Surely intervention and enforcement should be proportionate? Time and again channels are dragged through the process because of a few isolated complaints while shows that attract millions of viewers are let off despite tens or hundreds of complaints. Silent Witness is the latest example.
What's worse is the suspicion that complaints about "adult" channels are from activists or competitors, not ordinary members of the public who have suffered genuine offence.
The only way I feel is silence the activists. Yes we are a country of free-speech, but to me some of these are a threat to democracy and our way of life. We will NEVER be on par with the rest of Europe until these activits accept society is moving on.
As for competitors complaining......I know who it is thats punishing the likes of Storm.
Yup, the oft-repeated phrases in their judgements against these channels are "exceeds viewer expectations" and "generally accepted standards" - both of which seem to run against the fact that the judgements are carried out on the back of a sole complaint, or none at all if they're carrying out a "monitoring exercise"....
Yup, the oft-repeated phrases in their judgements against these channels are "exceeds viewer expectations" and "generally accepted standards" - both of which seem to run against the fact that the judgements are carried out on the back of a sole complaint, or none at all if they're carrying out a "monitoring exercise"....
These shows do not exceed my expectations, time and again they fall short. Apart from anything else, there is a huge difference between (actual) viewers and potential viewers. People who tune in do so for a purpose.
Perhaps censorship leads to people being naive, Britain is heavily regulated country in all aspects, yet lead the tables in teen pregnancy, teen alcohol abuse, teen drug use and juvenile crime.
I wonder why fellow European countries with more liberal censorship seem do better. I strongly suspect better parenting and family values instead of relying on a Nanny State to do it for them.
I don't think the whole argument about blocking porn or adult channels has ever come up in, say, Holland or Germany? I've been to both countries and they are much more open about sex. Doesn't Holland have the lowest teen pregnancy rates in Western Europe?
Are you serious or just winding us up? Of course you'd watch it. Come on, admit it :D
I don't think the whole argument about blocking porn or adult channels has ever come up in, say, Holland or Germany? I've been to both countries and they are much more open about sex. Doesn't Holland have the lowest teen pregnancy rates in Western Europe?
On the otherhand I've read that they aren't as generous with benefits as we are (whether that is true or not I am not sure).
Perhaps they have a different philosophy, open about sex in society but with emphasis on personal responsibility. Were as here we have the opposite, not so open about sex but with an increasing reliance on the state for them to sort out issues with teenage sex instead of the family.
Can't see why the Tories aren't rushing to embrace those ideas.
They seem to be determined to limit (rightly or wrongly) the amount of sexuality in the public sphere and to some degree private sphere. Some of their members have decried the explicit nature of sex education and the availability of contraception too.
Are you serious or just winding us up? Of course you'd watch it. Come on, admit it :D
I don't think the whole argument about blocking porn or adult channels has ever come up in, say, Holland or Germany? I've been to both countries and they are much more open about sex. Doesn't Holland have the lowest teen pregnancy rates in Western Europe?
Well done.
You asked that earlier in the thread, it didn't get a response so you waited and raised it again.
I like that, determination and no giving up. You'll go far with that attitude to life. The adult channels could do with someone like you fighting their corner.
The latest Lynx deodorant advert illustrates double standards in broadcasting. The one that jokes about premature persipration. The shots where wetness suddenly spreads on the mans underarms are a play on the concept of premature ejactulation, any mention of which would be banned on a babe channel before midnight.
Even more explicit is the scene where an attractive young woman suggestively licks a phallic ice-cream. If a woman on a babe channel suggestively licked an ice-cream the channel would be threatened with a five figure fine.
The reasoning (apart from Ofcom not liking it) is that babe channels are advertising and cannot claim content is justified by context. Unlike deodorant adverts.
Perhaps they have a different philosophy, open about sex in society but with emphasis on personal responsibility. Were as here we have the opposite, not so open about sex but with an increasing reliance on the state for them to sort out issues with teenage sex instead of the family.
That's quite possible. There mightn't be so many benefit scroungers either.
You asked that earlier in the thread, it didn't get a response so you waited and raised it again.
I like that, determination and no giving up. You'll go far with that attitude to life. The adult channels could do with someone like you fighting their corner.
Sexual content is the only area where the limits are different for encrypted and clear content, and the only area where limits differ from DVDs and cinema.
Why? Is it uniquely harmful? Uniquely offensive? Of course not.
Subscription movie channels have different rules from other channels - even subscription non-movie channels, for some bizarre reason.
Originally, they could essentially show anything PG-rated at any time of the day (including milder swearing and the likes that wouldn't necessarily be permissible on non-movie channels, whether subscription or not) and anything 15-rated from 8pm. Was never quite sure of the rules for 18-rated movies, Sky's slots tended to mean they started at 10pm but I suspect the milder ones at least could be shown from 9pm.
Of course, they can now show anything rated 15 and under at any time, although 12- and 15-rated films need PIN protection before 8pm.
As far as I know, ordinary, non-movie channels do not have these dispensations.
Of course, Sky muddied the waters by originally using official BBFC ratings, then a bizarre time-based rating system (anyone remember the 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 certs they used?). Now they just seem to mirror the BBFC classifications, although they have been more lenient in a few cases - Jay and Silent Bob is a 15 on Sky, for example.
Here is a clear example of dual standards. The Horror Channel is showing Shadow: Dead Riot,described as uncompromising horror and rated 18. It started at 9 and within minutes there was a scene when a man carved deep lumps out of himself with a sharp stone (imitable behaviour), shortly after in a riot scene someone had a stake rammed through their skull (imitable) and the top of someone else's head was blown off by a shotgun. Later but before 10 a woman has her face eaten away by a dead baby. This is despite rules calling for a gradual transition. By contrast just before 10 the babe channels are all wearing bras.
Is the government saying graphic imitable violence is acceptable viewing for children who may be a bit tardy going to bed, and cannot cause offence to adults, but a bit of breast that would be unremarkable on a family holiday beach or in The Sun can bring society tumbling down?
Sky Arts is showing yet another documentary about Burleque (stripping). Tonight it is a one hour special on Dita Von Teese, starting at 10. Mostly nipples are covered but there have been a few lingering shots without and right now two pairs of hands are sensually rubbing her bod and when she turns round there are lingering knicker shots. But that's ok because it is tasteful and Art and there is no concievable way a teenage boy could find it arousing. [/sarcasm tag]
In Game of Thrones the other night two 'hos were pleasuring each other in an extended scene lasting 5 minutes. The scene was relatively explicit and content this strong has not been seen on adult channels since BangBabes was at it's peak (or nadir depending on your viewpoint). Today it would probably earn an adult channel a five figure fine.
But apparently it's OK for inclusion in a fantasy drama that will attract a large male teenage audience. From 9pm.
If this doesn't harm viewers or cause offence why would the same material suddenly become unacceptable with a different channel number? How does broadcasting later make content worse?
No, they're just subject to extremely stringent and completely nonsensical rules laid down by the Broadcasting Code in order to satisfy neither the people who want adult material on TV nor those who don't, so they've cobbled together a sort of half way compromise which allows viewers to see a bit of naughty stuff but not too much.
UK rules actually are a complete mess. especially while we have so-called goody goodys ruleing that the public must not be allowed "porn" because they feel have the" church" down there necks . This is the same church has too much influence on what we watch or dont watch as they think our morals which be infected by porn. "wake up this is the 21st century".
For far too long the viewer gets all those christian channels on sky (which we dont want) down our necks and what we want to watch we are not allowed by law. How about banning those religious channels instead. ??
The halfway compomise is no compomise at all !
I do remember the "adult channel" in the old days before virgin ,was an excellent channel yet they lost there licence because of the material they showed .and this was long before the internet opened our eyes to porn .
In Game of Thrones the other night two 'hos were pleasuring each other in an extended scene lasting 5 minutes. The scene was relatively explicit and content this strong has not been seen on adult channels since BangBabes was at it's peak (or nadir depending on your viewpoint). Today it would probably earn an adult channel a five figure fine.
But apparently it's OK for inclusion in a fantasy drama that will attract a large male teenage audience. From 9pm.
If this doesn't harm viewers or cause offence why would the same material suddenly become unacceptable with a different channel number? How does broadcasting later make content worse?
The difference is that one is on tape and has been cleared, live babes doing the same is risky as they (or the camera man) might go and reveal some pussy or something equally appalling! The fact one is watching a "babe channel" isn't sufficient warning or context apparently. Laughable but there we are.
Not always true. The rules state that genital areas must not be visible. Ofcom upheld a complain against Asian Babes because the presenter was wearing flesh coloured knickers that could have been mistaken for nudity. (Bulletin 160).
i suspect its only a matter of time before the genital areas are shown it wasnt that long ago that nipples couldnt be seen
Comments
What's worse is the suspicion that complaints about "adult" channels are from activists or competitors, not ordinary members of the public who have suffered genuine offence.
Is this good use of public money?
As for competitors complaining......I know who it is thats punishing the likes of Storm.
These shows do not exceed my expectations, time and again they fall short. Apart from anything else, there is a huge difference between (actual) viewers and potential viewers. People who tune in do so for a purpose.
Are you serious or just winding us up? Of course you'd watch it. Come on, admit it
I don't think the whole argument about blocking porn or adult channels has ever come up in, say, Holland or Germany? I've been to both countries and they are much more open about sex. Doesn't Holland have the lowest teen pregnancy rates in Western Europe?
On the otherhand I've read that they aren't as generous with benefits as we are (whether that is true or not I am not sure).
Perhaps they have a different philosophy, open about sex in society but with emphasis on personal responsibility. Were as here we have the opposite, not so open about sex but with an increasing reliance on the state for them to sort out issues with teenage sex instead of the family.
They seem to be determined to limit (rightly or wrongly) the amount of sexuality in the public sphere and to some degree private sphere. Some of their members have decried the explicit nature of sex education and the availability of contraception too.
You asked that earlier in the thread, it didn't get a response so you waited and raised it again.
I like that, determination and no giving up. You'll go far with that attitude to life. The adult channels could do with someone like you fighting their corner.
Even more explicit is the scene where an attractive young woman suggestively licks a phallic ice-cream. If a woman on a babe channel suggestively licked an ice-cream the channel would be threatened with a five figure fine.
The reasoning (apart from Ofcom not liking it) is that babe channels are advertising and cannot claim content is justified by context. Unlike deodorant adverts.
That's quite possible. There mightn't be so many benefit scroungers either.
Thanks
Why? Is it uniquely harmful? Uniquely offensive? Of course not.
Originally, they could essentially show anything PG-rated at any time of the day (including milder swearing and the likes that wouldn't necessarily be permissible on non-movie channels, whether subscription or not) and anything 15-rated from 8pm. Was never quite sure of the rules for 18-rated movies, Sky's slots tended to mean they started at 10pm but I suspect the milder ones at least could be shown from 9pm.
Of course, they can now show anything rated 15 and under at any time, although 12- and 15-rated films need PIN protection before 8pm.
As far as I know, ordinary, non-movie channels do not have these dispensations.
Of course, Sky muddied the waters by originally using official BBFC ratings, then a bizarre time-based rating system (anyone remember the 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 certs they used?). Now they just seem to mirror the BBFC classifications, although they have been more lenient in a few cases - Jay and Silent Bob is a 15 on Sky, for example.
Is the government saying graphic imitable violence is acceptable viewing for children who may be a bit tardy going to bed, and cannot cause offence to adults, but a bit of breast that would be unremarkable on a family holiday beach or in The Sun can bring society tumbling down?
But apparently it's OK for inclusion in a fantasy drama that will attract a large male teenage audience. From 9pm.
If this doesn't harm viewers or cause offence why would the same material suddenly become unacceptable with a different channel number? How does broadcasting later make content worse?
For far too long the viewer gets all those christian channels on sky (which we dont want) down our necks and what we want to watch we are not allowed by law. How about banning those religious channels instead. ??
The halfway compomise is no compomise at all !
I do remember the "adult channel" in the old days before virgin ,was an excellent channel yet they lost there licence because of the material they showed .and this was long before the internet opened our eyes to porn .
The difference is that one is on tape and has been cleared, live babes doing the same is risky as they (or the camera man) might go and reveal some pussy or something equally appalling! The fact one is watching a "babe channel" isn't sufficient warning or context apparently. Laughable but there we are.