(07-04-2011 00:42 )StanTheMan Wrote: [ -> ]I like to tell myself it's not even his site, eccles, just someone masquerading as him. There's no way his agents would let his official website stink up cyberspace like that.
I think you know Im not a fan, but seriously the lack of any updates after a year, links or ways of contacting him makes me inclined to agree with you. Darn, who can I argue with now?
Cant say I agree with the content of the advert at all, but interesting that the High Court overturned the ASA ban on freedom of speech grounds. From the BBC 27 March 2011. Dont know if the ASA appealed.
A High Court judge has overturned a decision by the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) that an advertisement by a Belfast church was homophobic.
Sandown Free Presbyterian Church launched judicial review proceedings against the ASA after being found to be in breach of its code of practice.
The judge ruled the ASA's decision interfered with the church's rights to freedom of expression.
The ASA said it was disappointed and was considering the judgment.
However Free Presbyterian minister the Reverend David McIlveen described it as "a landmark ruling".
The case centred on a full-page advert taken out in the News Letter ahead of a Gay Pride parade in Belfast in August 2008.
It was headlined "The word of God against sodomy" and invited people to meet for a peaceful gospel witness against the act.
After receiving seven complaints that the notice was homophobic, the ASA ruled it could not appear again in the same form.
Freedom of expression
It also told the church to take more care in future to avoid causing serious offence.
Sandown Free Presbyterian Church's legal team argued its rights to religious belief and freedom of expression under European law had been breached.
It also claimed the church was not offered the chance to offer an explanation before the ban was imposed.
The church argued the ASA misinterpreted a quotation from the book of Leviticus which branded homosexual acts an abomination.
According to the church the description applied to sodomy itself rather than any individuals.
In his ruling on Tuesday, Mr Justice Treacy stressed the context of the advertisement was important.
Semi-nude image 'not provocative'
From the BBC 2 years ago - 27 May 2009
Despite todays adverse ruling against an advert in a Jack Wills clothing catalog, it seems the ASA is saying that topless adverts are sometimes acceptable.
A photograph of a scantily-clad woman was "not overtly sexual" and unlikely to cause offence, the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has ruled.
The clothing catalogue picture showed a model on a bed wearing only knickers and with one of her breasts visible.
The watchdog rejected a complaint the image in a Jack Wills University Outfitters brochure was gratuitous and inappropriate for its target audience.
The Salcombe-based company in Devon said its image was "tasteful".
It said customers had to be at least aged 18 to sign up for the catalogue which was intended to have an interesting and artistic impact to appeal to its 18 to 22-year-old target audience and their lifestyle.
Offence 'unlikely'
Such images were tasteful and well liked by their target market and not meant to offend, the company said
In its ruling, the ASA said the model did not seem to be striking a "particularly provocative pose".
"Although we understood that some younger teenagers might view the catalogue, or sign up to receive it, we concluded the images were not so provocative as to present a risk to teenagers or be unsuitable for the target audience.
"We considered the image was not overtly sexual in content and was unlikely to cause widespread offence."
The image may or may not have been this one. If a babe channel showed this during the day they would be punished, but the ASA say this is OK for advert in a catalog that kids might stumble across. Just a side boob and nipplie. Confusing.
This sort of adult humour was common place on the mainstream channels until Ofc@m came along and started on their politically correct crusade to rid such humour from our view.
(02-01-2011 01:42 )Krill Liberator Wrote: [ -> ]Just in case this covers ground not specifially covered in another, extant, thread:
We all hate the way we're treated like naughty schoolboys sneaking a collective gigglesome glance at an illicit porno mag sneaked into class behind teacher's back, right?
We can't understand why nudity is so frowned-upon on the 900's, yeah?
Well, take a ganders at this, an extract of an earlier post from a different thread:
"Aaanyway, I came on here simply to post that I'd recently been witness to some full-frontal female nudity in the show "Above Suspicion" on ITV3 this evening.
I know. Shocker.
Said nude female was a slender young actress in a speaking role, standing behind a banister rail at the top of a flight of stairs and next to the fully-clothed actress with whom she was speaking and also in full view of a character played by the lead actress (also fully-clothed).
The context was that the main character had entered a house owned by a disabled ex-cop (played by ex-Corrie favourite John "Ah Sayyy" Savident) to interview him, but was instead confronted by the reality that the house was routinely used for the shooting of adult movies. The nude actress had wandered, bitching but untroubled by the detective's presence, onto the scene to whine about some minor detail or other, before being fobbed off by the second female.
The exposure was full body, full-length, full-frontal with both nipple and modest labial exposure. Exposure lasted for approximately 5 seconds plus.
The scene was screened before 10pm."
This is outrageous.
So, on the suggestion of StanTheMan and in order to fulfil the Eccles mission of providing some kind of case-law database to defend the babeshows by demonstrating that nudity really is acceptable, I propose that this thread be used to post any sightings on 'mainstream tv' of the sort of nudity that might land a babeshow in hot water.
This could be on the basis of screening time, level of nudity, or context.
Let's see what's really going on out there!
Semper vigilans, people, semper vigilans.
Well i completely agree with you, it seems like ofcom has one rule for and one rule for another, i sometimes think to myself are we living in the year 2011 or 1911 lol. The mysteries of the female form has long since gone, and for professional female performers to still have to cover up there sexual parts in this day and age i find it quite frankly ridiculous!! These free to air channels are to stay whether ofcom like it or not, and if they say what happens if someone see's these channels under the age of 18? well i say its down to parents to be responsible,or why don't another idea is, and its something we do already is why not simply enter your pin number via your sky remote?
Apparently, Daily/Sunday Sport has gone bust or in my opinion, Ofcom are now targeting papers that have topless images. Now, as far as i'm aware Page 3 has been apart of the British culture for years and hasn't caused harm but as we all know Ofcom are just a bunch hypocritical sexist cunts that say male genitalia are allowed on mainstream tv as long as it's not erect but female genatalia can only be shown on arty or encrypted programmes.
(07-04-2011 23:47 )SYBORG666 Wrote: [ -> ]Apparently, Daily/Sunday Sport has gone bust or in my opinion, Ofcom are now targeting papers that have topless images. Now, as far as i'm aware Page 3 has been apart of the British culture for years and hasn't caused harm but as we all know Ofcom are just a bunch hypocritical sexist muffins that say male genitalia are allowed on mainstream tv as long as it's not erect but female genatalia can only be shown on arty or encrypted programmes.
OFCOM FUCK OFF
Ofcom are fucking bastards however the Daily Sport gone bust is probably the real truth of the matter, simple fact of it is they just didn't sell enough papers, believe me I used to work in a newsagent and at the end of the shift you would get a figure on how many was sold and how many you had left and the Sport sold very poorly in my shop so I'm actually surprised it lasted as long as it did. I certainly never bought the paper, bought it once and read it and it was mostly a pile of shit in all honesty.
(07-04-2011 17:47 )Gold Plated Pension Wrote: [ -> ]This sort of adult humour was common place on the mainstream channels until Ofc@m came along and started on their politically correct crusade to rid such humour from our view.
You seem to have mistakenly used the word 'humour' to accompany a Hale and Pace clip. Just thtought I'd point out your error.
![[Image: advertisingstandards.jpg]](http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-2mQhPPy7BBE/TZyr9FXe4fI/AAAAAAAAGgM/-GvswjRZYZM/s1600/advertisingstandards.jpg)
