nudity on the increase [Archive]

Hick

27-08-2003, 21:10

Originally posted by Lord Nikon
What makes me laugh is the people who complain about it...

several small points...

1) We are born naked, how much more natural can you get?
2) If you don't wish to watch a TV program containing nudity, CHANGE CHANNEL

I agree but what gets me even more annoyed is the watchdog fellas - whoever they are anyway :rolleyes: I mean they receive complaints from a dozen people out of how many people that watched it and they think there's a major problem :mad:

Papers also report things such as "program receives record number of complaints" and the record is only something like 300 out of the 8 million that actually watched the program :rolleyes:

Lord Nikon

27-08-2003, 21:34

I wish I could be on that panel lol....

C = customer
M = Me

C - I watched a program last night that featured full frontal female nudity
M - And?
C - I wish to complain
M - ok, do you have your TV remote control handy?
C - Yes, why?
M - Next time something comes on TV that you don't like... USE IT, you have at LEAST 4, possibly 5 channels to choose from, unless you have cable or sky, in which case you possibly have over 100.. If something you don't like appears on one of them... PICK ANOTHER!!!

Ramrod

27-08-2003, 21:52

Originally posted by Graham
I object to sex on TV!

It's uncomfortable and I keep falling off!! :D Maby you should strap yourself to it:D

zoombini

28-08-2003, 08:12

Mind you, there are some that we would rather NOT see nude on the TV..

Just imagine, Nude politics & the Houses of Parliament.... Mo Mowlam sat ther.. eeeewwwww! cant go on.. too disgusting...

timewarrior2001

28-08-2003, 09:07

it has to be in context, we are talking frontal nudity, not hardcore porn here.
I'm all for hardcore porn but I would soon get fed up if everyone saw the same one ;)

Lord Nikon

28-08-2003, 14:46

Originally posted by zoombini
Mind you, there are some that we would rather NOT see nude on the TV..

Just imagine, Nude politics & the Houses of Parliament.... Mo Mowlam sat ther.. eeeewwwww! cant go on.. too disgusting...

That was a mental image we could ALL do without

zoombini

28-08-2003, 16:11

AKAIFR isnt there a nude rambling society that walk the paths in the all together?

How come they get away with it & the fella doing the nude walk does not?

Are the NTL offices soon to become nude working enviroments? :D

MrSums

28-08-2003, 16:33

Originally posted by zoombini
AKAIFR isnt there a nude rambling society that walk the paths in the all together?

How come they get away with it & the fella doing the nude walk does not?

Are the NTL offices soon to become nude working enviroments? :D

There is no law against nudety per ce in the UK, only against *exposing*. It is for this latter that the nude walk fella gets arrested, but the former as to why he keeps getting let off.

AFAIK, the ntl dress code is *appropriate* clothing, so only if the ACs broke down in the last heatwave would nudity have been ok

MrSums

Stuart

28-08-2003, 16:53

preacher

28-08-2003, 22:45

As far as I am concerned....if you turn on the tv and there is nudity and it offends you...change the bloomin channel!!!!!!! >8o(

Graham

30-08-2003, 22:14

To quote Kenny Everett talking to Mary Whitehouse:

"You've got a knob. Use it!"

Chris

30-08-2003, 22:43

Originally posted by preacher
As far as I am concerned....if you turn on the tv and there is nudity and it offends you...change the bloomin channel!!!!!!! >8o(

You're right, and I do. However you're missing the point just a wee bit ... those that complain about standards on TV are concerned with morality in society as a whole, and see TV as a relection of it. Hence me switching off my TV does not solve what I see as a problem faced by our whole culture.

Shaun

30-08-2003, 22:52

Originally posted by towny
You're right, and I do. However you're missing the point just a wee bit ... those that complain about standards on TV are concerned with morality in society as a whole, and see TV as a relection of it. Hence me switching off my TV does not solve what I see as a problem faced by our whole culture.

I see your point Towny, but having less nudity on telly isn't going to stop lads and lasses in Falaraki getting their bits out in public.

I don't think it will not stop society as a whole sliding into the gutter, it's gone too far already. Sadly.:(

Lord Nikon

31-08-2003, 01:02

Morality is not something you learn from TV, nor is TV going to result in a decline in it.

Morality is something the children learn from their parents, and from the attitudes of society.

Censoring the content of a film, or of a TV program achieves nothing, in the world of the internet more graphic content is available than has ever been shown on TV

What I object to is the ability to make choices myself being taken out of my hands and passed to a self appointed board, the British Board Of Film Censors.

yes, the BBFC should still dictate the rating of a movie, BUT they should no longer be able to dictate what parts of a movie are suitable for the general public to see.
The BBFC decide what we can see by watching the films themselves. They then dictate what could lead to moral decline. If the content was so potentially corrupting then they themselves would become corrupted themselves. This does not happen to them, so why should we be any different?

If the film makers, the producers, the cast and the author feel that a scene of nudity, sexual intercourse, or violence is important to the film, then why cut it? yet this is something the BBFC do on a daily basis.

Morality in society has been, and should be the responsibility of society as a whole.

the real problem is parents who no longer feel the need to educate their children, leaving this to TV, to the Internet, and to the schools, who are not equipped to educate on this level...

Schools are under a stranglehold to teach the curriculum, TV channels want to show what will get the highest ratings. The internet is impossible to regulate as a whole. Parents are shirking their duties and will continue to do so.

kronas

31-08-2003, 01:20

Originally posted by Lord Nikon

the real problem is parents who no longer feel the need to educate their children, leaving this to TV, to the Internet, and to the schools, who are not equipped to educate on this level...

Schools are under a stranglehold to teach the curriculum, TV channels want to show what will get the highest ratings. The internet is impossible to regulate as a whole. Parents are shirking their duties and will continue to do so.

i have agreed with most of your post parents are shunning there responsibilitys leaving them instead to the various forms of entertainment and the education system which can only teach someone so much

as for morality that should be instilled in to someone at a very early age thusly it should be the parents responsibility to ensure there children are not behaving in an improper manner

you may say im being harsh putting plenty of onus on the parents but its about that keyword responsibility

Lord Nikon

31-08-2003, 01:36

there's something wrong here kronas..... we seem to be agreeing on something lol

kronas

31-08-2003, 01:38

Originally posted by Lord Nikon
there's something wrong here kronas..... we seem to be agreeing on something lol

im level headed on issues lord nikon i just show my 'loose' side too much :p ;) :D :wavey:

Stuart

31-08-2003, 18:58

Originally posted by Lord Nikon
Morality is not something you learn from TV, nor is TV going to result in a decline in it.

Morality is something the children learn from their parents, and from the attitudes of society.

Censoring the content of a film, or of a TV program achieves nothing, in the world of the internet more graphic content is available than has ever been shown on TV

True, parents are shunning their responsibilities.

As an example, I used to work in Blockbuster video while I was a student. Regulary, I had kids try and rent "18" videos, and when I refused to rent the videos to them, without fail, 10 minutes later their parents would come in and rent the video.

I knew the video was for the kid, but didn't have proof so had to rent the video.

Chris

31-08-2003, 19:28

Originally posted by Lord Nikon
What I object to is the ability to make choices myself being taken out of my hands and passed to a self appointed board, the British Board Of Film Censors.

The BBFC (British Board of Film Classification ;) ) doesn't have power to dictate the final content or rating of a film. It acts as an agent for two elected bodies - Parliament and your local council. Ultimately, what is legal or not legal to be shown on screen is decided by Parliament, over which you have influence via the ballot box. And the certification of films is not the responsibility of the BBFC; the BBFC merely advises your local council what certificate it thinks a film should have. Legal power to certify a film is in the hands of local councils up and down the UK. You can vote your council out too. And they are not obliged to follow BBFC advice. They can raise the certificate if they think it is too lax; they can even lower it, as some did when Spiderman came out, thanks to extreme parental pressure, who were in turn under pressure from their kids, who were in turn under pressure from the film maker with an avertising campaign quite blatantly aimed at primary-school-aged kids.

I disagree with your assertion that you don't learn morality from TV. It certainly isn't the exclusive influence, neither is it the most important. Family life in the early years is without doubt the biggest influence. But I maintain that TV is both an influence upon and a mirror of our society.

Stuart

31-08-2003, 19:44

Originally posted by towny

I disagree with your assertion that you don't learn morality from TV. It certainly isn't the exclusive influence, neither is it the most important. Family life in the early years is without doubt the biggest influence. But I maintain that TV is both an influence upon and a mirror of our society.

I think the problem is that some parents are using the TV as a substitute for a family life. So, it is a big influence.

kronas

31-08-2003, 20:59

Originally posted by scastle
I think the problem is that some parents are using the TV as a substitute for a family life. So, it is a big influence.

indeed but tv does not teach you morality in the 'right way' because tv initself is a medium used to get peoples attention
it can be used as a tool to educate people but these days its showing how our morals are declining with some programs that are available to view.............

Lord Nikon

31-08-2003, 21:23

I disagree kronas... TV is showing programs which sell, programs which people WANT to see...

It should not be used as a model for morality in society.

We teach others morality through our actions, TV is a fantasy realm, where anything goes.

kronas

31-08-2003, 21:24

Originally posted by Lord Nikon

We teach others morality through our actions

yep

Originally posted by Lord Nikon

TV is a fantasy realm, where anything goes.

exactly the part 'anything goes' is the concern not everything on tv is morally correct

Lord Nikon

31-08-2003, 21:29

And why should it be?

Graham

01-09-2003, 01:13

Originally posted by towny
[B]The BBFC (British Board of Film Classification ;) ) doesn't have power to dictate the final content or rating of a film.

Not exactly, however it can refuse to give a rating to a film *unless* cuts are made. Refusing to classify is, under UK law, the kiss of death because it's illegal to sell or distribute uncertificated material.

It acts as an agent for two elected bodies - Parliament and your local council. Ultimately, what is legal or not legal to be shown on screen is decided by Parliament, over which you have influence via the ballot box.

Would that it were true! (But that's an argument for another thread!)

And the certification of films is not the responsibility of the BBFC; the BBFC merely advises your local council what certificate it thinks a film should have. Legal power to certify a film is in the hands of local councils up and down the UK.

Well, sort of, but from http://www.bbfc.co.uk/

"The BBFC classifies films on behalf of the local authorities who license cinemas under the Cinemas Act 1985."

Whilst local councils can make their own decisions about what films can or can't be shown in their area and they can, theoretically re-classify a film, the fact is that, as you say, in the vast majority of cases unless there's some major (tabloid inspired!) outcry against a film, the local council just rubber-stamp the BBFC's decision.

Chris

01-09-2003, 09:27

Originally posted by Graham
Whilst local councils can make their own decisions about what films can or can't be shown in their area and they can, theoretically re-classify a film, the fact is that, as you say, in the vast majority of cases unless there's some major (tabloid inspired!) outcry against a film, the local council just rubber-stamp the BBFC's decision.

Agreed, the BBFC exists to allow 'specialists' to rate the films and let the councillors get on with doing whatever it is they do. In that sense it's no different to each council having a planning director who examines applications and then recommends permission or refusal to the council's planning committee. I used to be a local hack and sat through oodles of such meetings. Mostly the councillors rubber-stamp the director's recommendation but sometimes they don't.

And here's the point: in cases where they do not, it's always because someone has lobbied hard enough and made a successful argument why the councillors should ignore the 'expert' verdict. That is democratic accountability at work. And if it works for planning permission, it can work for film classification. The BBFC is an 'expert' advising your local council in the same way as the council's own Director of Planning is. The problem is, most people don't know this, hence misguided complaints that film classification is somehow out of the reach of us mere mortals to influence.

I know you could accuse me of wearing rose-tinted specs for holding such a view but I think the problem in this country is not lack of accountability, it's ignorance of and apathy towards the whole political process. When there is enough noise, councils listen. Sadly at the moment only media 'outrage' at a film like Spiderman seems to make enough noise...

anarion

05-09-2003, 16:30

originally posted by mrsums
AFAIK, the ntl dress code is *appropriate* clothing, so only if the ACs broke down in the last heatwave would nudity have been ok

including no strappy tops, cycling shorts or ripped jeans. My t/l says we should come to worked as we would attend an interview....... except friday and saturday

downquark1

05-09-2003, 17:12

a study has shown nudity has increased on terrestrial television over the past 4 years after the watershed scenes of a sexual nature have doubled since 1999

I've been saying this for years, but people just tell me it's because I'm getting older.

my scientific view is its a natural part of .... nature. But then again, my scientific view is if its ownly bare flesh why do people want to watch it??;)

Unfortunally, people aren't ruled by logic

Shaun

05-09-2003, 17:37

Originally posted by kronas
a study has shown nudity has increased on terrestrial television over the past 4 years

Grrrrr:D

kronas

05-09-2003, 17:42

Originally posted by dellwear
Grrrrr:D

what are you GRRRRRR at :D

dont like nudity ? its natural we were all born nude :)

Shaun

05-09-2003, 17:45

Originally posted by kronas
what are you GRRRRRR at :D

dont like nudity ? its natural we were all born nude :)

Bovril Latrine, nude, with her tuppence out.

Not Grrr for me but for you ???

Now Dermot O'Leary, GRRRRRRRR:D ;)

Colin

05-09-2003, 18:16

Originally posted by kronas

dont like nudity ? its natural we were all born nude :)

Saying that though, would you like to see 100 year old Granny smith walking around starkus

kronas

05-09-2003, 18:18

Originally posted by dellwear
Bovril Latrine, nude, with her tuppence out.

:romance: :romance: :romance: :romance: :romance:

and its avril lavigne sunshine :mad:

Originally posted by dellwear

Now Dermot O'Leary, GRRRRRRRR

damn you, you batty boy my mate would liek to meet you then lmao :naughty: :naughty: :rofl:

discalmer the above refrence and usage of the term batty is noted to be of a humorous nature

Dave Stones

05-09-2003, 18:32

Originally posted by dellwear
Bovril Latrine, nude, with her tuppence out.

Not Grrr for me but for you ???

Now Dermot O'Leary, GRRRRRRRR:D ;)

*shudders at the thought of bovril*

*calms at the thought of cat deeley ;)*

[edit] wats a batty boy? ive never heard that before.

kronas

05-09-2003, 18:39

Originally posted by Dave Stones
*shudders at the thought of bovril*

*knows the majorty does not have taste

Originally posted by Dave Stones

*calms at the thought of cat deeley ;)*
]

shes ok

Originally posted by Dave Stones

[edit] wats a batty boy? ive never heard that before.

it means being a gay boy :p

Dave Stones

05-09-2003, 18:42

Originally posted by kronas
*knows the majorty does not have taste

meh

*knows youre part of the majority ;)

shes ok

i agree but it was the first person i could think of to take my mind off the above. theres something about cat's lazy eye that i dont find attractive...cant complain about anything else on her though... ;)

it means being a gay boy :p

ahhh. but why batty? are they meant to be like a fishcake or something? :shrug:

kronas

05-09-2003, 18:48

Originally posted by Dave Stones

ahhh. but why batty? are they meant to be like a fishcake or something? :shrug:

i dunno regional thing its been used before somewhere *shrugs

Originally posted by Dave Stones
meh

*knows youre part of the majority ;)

how did you figure that out :confused:

Dave Stones

05-09-2003, 18:49

Originally posted by kronas
i dunno regional thing its been used before somewhere *shrugs

regional... hmm. first ive ever heard of it and im roughly regional to you... must be more of a "local" thing eh ;)

kronas

05-09-2003, 18:50

Originally posted by Dave Stones
regional... hmm. first ive ever heard of it and im roughly regional to you... must be more of a "local" thing eh ;)

f**k knows :p

anyway back on topic :erm:

Shaun

05-09-2003, 18:52

Originally posted by Dave Stones
*shudders at the thought of bovril*

Me too. Yuck, :sick:

*calms at the thought of cat deeley ;)*

Emily symons is cute though (I like them a little older)
http://members.lycos.co.uk/aprilmoon/images/pics/ESymons/vp_ESymons5.jpg
And Alistair Appleton, Grrrrrr Download Failed (1)

[QUOTE]
[edit] wats a batty boy? ive never heard that before. [quote]

See (Alistair above, oh and)Ali G.:rolleyes: (queer), your so naive, how you gonna cope at Uni, the girls will eat you alive.:D :D ;)

Dave Stones

05-09-2003, 18:57

Originally posted by dellwear
how you gonna cope at Uni, the girls will eat you alive.:D :D ;)

oh thats the bit im most looking forward to ;) ;)

so... why is alistair appleton cute?! and anyway back on topic about nudity on the increase cat wins hands down over that picture you posted...

out of interest was bovril in the fhm sexiest women thing?

Shaun

05-09-2003, 19:03

Originally posted by Dave Stones
oh thats the bit im most looking forward to ;) ;)[QUOTE]

I bet you are. ;) :)

[QUOTE]
so... why is alistair appleton cute?! and anyway back on topic about nudity on the increase cat wins hands down over that picture you posted...

What makes Cat so appealing, I still prefer Emily! :D

out of interest was bovril in the fhm sexiest women thing? [/B]

Because the public are sheep

;)

Dave Stones

05-09-2003, 19:06

Originally posted by dellwear
What makes Cat so appealing, I still prefer Emily! :D

i could say the same thing with the names swapped... rachel stevens wins hands down over both of em tho ;)

Because the public are sheep

;)

huh? methinks you misread...

out of interest was bovril in the fhm sexiest women thing?

not why was... ;)

[edit] OMG she was... number 90. ah welll 90 out of 100 is still pretty poor... saying htat though taht page 3 girl leilani was 89... something must be wrong with the judges here...

Shaun

05-09-2003, 19:10

ah, it'd be the Scrumpy Jack, you'll know about these things when you get to Uni.;)

Dave Stones

05-09-2003, 19:11

Originally posted by dellwear
ah, it'd be the Scrumpy Jack, you'll know about these things when you get to Uni.;)

trust me i know all about scrumpy jack now... :sick:

kronas

05-09-2003, 19:11

for the idiots she was in the fhm sexiest women rated 90th

:mad: :upyours: :2up: :2up: :2up: :afire:

Dave Stones

05-09-2003, 19:15

Originally posted by kronas
for the idiots she was in the fhm sexiest women rated 90th

:mad: :upyours: :2up: :2up: :2up: :afire:

i discovered that. i also discovered this...

http://www.fhm.com/girls/sexiestresults2003/21-30result.html

hover over the pic of charlotte church (bottom right for the fools) and see what comes up... mildly amusing ;)

90th isnt really very high tho is it... considering someone as ugly as jordan is 25th and someone as beautiful as cat is 30th....

kronas

05-09-2003, 19:17

Originally posted by Dave Stones

90th isnt really very high tho is it... considering someone as ugly as jordan is 25th and someone as beautiful as cat is 30th....

exactly so it proves one thing some people dont have taste :D

Dave Stones

05-09-2003, 19:18

Originally posted by kronas
exactly so it proves one thing some people dont have taste :D

*proud to know he is not one of them :p

kronas

05-09-2003, 19:38

Originally posted by Dave Stones
*proud to know he is not one of them :p

i think you are :p :D

Shaun

05-09-2003, 19:46

It's all a strange world to this sweat innocent one.:p :p :p

kronas

05-09-2003, 19:47

Originally posted by dellwear
It's all a strange world to this sweat innocent one.:p :p :p

who dave stones ? :D :D

im sweet and innocent like avril................

but i know alot about the world in general

downquark1

05-09-2003, 22:43

:notopic: :notopic: :notopic: :notopic: :notopic:

Shaun

05-09-2003, 22:47

Originally posted by downquark1
:notopic: :notopic: :notopic: :notopic: :notopic:

Well said.............................but still all good fun :naughty: :naughty: :D

Jules

05-09-2003, 22:54

Dell who is this Alistair if he is on tele I wouldn't mind seeing him a bit more undressed :D

Shaun

06-09-2003, 02:46

Ain't he loverly.

Don't laugh but he does 'house doctor' and 'Cash in the attic', you can see him on TV here:
http://www.radiotimes.beeb.com/ListingsServlet?event=3&jspGridLocation=%2Fjsp%2Ftv_listings_grid.jsp&jspListLocation=%2Fjsp%2Ftv_listings_list.jsp&jspError=%2Fjsp%2Ferror.jsp&searchString=house+doctor&channels=92%2C105%2C26%2C132%2C134%2C39%2C40%2C45% 2C47%2C48%2C49%2C119%2C122%2C123%2C127%2C482%2C483 %2C147%2C150%2C156%2C158%2C160%2C585%2C921%2C177%2 C180%2C182%2C184%2C185%2C197%2C213%2C224%2C244%2C2 48%2C249%2C250%2C251%2C252%2C253%2C254%2C255%2C256 %2C257%2C258%2C259%2C260%2C261%2C262%2C264%2C265%2 C263%2C266%2C300%2C271%2C272%2C274%2C923%2C292%2C4 23%2C288%2C801%2C290%2C291%2C586
And here :
http://www.radiotimes.beeb.com/ListingsServlet?event=3&jspGridLocation=%2Fjsp%2Ftv_listings_grid.jsp&jspListLocation=%2Fjsp%2Ftv_listings_list.jsp&jspError=%2Fjsp%2Ferror.jsp&channels=92%2C105%2C26%2C132%2C134%2C39%2C40%2C45% 2C47%2C48%2C49%2C119%2C123%2C482%2C483%2C147%2C150 %2C156%2C158%2C160%2C1041%2C921%2C177%2C180%2C182% 2C184%2C185%2C197%2C213%2C244%2C249%2C250%2C251%2C 252%2C253%2C254%2C255%2C256%2C257%2C258%2C259%2C26 0%2C248%2C262%2C264%2C265%2C263%2C300%2C266%2C271% 2C274%2C923%2C292%2C423%2C288%2C801%2C290%2C291&searchString=cash+in+the+attic

He can be a little, hummm, how do I put this nicely, 'soft' sometimes, but I'd soon toughen him up!:naughty: :naughty:

His website is http://www.alistairappleton.com, but there is very few pictures of him, there and on the net. :( :(

He is everything you could want in a man, tall, good looking, very well dressed, and he's got his own money (always a bonus).

Unfortunately he's gay too, sorry. :( :(:naughty: ;)