Options
Are Adult Channels Victimised
![[Deleted User]](https://wb.vanillicon.com/v2/bc27587bb100ef3235372f0a37425a45.svg)
[Deleted User]
Posts: 736 Forum Member
✭✭
Does anyone thing adult channels (aka babe channels or slapper channels) are victimised?
Most channels are allowed a large amount of leeway and the rules are being relaxed all the time. Unless the flagrantly break the rules Ofcom won't lift a finger against them, and then all it does it to wag said finger unless they have repeatedly broken the rules in a way that creates clear harm.
When it comes to the adult channels the position is reversed. Every minor transgression is magnified out of all proportion. The rules are constantly tightened. Borderline value judgements are treated as multiple breaches. Surveys are interpreted narrowly rather than leniently. Theoretical harm is treated as actual. A whole years good compliance record counts for nothing against a previous complaint more than a year ago.
In this day and age it seems wrong to have morality police who go out of their way to find fault.
Most channels are allowed a large amount of leeway and the rules are being relaxed all the time. Unless the flagrantly break the rules Ofcom won't lift a finger against them, and then all it does it to wag said finger unless they have repeatedly broken the rules in a way that creates clear harm.
When it comes to the adult channels the position is reversed. Every minor transgression is magnified out of all proportion. The rules are constantly tightened. Borderline value judgements are treated as multiple breaches. Surveys are interpreted narrowly rather than leniently. Theoretical harm is treated as actual. A whole years good compliance record counts for nothing against a previous complaint more than a year ago.
In this day and age it seems wrong to have morality police who go out of their way to find fault.
0
Comments
So that means that they can't be allowed much leeway.
The sort of breaches that tend to happen on most of the other channels tend to be, by comparison relatively minor, and fairly uncommon in term of how often they occur compared to the number of hours broadcast (and they usually have fairly good documentation to show they at least attempt to comply with the rules)..
I suspect that the fact that several of the companies that have run the adult channels in the past have taken the mickey in terms of compliance with the rules, does not do the current ones any favours (much of the adult channel industry has had it's reputation smeared by the actions of it's members in the past).
Some girl on a Babe phone channel slips as she moves around, and accidentally shows a microsecond of pubic area - that's a fine - end of.
It was broadcast - no argument.
I hated "artist separation" issues - where the same actor is in a programm and also in an advert in the middle of said program. This wa sone of the cornerstones of early ad regulations on ITV.
No channel was ever fined for that, as they always pleaded it was an "accident" - despite the fact that the clever advertising company often put really old ads on to cash in on guest appearances by major movie stars etc.
Now I believe "Artist separation" has been de-regulated.
So like a lot of regulators - like banking - if they can't enforce it they make it legal.
Unfortunately - the porn regulations are too simple and clear cut - Slapper channels can show boobs but not groins.
Porn channels cannot show erections or penetration - simples.
I bet it would be easier for OFCOM to de-regulate so they don't have to bother - but that is never going to happen.
So I've always found it rather strange why those channels dont broadcast via 28.2 east?. That sat as far as I know is not subject to British regulations yet if the hardcore channels did broascast on there would probably be a ready customer base for them. So just who is it thats stopping the hardcore porn channels broadcasting via 28.2 east in the first place?
im not a great fan of the teasing and flesh they show during the day, but its up to adults and parents to block adult channels if appropriate in their home.
i dont see a problem with them showing everything and engaging in sex acts as long as people have to enter their pin to view. Much like we have to do to watch 15 or 18 certificated movies during the day
I've said before on here, I suspect that the only reason OFcom has an opportunity to punish these channels is because a minority of people (it may only be a handful in the whole country) are complaining about them week in week out, not being particularly offended in terms of coming across it by accident or it suddenly being shown without warning like most complaints are but instead deliberately seeking material that falls outside of the rules.
Totally agree - they're old hat on TV and better kept on line nowadays
You might as well say that they're old hat online too, they've been going longer.
Myself I think that if they keep some of the perverts and dirty old men off the street then it can't be bad thing.
Not everybody has a PC btw.
Magazines are available on the top shelf for those that way inclined:cool:
I'm not particularly bothered over these channels in terms of personal interest but I find how they are regulated and how people react to them interesting.
Also I think that if they were pressured, fined out of existance or made outright illegal it would only encourage those who object to porn (pretty much every religious group, OBJECT, the feminist section of Mumsnet, Mediawatch-UK, quite a few politicians, journalists and so) to attack porn on the internet and in shops. Probably with their usual lies and underhanded tactics.
If you check the compliance record the BBC has more clearcut infringements than the adult channels - it was the BBC that broadcast the most offensive swearword in various live broadcasts during the day when toddlers might have been watching. All the BBC gets is a mild warning.
The adult channels breaches tend to be matters of interpretation, and in some cases the rules have not been set down in advance.
They are also applied inconsistently. This evening I say a woman sucking a sex toy, but in Ofcom's eyes that's OK because it was not on a adult channel. However if a woman merely mimed sucking a sex toy on a adult channel that would be grounds for an in breach ruling and potential fine.
As for not seeing the need for these channels, that same could be said of gambling, stand up comedy or religion.
There are loads of shops out there and tons of shopping sites on the web, so why not remove all the TV shopping channels as well?
And there are loads of churches and synagogues and mosques out there and loads of religious sites on the internet, so why not get rid of the religious TV channels as well?
In fact, why not get rid of everything except what I want to watch? Wouldn't that be great?
Surely that is a greater crime than some slapper having a nip slip before 9pm.
Not to speak of explicit violence and strong language, which some may argue is more damaging than some topless slapper waving a phone around.
So should all this more extreme post-watershed content (on channels like Channel4 and Five) be behind pin code/encryption too?
Not another one :rolleyes: What company was it?
Totally
It's crazy in 2012 with encryption avaliable that porn channels are not allowed to show it all.
You could easily put several layers of encrption in & use the same tecnology as SKY Box office use to stop the movies being recorded.
Its all easier to find on the net these days, but if some want it via SKY, why shouldn't they be allowed to.
Same with shopping channels. What's the point of ad breaks if you're going to have a programme dedicated to selling you stuff?
If a broadcaster can't get his model or producer to comply with those rules, then they're hiring the wrong people which is getting these channels into trouble in the first place.