(05-05-2014 02:46 )eccles Wrote: [ -> ]Ofcom have launched a consultation on whether they should extend coregulation of TV advertising for another 5 years. Under the proposals the ASA would handle most advertising complaints, apart from Participation TV and associated areas of gambling and message board teleshopping formats, political adverts, product placement, sponsorship credits and scheduling.
The consultation period runs from 1 to 30 May.
It's great to hear from you once again, and as always a very informative post!
What's the best and worst scenario in your opinion after the consolation concludes after the 30th May for the adult channels?
Thanks Eccles
Well give it a few years and we will reach the very reasonable state of Burqa's for everyone on telly, except for a 2 min ankle show at 10:58........................ If ya lucky
Babes in Burka's......that'll never catch on would it as a late night show? Unless you live in Iraq I guess.
if someone wants to work on a way of proving that 100% of specific incident complaints are not genuine complaints, then I salute you. We all know that complaints of specific incidents are made by people that know the rules and are seeking out those occurrences in order to complain. And that the only genuine complaints ever made will read something like this "I was outraged to find my teen son watching 'insert channel' and I am disgusted that such material can be shown on television" to which the response should be "unfortunatly this is allowed and no specific rule has been broken and as your complaint is a general concern we cannot take action" from then on that parent may just leave it, or they may try to find a specific rule break to complain about, to feel vindicated. Or an ofcom minion themselves may decide to try and find a specific rule break on the channel concerned, so they feel like they are fighting the good fight. Either way it would be nifty if someone could pull back the veil and expose the real source of the very specific incident complaints like "at 2:02 specific babe a, did specific act b, on specific channel c. Nail them please" are Panorama free?
Summary, we all know complaints like this are fabricated on some level. Can we prove it? ...
Those who complain are either malicious toads or do gooders. Dear Ofcom I spent 39 hours watching babe shows last week and was most offended by one of the girls using the word tits at 3.49am....etc etc
I think its getting really sad when ofcom paranoia has taken such a grip which unfortunately has had an impact on this forum. First it was RLC, now it's Studio66. I think most people know that I'm referring to the new 8 week video rule.
I'm pretty sure that if ofcom want to go out gunning a channel down then all they need to do is request that the channel send them a copy of the latest shows. From what I've seen recently ofcom are winning. No channel is willing to challenge or question ofcoms censorship rules. All 2 for 1's have now been stopped on RLC and as for the rest of the 2 for 1's that are still currently going they are so lame that it makes for painful viewing.
Yes we've seen a change of chairman at ofcom but not a change in policy. So much emphasis these days is placed on making sure that the babes don't make even the slightest of slips which has been at the detriment of the entertainment value on show.
I don't know this for sure but I'd be willing to bet that the channels are no way near as profitable as they once used to be, when presented with so many do's and don't the motivation is no longer as big as it once used to be when considering whether or not to phone any of the babes onscreen. This probably explains why so many of the channels are doing happy hours or quick fire rounds as they seek to make up on lost ground.
Its been a very long time since we last had any new channels making an appearance on the SKY EPG and it doesn't look likely to happen in the foreseeable future for as long as ofcom remain around.
On a personal note welcome back eccles, good to see you back mate
Last night was ultra tame across the board....
if you knocked on someone's door at 10pm trying to sell something they will probably be pissed off and say to you "do you know what time it is" but that same person will probably complain to ofcom if they see a naked model on the babeshows at 10pm and say to them "10pm is too early for this to be shown my children will be offended if they see this" when in reality the children are probably asleep and the 14 year old lad is probably wanking so they aren't offended are they
let's not just blame ofcom and the channels, this country has got way to soft and nanny state even in my lifetime
I don't care what time somebody knocked on my door to sell me something I'd still tell them to fuck off
Oh and not to mention these fucking Jehovah Witness's. Mind you they normally only bother to do it on Christmas day which happened to me 20 years ago in which my mother politely told them also to get to fuck
To be honest with you Joey, I don't think many people would bother to phone ofcom over a boob channel as it doesn't generally cause widespread offence, normal people just tend to either not watch the channel if they are offended by the material or block the channel, hence the reason SKY have that option as does every box.
With regards to this being a nanny state well that's the UK Government for you, unfortunately it only looks like its ever going to be the Tories or the Labour Party running the country and both have mere identical views when it comes to censorship. Ofcom were born out of New Labour and the Tories went back on their word over abolishing ofcom and treating adults like adults and not children, this was one of many blatant lies David Cameron told us in order to win power.
GCSE Politics
Complete the sentence:
It would be considered odd if a teetotaller were put in charge of licensing pubs.
It would be considered odd if someone opposed to gambling were put in charge of the Gambling Commission.
It would be considered odd if someone opposed to art were put in charge of culture.
It would be considered odd if someone opposed to sexual arousal ...