the new Ofcom Teleshopping rules come into force. No longer will channels have to argue about whether a smiling babe is providing "editorial" content, or simply pushing a premium phone line. Provided the channels have re-registered, from midnight the babes will be officially allowed to advertise premium services.
This will be subnect to Section 22 of Advertising Code "rules governing the promotion of live PRS services, and rule 6.1 under which advertisements must not cause serious or widespread offence against generally accepted moral, social or cultural standards, or offend against public feeling."
Ofcom also says "The Advertising Code guidance draws attention to generally accepted standards for sex, nudity and offensive language. Ofcom has previously issued specific guidance to Adult Chat PTV broadcasters under the Broadcasting Code. Similar specific guidance for Adult Chat PTV may be appropriate under the Advertising Code." so they still have the Generally Accepted Standards (GAS) stick to beat channels with.
Also they warn that "Following introduction, the arrangements will be monitored carefully to ensure they provide the protection envisaged by Ofcom. Stakeholders should be aware that if they do not, or rules are not adhered to, then the rules may be subject to review and/or stricter conditions."
It is implied but not stated that adverts on encrypted channels can be stronger, or for stronger material, than on unencrypted channels, so an encrypted channel might be able to advertise sex shops, R18 DVDs and hardcore webstreams (but not actually show R18 content). In the past most channels have been caught out just for showing links to their own websites.
The rules are what they are and I don't think they are going to change anytime soon.
One way the channels could avoid being in these ofcom bulletins is to actually stick to the rules and not draw this kind of negative attention to themselves. No rules will ever be relaxed while they keep breaking the existing ones!
In this instance the channel in question openly admits that the material was against the code! So they should do something about that in terms of disciplinary action against the presenters and producers who were on when it happened.
(09-01-2014 10:11 )marky95 Wrote: [ -> ]One way the channels could avoid being in these ofcom bulletins is to actually stick to the rules and not draw this kind of negative attention to themselves.
Yeah, that's just what we want - even tamer shows
I'd rather see the channels break the rules even more. If they go under because of it, then so be it.
I watch these channels for one reason and one reason only; to knock one off, and quite frankly if you watch them for any other reason then I think you need to take a long hard look at yourself.
Of course all of that is bollocks, because while we have these fanboys around, who call up their favourite girls and spend hours chatting about the weather and where they went on their holidays, while all the time believing they have some kind of meaningful relationship going on with these girls, the producers are happy to keep vomiting the same old shit.