Pornography to be allowed on TV

(06-07-2010 20:20 )Gold Plated Pension Wrote:  Remember
Tonight is part two of Channel 4's sex education show at 9pm and it's about the fanny. Last night was the penis and it was not that far beyond the watershed that close up live images were shown, but hey it's education and not titillation so whilst i guess there will be a lot of complaints from the usual groups Ofcom will no doubt state 'no breach' because it's in context.
I know why i'm going to be watching it, 'education' boll#cks.

I saw this program last night. Its a pity the nude female models were not better looking.
I suppose they did not want the schoolboys coming in their pants.
The main purpose of the school section ("am I normal?") was to show the boys and girls (it was a mixed classroom) that all girls/women have different looking breasts and vaginas. They could just have let them watch the sexstation webshow to prove that point.

So sex education for children BUT shown AFTER the watershed when less children would be watching. No doubt Channel 4 got legal advice with regard to the programme time slot. Decided to play safe or advised that the code is confusing so place it after the watershed. My opinion would have been to place it at 8pm when children and parents would have been watching and learning from this.

(06-07-2010 22:34 )Gold Plated Pension Wrote:  

(06-07-2010 20:31 )astonv1 Wrote:  

(06-07-2010 20:20 )Gold Plated Pension Wrote:  

(05-07-2010 22:58 )astonv1 Wrote:  

(05-07-2010 19:32 )StanTheMan Wrote:  My guess is that it would get an 18, but only just... kind of the weakest 18 cert you can imagine.

I think it would more likely be a 15A

I am not aware of a 15a rating but the BBFC guidance on a 15 rating is

Thanks GPP ....Just to clarify, i knew there was not a 15A rating..it was said tounge in cheek to agree with stans original post about it being the weakest possible 18

Sorry Astonv1 i seem to lose myself in a red mist when on these topics. Perhaps they should have a 15a category similar to the 16 category in europe but then the more categories you have the more confusion there is with regard to content if the guidelines aren't sufficiently clear.
We know how confusing and subjective the broadcasting code is and whilst Ofcom state that every section should not be read in isolation but in context with other sections and decisions it is proving a nightmare for broadcasters.
It is ridiculous to suggest as Ofcom does that broadcasters must have regard to decisions against other channels to guide themselves through the broadcasting code. It would be like a local authority environmental health officer prosecuting a local Spirit Group pub on food hygiene breaches and then expecting all pubs operated by various owners/companies to read the outcomes and act upon them. It is not how the law works or should work.
Laws should be clear, concise, objective and readily understood and if they are not any good brief will ride cart and horse through them.
One of the most subjective and controversial laws is section 80 of the Enviromental Protection Act that deals with statutory nuisance. One person states that the music noise is too high whilst the person playing the music believes its a normal volume.
The Act ONLY allows a qualified EHO to decide on statutory nuisance, a person who is qualified to degree level in noise control and who can decide if such an activity effects the 'unreasonable interference with the enjoyment of your property'. If a nuisance exists a notice must be served and the outcome of that action is judged before a magistrate, an independant stipendary or lay bench who will subject the evidence against THE LAW.

NOT in Ofcoms world,

Ofcom have some deskbound pen pusher who decides whether something is in context, causes sexual arousal, shows clear labia/anal detail etc. What guidance are they using to ensure consistant decisions are made, NONE, it's on a wing and a prayer and it can effect the future of that broadcaster. If they are big players they are generally left alone but the small guys get hit. Look at Bang Babes, a shadow of their former selves STILL waiting for a final decision from Ofcom concerning their alleged breaches of the code.
Where is the justice in that.
The sooner Ofcom are reviewed the better for broadcasters and the general public.
End of rant, let's watch some babes.

I have an idea. Why don't we have the babe channels be focused on sex education???? That way we can actually see a vagina!!!!!!!!!

(07-07-2010 10:10 )TheWatcher Wrote:  

(06-07-2010 20:20 )Gold Plated Pension Wrote:  Remember
Tonight is part two of Channel 4's sex education show at 9pm and it's about the fanny. Last night was the penis and it was not that far beyond the watershed that close up live images were shown, but hey it's education and not titillation so whilst i guess there will be a lot of complaints from the usual groups Ofcom will no doubt state 'no breach' because it's in context.
I know why i'm going to be watching it, 'education' boll#cks.

I saw this program last night. Its a pity the nude female models were not better looking.
I suppose they did not want the schoolboys coming in their pants.
The main purpose of the school section ("am I normal?") was to show the boys and girls (it was a mixed classroom) that all girls/women have different looking breasts and vaginas. They could just have let them watch the sexstation webshow to prove that point.

I watched this last night aswell and just found myself wanting the host and the Doctor to strip off as they were the 2 best looking women on the show...after such immature thoughts ...
i did think Why is this not being shown when most children can see it as they are the target audience?

I missed it was busy in the pub watching the football, will it be repeated. Sex education my arse, nothing but an artsy educational voyeuristic excuse for a tv programme in order to show a vagina but who I am to complain. I don't remember having sex eduaction like that back in my day all we got was boring diagrams to look at.

(07-07-2010 13:27 )Gold Plated Pension Wrote:  So sex education for children BUT shown AFTER the watershed when less children would be watching. No doubt Channel 4 got legal advice with regard to the programme time slot. Decided to play safe or advised that the code is confusing so place it after the watershed. My opinion would have been to place it at 8pm when children and parents would have been watching and learning from this.

The first series was on at 8pm a couple of years ago. It got referred to Ofcom
who cleared it but, IIRC, they also strongly suggested it was at the edge of acceptability for pre-watershed material.

They also found it would be an ' "inappropriate and a disproportionate limitation on the freedom of speech and editorial freedom" to prohibit programmes of this nature before the watershed'. Fine sentiments!

If anybody wants to see what was shown:

http://www.cndb.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php...&start=135

The 2009 Broadcast Code changed the rules slightly. Now rule 1.20 says "Representations of sexual intercourse must not occur before the watershed ... unless there is a serious educational purpose. Any discussion on, or portrayal of, sexual behaviour must be editorially justified if included before the watershed ... and must be appropriately limited."
Note that this bans any representation of sexual intercourse before the watershed (apart from educational) regardless of strength. So if an episode of Midsome Murders shows a couple going into a bedroom and closing the door, that is a breech of the Broadcasting Code. Large reputable broadcasters objected to this during the consultation phase.

Rule 1.21 says "Nudity before the watershed must be justified by the context. "

Technically full-on genital detail IS permitted before 9pm, but reading between the lines suggests that it is discouraged. The broadcaster could argue that the show is aimed at teens and few young children would be watching after 9.

Of course, the Broadcast Code does not define "serious educational purpose" as sex education. Or child education. There is a long well established tradition of using fully nude live models for adult art lessons, and that''s Educational. And medical students need to know how to perform genital exams, what a health fanny looks like, etc. Medical support staff need to know how to safely shave male and female patients.

So that's sorted then.

Channel 902 Art Live
Channel 911 The Medical Channel
Channel 959 Medical Technican Skills Update

Get sponsorship from a dodgey medical college and get a doctor to front the channels and Ofcom won't be able to touch them.

eccles, I know this is difficult for people to accept but Ofcom have no rights or powers to start dictating what the public can and cannot see on TV. Ofcom don't get to decide what is obscene or 'harmful and offensive' - only the courts and a jury can do that. And as the High Court deems explicit sexual material perfectly legal and, indeed, HARMLESS, Ofcom like the BBFC before them can quite rightly be branded Human Rights abusers.

I'm not letting up on this. Ofcom are actively discriminating against open and liberal-minded, 'red blooded' males (and no doubt many like-minded females) who actually have a right to see, need, want and enjoy proper 'adult' entertainment on TV.

The Comms Act itself may be in breach of the HRA - certainly Ofcom's interpretation of the Comms Act is clearly in breach of all our rights to receive and impart LEGAL material via TV and satellite. Mere offence is NOT a valid justification for the abuse/restriction/denial of a Fundamental Human Right to send and receive PERFECTLY safe and legal material - and I don't give a flying fuck what Ofcom 'believe'. I know my RIGHTS and Ofcom are severely and unnecessarily interfering with them in all aspects of the right to a family life; the right to a private life; the right to freedom of thought, conscience and (no) religion; and, of course, the right to freedom of expression.

Freedom of Expression may allow States to license TV, Radio and Cinema BUT, it does NOT allow them to ignore the whole intent and purpose of Freedom of Expression, which is "to allow ideas and information that may shock and disturb States and opinions...in order to progress society". Holding sexual progress in the UK back or, indeed, setting 'adult' TV back 15 years, is NOT in Ofcom's remit. Pampering to the whims of small-minded, easily offended, religiously corrupted fuckers is NOT in Ofcom remit. Forcing these people to accept change and modern principles of freedom and expression most certainly IS the purpose of Freedom of Expression and the sooner the Courts EXPLAIN that to Ofcom in no uncertan terms the BETTER for all of us!

(08-07-2010 16:39 )IanG Wrote:  eccles, I know this is difficult for people to accept but Ofcom have no rights or powers to start dictating what the public can and cannot see on TV. Ofcom don't get to decide what is obscene or 'harmful and offensive' - only the courts and a jury can do that. And as the High Court deems explicit sexual material perfectly legal and, indeed, HARMLESS, Ofcom like the BBFC before them can quite rightly be branded Human Rights abusers.

It's not me that you need to convince. If it helps think of my ideas as interim suggestions.