(16-12-2010 01:52 )andyjb Wrote: [ -> ]I am having trouble downloading the file, but if this is about what the girls can wear, Rachel from Babeworld commented on Facebook that they have to start wearing dresses again in the daytime.
Does anyone know where the law says OFCOM can start dictating what clothing can or can't be worn on TV?
Does anyone remember the full nude Life painting session on C4? OFCOM actually defended this proggy from the insane people in this land that find the human body 'offensive'.
Clearly there are some double standards at play. One could call it prejudice...even discrimination. As OFCOM are clearly supporting, indeed, instigating discrimination based on the line of work the girls choose to do then, it might be said OFCOM are guilty of sexual discrimination in the work place.
It could also be argued that OFCOM are discriminating against a particular sex by way of demanding certain clothing and the concealment of certain female body parts. This is clearly a case of sexual discrimination.
Moreover, to make issue of exposure of female body parts on these channels while programmes like Embarrassing Bodies can show the same in extreme and graphic detail, is yet more proof of bias and prejudice simply because of the type of service the babe/adult channels provide. This is yet again absolute proof of sexual orientaion/lifestyle discrimination on OFCOM's part.
We have laws against such blatant, unwarranted, offensive and harmful material that is OFCOM's fucking 'guidance' and 'Standards Code'. OFCOM has produced a body of material which oozes hatred and prejudice in the guise of 'child protection' yet evokes and promotes a sick, twisted and evil view of human sexuality, the human body and the types of sexual entertainment we're not being allowed, as adults, to choose to watch.
There is NOTHING on sale in the UK which is legally defined as "offensive and harmful material". Such material constitutes legal obscenity and/or is covered by so-called 'hate law' - i.e. religious, racial or sexual discrimination/incitement to hatred legislation (you can be imprisioned for it). Well, OFCOM have done a pretty good job at publishing reams of hateful literature and all of it based on the utterly unfounded premise that certain programmes and content are, according to bigots, "offensive and harmful". The material may indeed appear "offensive and/or harmful" to some (to qoute OFCOM), however, that is just their opinion and is not supported by either the law of the land, scientific evidence or the majority of sane and rational people. Indeed, those that find a naked woman and any part thereof 'offensive and/or harmful' are clearly deranged and likely dangerous - they are in any case guilty of sexual discrimination (i.e. misogyny).
For more than a decade prior to OFCOM's existence, the watershed alone was deemed more than satisfactory in protecting younger viewers from adult material. Long before satellite TV, multi-channel households had cable - I know, I was one of them - and those households were able to subscribe to adult TV channels showing R18 rated movies without any complaints to, or hinderance from, the TV regulator. Nothing has changed, not even the fucking programmes judging by the EPG listings, yet OFCOM now demand PIN access to any and every type of 'adult sex material' even if its broadcast at 2 in the morning! WHY?
OFCOM are behaving as if the last 40 years of social change and sexual revolution never happened. It's as if Deep Throat never showed in mainstream cinemas and, that the VCR never allowed folks (and their kids) to watch hardcore porn at home. It's like the Internet was never invented and that millions of kids have never seen bare naked ladies wanking themselves off on thousands of free websites. It's as if the legal sale of hardcore R18 DVDs in our high streets never happened in 2000. OFCOM don't seem to want to recognise that even explicit, real, 'hardcore' sex was passed at a standrd 18 rating 20 bloody years ago in the early 1990s.
What fucking planet are OFCOM on? What do they believe they're doing? Who are they 'protecting'? It sure as fuck isn't kids - they're busy losing their virginity, getting knocked-up, having babies and/or catching a dose at the ripe old age of 14! And the numbers of kids in that position has been steadily INCREASING all the while OFCOM claim to have been protecting children from the clearly non-existent 'nasty effects' of porn on TV. What we can say with absolute certainty is that in countries that don't have OFCOM's hang-ups and prejudices against all manner of porn on TV, the kids are doing fine, indeed, they're several times more sex-savvy, informed, open, mature and responsible about sex-safe and birth control than their porn-safe British peers.
Censorship leads to ignorance, ignorance results in stupidity. As OFCOM have chosen the path of censorship they are responsible for any resulting ignorance and are thus guilty of promoting stupidity. As OFCOM cannot possibly be protecting young people from ignorance and stupidity by enforcing a ban on anything, they cannot be protecting those young people from anything...least of all themselves.
Only rational chioces based on facts and intelligence can ever protect people from "offensive and harmful material" or, indeed, ignorance and stupidity. Censorship clearly stands in the way of folks making the correct and/or informed decisions only they can make for themselves - like what to watch on TV, which car to buy, which medicines, chemicals, booze and power tools should be kept out of the reach of young children. There are clearly some things in the home which truly are a danger to vulnerable people but, porn is most certainly not one of them...OFCOM however likely are a very real danger to the sanity and rationality of every person in this land - and that's definitely not in OFCOM's remit and, moreover, its against broadcasting law and guidelines.
OFCOM are an abomination.
