Ofcom Discussion

So what if we did do away with ofcom and we did indeed have every Tom, Dick and Harry applying for licences to show porn, that would be fucking fantastic, even more porn and live shows for us pervs to enjoy. The only thing that porn is bad for is apparently too much wanking makes you go blind and guess who came up with that fact, yes you've fucking guessed it, none other that the CHURCH going fuckers.

(09-07-2011 21:15 )Scottishbloke Wrote:  The only thing that porn is bad for is apparently too much wanking makes you go blind and guess who came up with that fact, yes you've fucking guessed it, none other that the CHURCH going fuckers.

Well iam am not totally blind YET but i need to go for an eye test next week because my eyes are not as they used to be, i blame the computer, xbox and watching the babechannels (elite tv).

What's sad is that Ofcom acts as if we all want the craziest types of porn on our TV, when infact I think we'd all be more than happy with just full frontal for a change. That can't be too much to ask for, right? Where is the harm in that, when they already allow it on non adult channels, and not in an educational way like they claim.

(09-07-2011 22:50 )mrmann Wrote:  What's sad is that Ofcom acts as if we all want the craziest types of porn on our TV, when infact I think we'd all be more than happy with just full frontal for a change. That can't be too much to ask for, right? Where is the harm in that, when they already allow it on non adult channels, and not in an educational way like they claim.

I totally agree - I don't want full on porn - just allow the models to move around naturally and show full frontal during the shows.

Yes I'll back that up too, if the babes were just allowed to show full frontal nakedness, nothing too naughty it would at least make the shows more watchable.

I'm starting to read these threads and ofcom findings etc. But I'm wondering if I should just forget it all as I dont want to be enjoying someone's performance then suddenly worrying 'hmmm that might not be ofcom compliant, where is the floor manager responsible for regulation content!!!'. Would put me right off.

Anyone actually experience that? No dont answer!!!1 (maybe I dont need to know).

/starts to bury own head in sand

...kidding of course. I cant stop myself.

Which is perhaps part of our problem generally (stopping ourselves going further). Its nice to hear some post recently what limits they would find satisfactory, and I think it is possible to work with them, or even roll them back a little. But clearly we want to push further. Can we live with less?

In reading the Ofcom bulletin 4th July (no independence here) here are some of their own backup quotes from guidance for Elitetv's two breaches discussed. (those two breaches discussed read like nice slightly raunchy sessions that we all hope to see each night, sad really )

 “at no time broadcast invasive shots of presenters‟ bodies. Ofcom cautions against physically intrusive, intimate shots of any duration; and against less intrusive shots that may become unacceptable by virtue of their being prolonged”;
 “at no time broadcast anal, labial or genital areas or broadcast images of presenters touching their genital or anal areas either with their hand or an object”; and
 “at no time include shots of presenters spitting onto their or others‟ bodies, or include shots of presenters using other liquids, such as oil and lotions, on their genital or anal areas”.

Bit depressing, but I suppose it leaves some room to work with, and now I am more impressed with the extent to which Elite (and others I am sure) have worked within these and other guidelines. I'm not accepting the changes or anything, but commenting on how the channels have tried to adapt and how it still works to some extent.

Commenting on the first point, that prolonged less intrusive shots are also prohibited, isnt that too vague? Maybe they define what less intrusive shots they mean somewhere else, but still.

Sorry if this seems a little basic in what is a very well developed thread, just started reading through it. Thanks to many of you who have thought further about it.

It all comes down to the fact that Ofcom will continue to make the guidelines as vague and confusing as possible, just so that they can continue to fine the babechannels for the slightest little thing.

(15-07-2011 21:08 )SYBORG666 Wrote:  It all comes down to the fact that Ofcom will continue to make the guidelines as vague and confusing as possible, just so that they can continue to fine the babechannels for the slightest little thing.

You may be right. Just to say the two actual Elitetv breaches they just finished processing, the first had oil applied "over her anal area (on top of her thong)" the second she had been standing over the camera with prolonged shots of her crotch area. (according to Ofcom, no idea of actual events, but sounds plausible nights viewing back in March/April) At least these two breaches correspond clearly enough, depressing as it is.

Also, its irritating that maybe these changes have been happening every so often, moving the goalposts etc.

(15-07-2011 21:28 )Roquentin Wrote:  

(15-07-2011 21:08 )SYBORG666 Wrote:  It all comes down to the fact that Ofcom will continue to make the guidelines as vague and confusing as possible, just so that they can continue to fine the babechannels for the slightest little thing.

You may be right. Just to say the two actual breaches they just finished processing, the first had oil applied "over her anal area (on top of her thong)" the second she had been standing over the camera with prolonged shots of her crotch area. (according to Ofcom, no idea of actual events, but sounds plausible nights viewing back in March/April) At least these two breaches correspond clearly enough, depressing as it is. Also, its irritating that maybe these changes have been happening every so often, changing the goalposts etc.

The real difficulty is that by keeping things vague such " breaches" as these, which are milder than can be seen on many mainstream channels, can be caught as breaking the code. I can't see how a shot of a babe wearing pants, of any size, can possibly breach the code. It's madness!