(19-08-2017 16:37 )ShandyHand Wrote: [ -> ]while technically correct the result is strictly Tomatoe, Tomatoe.
I agree with this as Ofcom always have context to fall back on. Their rules are highly subject to interpretation because to them everything has to be seen in context. Something that's regarded as acceptable in one broadcast won't be regarded as acceptable in another broadcast because of Ofcom's view of the different context.
(19-08-2017 18:58 )admiral decker Wrote: [ -> ] (19-08-2017 16:37 )ShandyHand Wrote: [ -> ]while technically correct the result is strictly Tomatoe, Tomatoe.
I agree with this as Ofcom always have context to fall back on. Their rules are highly subject to interpretation because to them everything has to be seen in context. Something that's regarded as acceptable in one broadcast won't be regarded as acceptable in another broadcast because of Ofcom's view of the different context.
I feel I should be nodding to this but I can't quite grasp how you are using context here.
I thought the reason that Ofcom decreed that the shows should be judged as advertising rather than a regular programmes was specifically so that the operator's couldn't use editoral context as excuse for their visuals. Surely that means the rules should be more hard and fast. More definite. Not less. Only Ofcom want them written the way they are.
Are you refering to how the babe behaves in her "fetishistic" outfit (that context) or how these interactive shows are judged differently to every other type of TV?
Btw, on a related note, do you know if Ofcom have ever tried to explain
why the babe shows should be judged by different criteria to a reality show that appeals to the public to phone in and vote? Both are basically glorified adverts. But one is judged more harshly than the other for no other reason than that one includes nudity and can encourage sexual thoughts. But both have a
potential to offend; in fact something like XFactor has had many complaints lodged on this basis.
(19-08-2017 19:51 )ShandyHand Wrote: [ -> ]one includes nudity and can encourage sexual thoughts.
...and the other one is babestation
^
. Yes, I should have added that Amanda Holden's often more obliging wank material before the watershed. "Will people be complaining to Ofcom? I hope so, I really do. I haven’t done my job if they aren’t," was the quote about her BgT oufits. Oh, for just an once of that spirit from anyone connected with the shows.
If boots and some leather are "too fetish", how does Delia get away with that collar? (Not to mention the fact she's wearing boots, lol). This isn't a complaint btw.
(19-08-2017 13:52 )BarrieBF Wrote: [ -> ] (19-08-2017 07:13 )FanofCamilla Wrote: [ -> ]Indeed, having asked around, it's BS enforcing an ofcom rule.
I cannot see any such rule in Ofcom's broadcasting code.
I've had another look and I've managed to find the rule now. Daytime chat broadcasters should not wear fetish clothing. So there we are.
and that's open to far too much interpretation!
It may help I think if I quote the rule in full. It's always better to have the exact wording.
Daytime chat broadcasters should ensure that presenters are wearing appropriate clothing, that adequately covers their bodies, in particular their breasts, genital areas and buttocks. Presenters should not wear revealing underwear, swimwear, gym wear or fetish clothing (this includes nurse, secretary or police officer outfits)
Have you got a link to the rules please?
