Post Reply 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 42 Vote(s) - 2.76 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Ofcom Discussion

Author Message
Scottishbloke Away
Banned

Posts: 8,304
Joined: Jan 2010
Post: #1291
RE: Ofcom Discussion
Obviously after Ofcom's failed attempt to bring Babestation down because they do indeed have a Dutch Licence, Ofcom have more or less conceded defeat in that one but will ofcourse hold a grudge against Cellcast after losing round 1 so they have as expected attacked the Ofcom licenced ones such as Blue and Xtra, but yet again whether the show had full nakedness or not it was hardly all that explicit to warrant a fine, what a sad state of affairs our channels have now become for what a bit of late night naughtiness well excuse me but correct me if I'm wrong but I thought that was the very purpose of a late night babe channel in the first place, bring on the more watered down rat's piss in the months to come then annoyed
23-04-2012 17:07
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
mrmann Offline
Posting Machine
*****

Posts: 15,880
Joined: May 2009
Reputation: 92
Post: #1292
RE: Ofcom Discussion
This is what happens when you give too much power to a body of individuals. They can do what they please, and decide for all of us what is right and what is wrong.

A normal body part on channels that can be blocked, and shown late at night is not a cause for harm.
23-04-2012 17:11
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
eccles Offline
custodes qui custodiet
*****

Posts: 3,032
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 69
Post: #1293
RE: Ofcom Discussion
Whats interesting is that Ofcom state that there was a glimse of anus at 9:30 but they have not threatened the channel with sanctions or given a we-dont-expect-this-again warning.

Gone fishing
23-04-2012 23:20
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
eccles Offline
custodes qui custodiet
*****

Posts: 3,032
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 69
Post: #1294
RE: Ofcom Discussion
(18-04-2012 21:59 )eccles Wrote:  Who will be the next BBC DG – today's odds from Ladbrokes. (20 March)

...6/1 Ed Richards...

from the Guardian

Todays odds on Ed Richards becoming the next Director General of the BBC, courtesy of Oddschecker:
PaddyPower: 11/4, same as George Entwhistle (Caroline Thompson 9/4)
Bodog: 5/1 (George Entwhistle 2/1, Caroline Thompson 7/2)

Basically hes in the top 3 and its looking close.

Gone fishing
26-04-2012 01:42
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Scottishbloke Away
Banned

Posts: 8,304
Joined: Jan 2010
Post: #1295
RE: Ofcom Discussion
Read this bullshit quote from Ofcom with regards to their war on the babe channels on on this occasion Get Lucky TV.

Ofcom noted that between 21:01 and 21:30, the female presenter on the left of the screen wore a high leg thong that revealed her outer genital area. In addition, at approximately 21:07 she was on all fours, with her bare buttocks to camera and briefly pulled tightly on her thong on three occasions to reveal her anal area. While wearing this very skimpy clothing, she adopted sexual positions such as lying on her back with her legs open to camera thrusting forward with her hips, and kneeling facing the camera miming sexual intercourse. The same presenter later but before 21:30: rubbed oil onto her outer genital area and breasts (through her top); slapped her buttocks; massaged her breasts and stroked her outer genital area; and while kneeling with her buttocks side on to camera, pulled her thong down to under her buttocks and gyrated her hips. In Ofcom's view, the revealing clothing and sexual positions and other inappropriate images, including that of anal detail, were intended to be sexually provocative in nature. In light of this behaviour and imagery, Ofcom concluded that this material was clearly unsuitable for children.The broadcast of such sexualised content was inappropriate to advertise „adult sex chat so soon after the 21:00 watershed.

This broadcast was therefore in breach of BCAP Code Rule 32.3.

Are Ofcom off their fucking heads ofcourse it's obviously not suitable for children, hence the reason we have the watershed, hence the reason they are all grouped together in the one section which is clearly labeled Adult, does Ofcom seem to think that the babe channel's have suddenly become family viewing. Picture the scene we'll watch the cartoons son and then we'll watch a bit of late night babe channel material before it's time for your bed if you're a good boy.

Don't know about you but I'm fucking sick of this bullshit. If anybody can be fucked to read more of this then the full bullshit story link can be viewed here annoyed http://www.melonfarmers.co.uk/ow.htm
(This post was last modified: 26-04-2012 07:22 by Scottishbloke.)
26-04-2012 07:21
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
blackjaques Offline
Senior Poster
***

Posts: 358
Joined: Feb 2010
Reputation: 11
Post: #1296
RE: Ofcom Discussion
Scottishbloke, EVERYTHING in the Adult section of the EPG is not suitable for children accoerding to those arseholes.

The encrypted channels cannot show full R18 because Ofcon tell us that children are watching them. Yes, even @ 3 o'clock in the morning.

They are the biggest bunch of bullshitters (next to politicians) that this country has ever produced.
26-04-2012 21:24
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
The Truth Offline
▁ ▂ ▃ ▄ ▅ ▆ █
*****

Posts: 7,229
Joined: Mar 2012
Post: #1297
RE: Ofcom Discussion
I for one will definitely be at the gates when the Tyrannical Ruling Arm of ofcom is broken,an event of which David Scumeron said would happen.(lying hipocrite)annoyed
(This post was last modified: 26-04-2012 21:51 by The Truth.)
26-04-2012 21:32
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
dan g 27 Offline
Hairy Fucker
*****

Posts: 3,924
Joined: Dec 2011
Reputation: 65
Post: #1298
RE: Ofcom Discussion
It would be great if you British people could get a vote if you want Ofcom interfering in your lives or not
(This post was last modified: 26-04-2012 21:57 by dan g 27.)
26-04-2012 21:56
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
StanTheMan Offline
Banned

Posts: 3,790
Joined: May 2009
Post: #1299
RE: Ofcom Discussion
(26-04-2012 07:21 )Scottishbloke Wrote:  Are Ofcom off their fucking heads ofcourse it's obviously not suitable for children, hence the reason we have the watershed, hence the reason they are all grouped together in the one section which is clearly labeled Adult, does Ofcom seem to think that the babe channel's have suddenly become family viewing. Picture the scene we'll watch the cartoons son and then we'll watch a bit of late night babe channel material before it's time for your bed if you're a good boy.

An adult babeshow, after the watershed, 'not suitable for children'. Even for Ofcom this is a staggeringly stupid comment!

Surely, when a channel is given the guilty verdict and reads that, they must challenge it... not the decision, but the remark itself??
(This post was last modified: 27-04-2012 00:34 by StanTheMan.)
26-04-2012 23:56
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
eccles Offline
custodes qui custodiet
*****

Posts: 3,032
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 69
Post: #1300
RE: Ofcom Discussion
What I like about the Ofcom Broadcast Bulletins (wait! spot choking and hear me out) is how much more erotic they are than the channels. Lovingly crafted descriptions of presenters stocking and underwear. Tantilising descriptions of positions, moves and reveals, usually repeated 3 times.

The sheer legal illiteracy is illustrated by the way the refer time and time again to previous decisions, despite those having no legal status. Only a decision by a High Court judge or above establishes precedent. And if a channel dares to reference previous decisions Ofcom say that each case is determined on its merits and circumstances are different.

What would also be interesting to know is the duration of the revelations and the severity. "reveal her anal area" could mean a subsecond flash of the outer area.

Gone fishing
27-04-2012 02:36
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply