This is (still) getting ridicilous
Discussion
AJS- said:
Two complaints?
So if 5 of us make a concerted effort to complain about any chosen item of BBC output where they are completely biased in favour of the Labour Party, the EU, MMGW or any other item of left wingery, will there be an investigation?
So if 5 of us make a concerted effort to complain about any chosen item of BBC output where they are completely biased in favour of the Labour Party, the EU, MMGW or any other item of left wingery, will there be an investigation?
Right, off to find my spleen.isee said:
Tiggsy said:
isee said:
So why is a comparison that is actually true, cut out? The car looks like a down in his opinion. nothing more nothing else. what's teh big deal?
Seriously? Thats your defence?If they made it in brown could it call it a Special
?While the joke is no big deal it is in poor taste and people are free to say so.....to "defend" it as some sort of statement of fact and not a joke is weak at best.
t like that or rather you can get offended, but your complaint should not be enforced in any way. Political correctness has not gone mad...it has simply gone from WAY to far on one side of the scale to a bit over the other side. In an ideal world it would be perfectly balanced but it isnt...but it's better than what we had before.
Unfortunately, for his fans, Clarkson has about 5/10 years left. He's where Jim Davidson was when he was fronting the Generation Game.....top of his game but close to the edge.
A few complaints about Clarkson are are one thing.
But who in their right mind would tune into a Babeworld channel and then complain about sexual content.
But who in their right mind would tune into a Babeworld channel and then complain about sexual content.
Ofcom Bulitin said:
In Breach
Freeblue 1
Babeworld.tv, 9 July 2010, 21:00 to 21:30
Introduction
Freeblue 1 is an adult sex chat television service, owned and operated by Babeworld TV Limited (“Babeworld TV” or “the Licensee”). The service is available freely without mandatory restricted access on the channel Babeworld TV (Sky channel number 908). This channel is situated in the 'adult' section of the Sky electronic programme guide ("EPG"). The channel broadcasts programmes after the 21:00 watershed based on interactive 'adult' sex chat services. Viewers are invited to contact onscreen female presenters via premium rate telephony services ("PRS"). The female presenters dress and behave in a sexually provocative way while encouraging viewers to contact the PRS numbers.
Ofcom received a complaint from a viewer about the conduct of the female presenters.
Ofcom noted that the programme featured up to eleven women on screen at the same time. All of the women were wearing skimpy underwear including thongs and bras. At various times the women were shown adopting sexual positions, including: lying on their backs with their legs open to camera; bending over with their buttocks to camera; and presenters between the legs of other presenters. While in these positions the female presenters carried out a number of sexually provocative acts. Some were shown rubbing their breasts and buttocks, and touching around their genital area and upper thighs. Some presenters were shown kissing each other and touching each other‟s breasts, buttocks, genital area and upper thighs. They were also shown lightly spanking each other‟s buttocks. The broadcast also included images of a presenter placing her head between the legs of another presenter, mimicking oral sex. In addition, a female presenter removed another presenter‟s bra and was shown licking and sucking her nipples. Certain presenters licked their fingers to mimic the performance of oral sex on a man.
Ofcom requested formal comments from Babeworld TV under the following Code Rules:
Rule 1.6 - the transition to more adult material must not be unduly abrupt at the watershed; Rule 2.1 - the broadcaster must apply generally accepted standards; and Rule 2.3 - offensive material must be justified by context.
Response
The Licensee said that this broadcast “was the launch of Bluebird TV and as such it had several presenters on screen at the same”. It said that there were so many presenters that viewers would have found it hard to focus on any one girl for any length of time.
Babeworld TV said that the broadcast “went out on an adult EPG and therefore the likely viewing audience would have been fully aware of the type of content it could expect to receive”. It continued that it was “unlikely that they [the viewers] would have
Ofcom Broadcast Bulletin, Issue 168
25 October 2010
10
found the content at odds with the generally accepted standards”. It continued that the material “would not have caused any offence as it would have been in context with their [viewers‟] expectations and the channel listing”. Decision Ofcom has a duty to ensure that generally accepted standards are applied to the content of radio and television services so as to provide adequate protection from the inclusion of harmful or offensive material. In relation to generally accepted standards, including those in relation to sexual material, Ofcom recognises that what is and is not generally accepted is subject to change over time. When deciding whether or not particular broadcast content is likely to fall within generally accepted standards it is necessary to assess the character of the content itself and the context in which it is provided. In relation to the broadcast of material of a sexual nature this normally involves assessing the strength or explicitness of the content and balancing it against the particular editorial or contextual justification for broadcasting the content. Ofcom seeks to ensure that material of a sexual nature, when broadcast, is editorially justified, appropriately scheduled and, where necessary, access is restricted to adults. When setting and applying standards in its Code to provide adequate protection to members of the public from harm and offence, Ofcom must have regard to the need for standards to be applied in a manner that best guarantees an appropriate level of freedom of expression in accordance with Article 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights, as incorporated in the Human Rights Act 1998. This is the right of a broadcaster to impart information and ideas and the right of the audience to receive them. Accordingly, Ofcom must exercise its duties in light of these rights and not interfere with the exercise of these rights in broadcast services unless it is satisfied that the restrictions it seeks to apply are required by law and are necessary to achieve a legitimate aim. Ofcom notes however that a broadcaster‟s right to freedom of expression, although applicable to sexual content and pornography, is more restricted in this context compared to, for example, political speech, and this right can be legitimately restricted if it is for the protection of the public, including the protection of those under 18. In considering the images in this programme, Ofcom assessed the strength of the content and then asked itself whether the broadcaster ensured that the content was provided with sufficient contextual justification so as to ensure that it applied generally accepted standards. Ofcom recognises that there were a number of presenters on screen at the same time filmed in relative long shot for the most part and there were not any close-up images of genitalia. The overall impact of the images was lessened to some extent by these factors. Nevertheless, Ofcom considered the imagery in terms of sexually provocative behaviour on the screen still to be sexually strong and capable of causing offence, particularly for the time it was scheduled. On a number of occasions the female presenters adopted sexually provocative positions both individually and together, and the nature of their joint performances was very sexual. For example, the presenters rubbed and stroked each other‟s genital area and upper thighs in a sexualised manner, spanked each other, one presenter mimicked licking another presenter between her legs, and one presenter was shown licking and sucking another presenter‟s exposed breasts.
Ofcom Broadcast Bulletin, Issue 168
25 October 2010
11
Ofcom therefore examined the extent to which there were any particular editorial or contextual factors that might have limited the potential for offence. As noted above, all the presenters were shown from a distance and the camera did not film any of the images described above in close up or in intrusive detail. Ofcom took into account that this programme was broadcast after the 21:00 watershed, and that viewers tend to expect stronger sexual material to be shown after this time. Ofcom also noted that the Babeworld TV channel is in the 'adult' section of the Sky EPG and that viewers tend to expect the broadcast of stronger sexual material on channels in this section of the EPG than would be expected to be included on other channels. However, Ofcom was concerned that the sexualised images described above were shown directly after the watershed from 21:00. Ofcom took into account the likely expectation of the audience. Here Ofcom believes that viewers of a channel freely available without mandatory restricted access would not expect to see material of such strength broadcast directly after the watershed between 21:00 and 21:30. Ofcom therefore considered that the time of broadcast and the location of the channel were not sufficient to justify the broadcast of sexually provocative behaviour such as that included in this broadcast at this time in the schedule. Ofcom therefore concluded that this content was clearly not justified by the context and breached generally accepted standards. Rule 1.6 makes clear that the strongest material should appear later in the schedule and that the transition to more adult material should not be unduly abrupt at the watershed. Given the images described above were broadcast so soon after the watershed, Ofcom considered that they were too strong to be shown so soon after the watershed and contravened Rule 1.6. This broadcast was therefore in breach of Rules 1.6, 2.1 and 2.3 of the Code.
Breach of Rules 1.6, 2.1 and 2.3
Freeblue 1
Babeworld.tv, 9 July 2010, 21:00 to 21:30
Introduction
Freeblue 1 is an adult sex chat television service, owned and operated by Babeworld TV Limited (“Babeworld TV” or “the Licensee”). The service is available freely without mandatory restricted access on the channel Babeworld TV (Sky channel number 908). This channel is situated in the 'adult' section of the Sky electronic programme guide ("EPG"). The channel broadcasts programmes after the 21:00 watershed based on interactive 'adult' sex chat services. Viewers are invited to contact onscreen female presenters via premium rate telephony services ("PRS"). The female presenters dress and behave in a sexually provocative way while encouraging viewers to contact the PRS numbers.
Ofcom received a complaint from a viewer about the conduct of the female presenters.
Ofcom noted that the programme featured up to eleven women on screen at the same time. All of the women were wearing skimpy underwear including thongs and bras. At various times the women were shown adopting sexual positions, including: lying on their backs with their legs open to camera; bending over with their buttocks to camera; and presenters between the legs of other presenters. While in these positions the female presenters carried out a number of sexually provocative acts. Some were shown rubbing their breasts and buttocks, and touching around their genital area and upper thighs. Some presenters were shown kissing each other and touching each other‟s breasts, buttocks, genital area and upper thighs. They were also shown lightly spanking each other‟s buttocks. The broadcast also included images of a presenter placing her head between the legs of another presenter, mimicking oral sex. In addition, a female presenter removed another presenter‟s bra and was shown licking and sucking her nipples. Certain presenters licked their fingers to mimic the performance of oral sex on a man.
Ofcom requested formal comments from Babeworld TV under the following Code Rules:
Rule 1.6 - the transition to more adult material must not be unduly abrupt at the watershed; Rule 2.1 - the broadcaster must apply generally accepted standards; and Rule 2.3 - offensive material must be justified by context.
Response
The Licensee said that this broadcast “was the launch of Bluebird TV and as such it had several presenters on screen at the same”. It said that there were so many presenters that viewers would have found it hard to focus on any one girl for any length of time.
Babeworld TV said that the broadcast “went out on an adult EPG and therefore the likely viewing audience would have been fully aware of the type of content it could expect to receive”. It continued that it was “unlikely that they [the viewers] would have
Ofcom Broadcast Bulletin, Issue 168
25 October 2010
10
found the content at odds with the generally accepted standards”. It continued that the material “would not have caused any offence as it would have been in context with their [viewers‟] expectations and the channel listing”. Decision Ofcom has a duty to ensure that generally accepted standards are applied to the content of radio and television services so as to provide adequate protection from the inclusion of harmful or offensive material. In relation to generally accepted standards, including those in relation to sexual material, Ofcom recognises that what is and is not generally accepted is subject to change over time. When deciding whether or not particular broadcast content is likely to fall within generally accepted standards it is necessary to assess the character of the content itself and the context in which it is provided. In relation to the broadcast of material of a sexual nature this normally involves assessing the strength or explicitness of the content and balancing it against the particular editorial or contextual justification for broadcasting the content. Ofcom seeks to ensure that material of a sexual nature, when broadcast, is editorially justified, appropriately scheduled and, where necessary, access is restricted to adults. When setting and applying standards in its Code to provide adequate protection to members of the public from harm and offence, Ofcom must have regard to the need for standards to be applied in a manner that best guarantees an appropriate level of freedom of expression in accordance with Article 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights, as incorporated in the Human Rights Act 1998. This is the right of a broadcaster to impart information and ideas and the right of the audience to receive them. Accordingly, Ofcom must exercise its duties in light of these rights and not interfere with the exercise of these rights in broadcast services unless it is satisfied that the restrictions it seeks to apply are required by law and are necessary to achieve a legitimate aim. Ofcom notes however that a broadcaster‟s right to freedom of expression, although applicable to sexual content and pornography, is more restricted in this context compared to, for example, political speech, and this right can be legitimately restricted if it is for the protection of the public, including the protection of those under 18. In considering the images in this programme, Ofcom assessed the strength of the content and then asked itself whether the broadcaster ensured that the content was provided with sufficient contextual justification so as to ensure that it applied generally accepted standards. Ofcom recognises that there were a number of presenters on screen at the same time filmed in relative long shot for the most part and there were not any close-up images of genitalia. The overall impact of the images was lessened to some extent by these factors. Nevertheless, Ofcom considered the imagery in terms of sexually provocative behaviour on the screen still to be sexually strong and capable of causing offence, particularly for the time it was scheduled. On a number of occasions the female presenters adopted sexually provocative positions both individually and together, and the nature of their joint performances was very sexual. For example, the presenters rubbed and stroked each other‟s genital area and upper thighs in a sexualised manner, spanked each other, one presenter mimicked licking another presenter between her legs, and one presenter was shown licking and sucking another presenter‟s exposed breasts.
Ofcom Broadcast Bulletin, Issue 168
25 October 2010
11
Ofcom therefore examined the extent to which there were any particular editorial or contextual factors that might have limited the potential for offence. As noted above, all the presenters were shown from a distance and the camera did not film any of the images described above in close up or in intrusive detail. Ofcom took into account that this programme was broadcast after the 21:00 watershed, and that viewers tend to expect stronger sexual material to be shown after this time. Ofcom also noted that the Babeworld TV channel is in the 'adult' section of the Sky EPG and that viewers tend to expect the broadcast of stronger sexual material on channels in this section of the EPG than would be expected to be included on other channels. However, Ofcom was concerned that the sexualised images described above were shown directly after the watershed from 21:00. Ofcom took into account the likely expectation of the audience. Here Ofcom believes that viewers of a channel freely available without mandatory restricted access would not expect to see material of such strength broadcast directly after the watershed between 21:00 and 21:30. Ofcom therefore considered that the time of broadcast and the location of the channel were not sufficient to justify the broadcast of sexually provocative behaviour such as that included in this broadcast at this time in the schedule. Ofcom therefore concluded that this content was clearly not justified by the context and breached generally accepted standards. Rule 1.6 makes clear that the strongest material should appear later in the schedule and that the transition to more adult material should not be unduly abrupt at the watershed. Given the images described above were broadcast so soon after the watershed, Ofcom considered that they were too strong to be shown so soon after the watershed and contravened Rule 1.6. This broadcast was therefore in breach of Rules 1.6, 2.1 and 2.3 of the Code.
Breach of Rules 1.6, 2.1 and 2.3
colonel c said:
A few complaints about Clarkson are are one thing.
But who in their right mind would tune into a Babeworld channel and then complain about sexual content.
I assume it's people who don't like that sort of channel and watch to hope at catching them out. And the fact that OFCOM ruled the TV station was wrong shows the system works....there have to be rules, otherwise you'd have hardcore porn 30 secs after the watershed on a free to see station. SO the rules were broken and the show told off.But who in their right mind would tune into a Babeworld channel and then complain about sexual content.
It's no different to getting a speeding ticket from a little old lady who doesnt like chavvy cars....you can whine that she should be sat indoors watching countdown....but there'd be no issue if the rule wasnt broken, and it's a good rule..... arguably, its busy bodies keeping these people in check that means we (the general population) never need to do it.
Tiggsy said:
colonel c said:
A few complaints about Clarkson are are one thing.
But who in their right mind would tune into a Babeworld channel and then complain about sexual content.
I assume it's people who don't like that sort of channel and watch to hope at catching them out. And the fact that OFCOM ruled the TV station was wrong shows the system works....there have to be rules, otherwise you'd have hardcore porn 30 secs after the watershed on a free to see station. SO the rules were broken and the show told off.But who in their right mind would tune into a Babeworld channel and then complain about sexual content.
It's no different to getting a speeding ticket from a little old lady who doesnt like chavvy cars....you can whine that she should be sat indoors watching countdown....but there'd be no issue if the rule wasnt broken, and it's a good rule..... arguably, its busy bodies keeping these people in check that means we (the general population) never need to do it.
colonel c said:
Tiggsy said:
colonel c said:
A few complaints about Clarkson are are one thing.
But who in their right mind would tune into a Babeworld channel and then complain about sexual content.
I assume it's people who don't like that sort of channel and watch to hope at catching them out. And the fact that OFCOM ruled the TV station was wrong shows the system works....there have to be rules, otherwise you'd have hardcore porn 30 secs after the watershed on a free to see station. SO the rules were broken and the show told off.But who in their right mind would tune into a Babeworld channel and then complain about sexual content.
It's no different to getting a speeding ticket from a little old lady who doesnt like chavvy cars....you can whine that she should be sat indoors watching countdown....but there'd be no issue if the rule wasnt broken, and it's a good rule..... arguably, its busy bodies keeping these people in check that means we (the general population) never need to do it.
Tiggsy said:
colonel c said:
A few complaints about Clarkson are are one thing.
But who in their right mind would tune into a Babeworld channel and then complain about sexual content.
I assume it's people who don't like that sort of channel and watch to hope at catching them out. And the fact that OFCOM ruled the TV station was wrong shows the system works....there have to be rules, otherwise you'd have hardcore porn 30 secs after the watershed on a free to see station. SO the rules were broken and the show told off.But who in their right mind would tune into a Babeworld channel and then complain about sexual content.
It's no different to getting a speeding ticket from a little old lady who doesnt like chavvy cars....you can whine that she should be sat indoors watching countdown....but there'd be no issue if the rule wasnt broken, and it's a good rule..... arguably, its busy bodies keeping these people in check that means we (the general population) never need to do it.
The only thing it proves is that Ofcom should be abolished pronto with all the other needless wastes of tax payers' money. What a waste of bloody time and money.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff