(04-12-2010 13:28 )gazfc Wrote: [ -> ]It wasnt but thanks for answering.
At the time I was thinking, as the BBFC rate a number of things including video games would it not be worthwhile for the shows to try and get a BBFC rating? Then I remembered that they wouldn't be able too, as the shows are 'live' and there-fore would be impossible to rate.
Ah, understood. Good point, but as you say the BBFC only deal with recorded material, examining it frame by frame if necessary. They are also clear that they dont censor, the classify. And if useful they advise on what cuts would reduce a rating. Live material can be very sensitive to position, camera angle or precise timing when switching from one camera to another. They also charge a fee per minute, and if continuously rating live material that fee could be significant.
What they have offered Ofcom is assistance with guidelines. Particularly if Ofcom ever legalise R18.
No babe channel seems to have submitted a recording to the BBFC and asked them to rate it 15, 18 or Sex-Work-At-18, as a way of resolving an Ofcom investigation. One reason may be that even one frame of pussy rubbing might be enough, technically, get something rated 18, and the BBFC do not distinguish between 18 and Sex-Works-At-18. But there must be some investigations that could be resolved this way - is miniming oral sex and waggling hips suggestively really 18?
(05-12-2010 00:48 )eccles Wrote: [ -> ]- is miniming oral sex and waggling hips suggestively really 18?
There was a case some years ago where Mary Whitehouse tried to get some actors/directors prosecuted for simulating gay sex in a stage play (the laws were much stricter in those less tolerant times).
The defence argued that as it was only simulation it was therefore pretend, and no laws had been broken - and they went on to argue that if you took her argument to its logical conclusion anybody playing the part of Macbeth would be guilty of murder!!
The case collapsed and the defendants were acquitted.
(05-12-2010 01:01 )mr williams Wrote: [ -> ] (05-12-2010 00:48 )eccles Wrote: [ -> ]- is miniming oral sex and waggling hips suggestively really 18?
There was a case some years ago where Mary Whitehouse tried to get some actors/directors prosecuted for simulating gay sex in a stage play (the laws were much stricter in those less tolerant times).
The defence argued that as it was only simulation it was therefore pretend, and no laws had been broken - and they went on to argue that if you took her argument to its logical conclusion anybody playing the part of Macbeth would be guilty of murder!!
The case collapsed and the defendants were acquitted.
Goes back a few years, but the Decency team said they had seen an erect penis. Think it was at The National in a play about the evils of Roman invasion in gay rape scene. (
The Romans In Britain)
Turned out it was a strategically placed thumb. No scarcastic comments about being unable to tell the difference between a thumb and a penis please.
Sad thing was they had purchased tickets, travelled, and watched the play specifically in order to see something and be offended by it.
(28-11-2010 07:04 )gazfc Wrote: [ -> ] (28-11-2010 02:54 )Gold Plated Pension Wrote: [ -> ] (26-11-2010 12:55 )gazfc Wrote: [ -> ]^^^Who is the idiot running bang media
The idiot running Bang is the person who has been providing some of the best daytime and nightime shows we have seen for many months. Look at the threads for these shows and they are some of the largest on this forum.
What you should be saying is who is the idiot at Ofcom who has personally pursued this broadcaster to the extent that their licenses have been revoked without a fair hearing or right of appeal.
So no right to a fair hearing and no appeal to either an independant tribunal or court, sounds like North Korea or China to me.
So lets all not suddenly become Bang haters i'm sure they have enough on their plate with Ofcom still pursuing them.
Personally pursue is a load of bollocks, I could understand people claiming that if ofcom had done this over one breach but 60 breaches over 18 months is far too many.
And as for the no right to appeal, have bang even tried?
As much as ofcom's code is a load of twisted crap it still has to be adhered too and the channels know pretty much what they can and cant get away with, if they didn't babestation wouldn't of been going for as long as it has.
One last comparison to make, If your favorite pub had been closed due to it constantly breaking its incensing rules would you blame the people who enforce the rules or person running the pub?
Of course the action by the regulator was personal. As soon as Bang did not step into line with their wishes their head of content would have personally instructed his staff to start pro-actively monitoring this broadcaster and start collating the complaints. Ask any good law enforcement officer who has someone who constantly breaks the law, they will see to it personally that that person or business is dealt the full hand of the law. Any complaints/issues are not just recorded and dealt with as individual cases but are collated and taken as one. When you look at the Bang case there was only one breach (objective) of the BC, 'lollypopgate' rule 1.17 and about 6 breaches of licence condition (objective) 11 concerning supplying a tape of the show complained of. The rest of the breaches were Ofcoms own interpretation (subjective) of the BC and their own guidance which constantly changed as Bang changed their shows to comply only to be found in breach yet again.
There is a post in this thread concerning Playboy asking for compliance guidance from Ofcom only to be refused. When they start broadcasting the shows Ofcom find them in breach,
so much for OFCOM having regard, in all cases, to the principles under which regulatory activities should be transparent, accountable, proportionate, consistent and targeted only at cases in which action is needed and any other principles appearing to Ofcom to represent the best regulatory practice.
Ofcom have yet to prove the harm done to children who may have possibly seen these daytime shows when they themselves allow greater explicit content to be shown during daytime viewing. And don't say 'context' as children under 15 don't generally understand this term to enable them to have this mind set. To them a semi-naked body in a play, art house film, documentary or babe show is a semi-naked body with all the usual giggles, rude comments or embarrassed silence that goes with it. So why is one ok with Ofcom but the other isn't. It's bureaucratic bullshit and yet another example of Ofcom wanting these channels suppressed/removed.
Of the alleged 60 breaches the majority of these were found from there own internal pro-active monitoring of this broadcaster following the issue of the notice of direction rather than complaints from concerned parents or other broadcasters which may have kick started the issue.
As for the right to appeal, Ofcom don't allow this as part of their enforcement protocols so Human Rights abusers too.
Not a good comparison to make as anyone who runs a pub will have a Premises Licence with up to 10 mandatory conditions (objective), have to promote 4 licensing objectives (aspirational), operate within a well defined and writted licensing act (criminal) supported by government guidance (non enforceable) about an inch thick and have someone employed who has a personal licence (one day competance based training) to allow you to sell alcohol. Totally different and a lot more well defined and easier to comply with than the Communications Act (criminal), Broadcasting/Advertising Code (subjective) and e-mails/guidance (subjective and laughable).
By the way gazfc just saw you featured on a single game on Sky Poker, if it was you with pair Queens against pair 6's.
Haha yeah that was me, didn't know it was on sky though
Just don't get the poker and bangbabes mixed up if you decide to "call"!
(08-12-2010 02:44 )Gold Plated Pension Wrote: [ -> ]As for the right to appeal, Ofcom don't allow this as part of their enforcement protocols so Human Rights abusers too.
There is a right of appeal. But it is to ... Ofcom.
(08-12-2010 23:03 )eccles Wrote: [ -> ] (08-12-2010 02:44 )Gold Plated Pension Wrote: [ -> ]As for the right to appeal, Ofcom don't allow this as part of their enforcement protocols so Human Rights abusers too.
There is a right of appeal. But it is to ... Ofcom.
Judge, Jury & Executioner....
Mark Twain? Bang Babes?
'Reports of my death have been exaggerated'