(27-01-2012 12:23 )TheWatcher Wrote: [ -> ]As has been said many times before, the only reason the babeshows cannot show the same stuff that can be seen on the other channels is that they are now classified as "advertising/teleshopping" channels and therefore come under a different set of rules
...
. The question should be "Why do the advertising/teleshopping channels have different rules to the normal channels?"
Babeshows used to be under the same rules as ordinary TV until about a year ago. Even then Ofcom argued that the shows lacked justification. Time and time again they would rush to launch an investigation and would almost inevitably find against the channel. By contrast most complaints against mainstream channels were dismissed at an early stage, and most full investigations went the channels way.
Which brings us back to a variation of The Watchers question, why babe channels are judged differently?
(28-01-2012 00:44 )eccles Wrote: [ -> ]Which brings us back to a variation of The Watchers question, why babe channels are judged differently?
They're doing everything in their power to kill them off, unfortunately for them simply pulling the plug isn't within that power, so what do they do? They make up rules and conditions and licenses and classification and context bullshit, making it as difficult as possible for the channels to operate successfully.
They're relying on the channel producers themselves eventually asking, "What's the fucking point?" and shutting up shop.
Most people will be unaware that sex shops were first licenced under Margaret Thatcher, hardly a friend of the unrestrained libido*. Actually it started with Wesminster Council trying to control Soho. They were told they could not ban sex based businesses outright under restraint of trade and some variation of Human Rights, but they could set a quota and impose conditions. The result was unlicenced premises getting raided, and licenced premises having to tone down.
The idea was so popular with Tory High Command that they rolled it out across the UK.
Councils across the UK set quotas, forced sex shops out of business and raked in £000s in application fees. Other councils did not "adopt" the law because doing so would have meant setting a quota and being forced to issue some licences.
Any shop selling unrated videos would lose its licence.
The entire point was CONTROL not freedom to sell explicit material. It took many years and court cases before sex shops were actually allowed to sell explicit material.
In order for all the channels to compete and operate fairly on the SKY EPG monopoly I strongly believe it should be one rule for all. This different set of rules that the babe channels have to follow under the catagory of advertising/teleshopping is not fair or demoratic and is proving to be somewhat unworkable, the rules they have in place are far too harsh, you cannot expect a sexline channel to operate with all these rules and regulations in place, it is impossible and unrealistic. And going back to the Watcher's question I too find it baffling why they should be treated differently to the rest, if you ask me it's all about Ofcom control. I'd still like to see what the channels themselves have done about this. Could some kind of compromise not be reached. As it stands the current arrangment is not working out. It's time to reapproach Ofcom and have it discussed with a reasonable outcome
When Krill Liberator started this thread he said " 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!"
We already have the Ofcom discussion covered widely elsewhere, so please can we leave this thread to its original, and nobly, intention.
The Human Centipede (First Chapter)
SciFi channel, tonight from 10pm.
Free to air.
OK, litttle or no nudity, but in terms of offence what is worse, a bit of bumhole or torture porn? Be honest, which would bother your granny more?
AND
The Magicians, BBC1 6:35.
Mylene Klass and some magician walk on broken bottles. It is clearly stated that "there is no trick involved." Sorry but that puts it clearly in the realms of imitable content, and its not impossible to imagine some 9 year old boys trying this to show off to each other then ending up in hospital.
A few weeks ago the loser had to walk over red hot coals. Same comments about risk apply.
Ofcom is quick enough to jump on babe channels over theoretical risk - a show "could" cause widespread offence, but wont lift a finger unless actual demonstrable harm occurs due to a show on a favoured channel.
Paris Lockdown
FX Sky 124 10:00-00:05 Tues / FX+ Sky 165 about now
Graphic violent French gangster movie. The small amount I have seen has more sex than Sweeny! The Movie. Not hardcore, but not Midsomer Murders either (though probably fewer dead).
[edit]Not as hot as a few quick looks suggested, but still more nudity than The Bill.
(01-02-2012 00:01 )eccles Wrote: [ -> ][edit]Not as hot as a few quick looks suggested, but still more nudity than The Bill.
Circa 1987
Spencer Tunicks Naked States on right now on SKY ARTS 1, tits, pussy's and dicks on display despite the fact that it is the middle of the afternoon. Double standards or what
(06-02-2012 16:59 )Scottishbloke Wrote: [ -> ]Spencer Tunicks Naked States on right now on SKY ARTS 1, tits, pussy's and dicks on display despite the fact that it is the middle of the afternoon. Double standards or what
No double standards for anybody to see.