Ofcom - More Babes in Breach

I have a question for you.I just had a flick through some of the OFCOM doc's and they seem to be very generalised with their infomation. As in there is no specific time for these breaches mentioned.Now anyone who has capped any of these flashes will tell you most of them last only fractions of a second. Now is that not a bit like getting done for speeding without any proof except for a picture of a car driving down the road taken by someone with a phone camera. Surley Ofcom would have to supply the exact time of the flash down to the 100th of a second and the length of the flash cos most times if you blink at the wrong time you miss them.What do you's think?

I think its time all the channels get together and get this sorted. Its far too random and everyone has their own agenda. For myself i would like to see the channels get together and appoint a suprimo who,s job it would be to act in the intrests of all the channels and deal with Offcom face to face rather than the channels in dissaray and Offcom basically doing what they like, but that,s just me

(08-02-2010 15:56 )Kenilo Wrote:  I have a question for you.I just had a flick through some of the OFCOM doc's and they seem to be very generalised with their infomation. As in there is no specific time for these breaches mentioned.Now anyone who has capped any of these flashes will tell you most of them last only fractions of a second. Now is that not a bit like getting done for speeding without any proof except for a picture of a car driving down the road taken by someone with a phone camera. Surley Ofcom would have to supply the exact time of the flash down to the 100th of a second and the length of the flash cos most times if you blink at the wrong time you miss them.What do you's think?

what usually happens is

ofcom receive a complaint about a specific show, from a member of the public,or in most cases a rival channel

ofcom will then request recordings from the channel, they will review the whole show, not just the specific time, and then judge accordingly, an accidental slip would probably go unpunished, but if its happening throughout the show or its a blatant flash, thats when the fines will come in.

Speaking legally they will need to use the minimum standard of evidence required as it as a public broadcast service. These images can be supplied independently if the indescretion is challenged. With acts of simulation this is not such an absolute as this happens all the time but is also a breach of the Ofcom code it just appears this can be challenged as a suggestive pose or even a dance.However if you are completely naked and doing this then it is assumed on the balance of probablities that sex is being simulated or implied. That is why there is no verbal mention sexually of body parts etc.

Its an antiquated law but there is no desire in the establishment to change it in the near future.

When Sky reconsider their interconnection rates for these channels there may be a chance.

Kenilo, I've been mulling this whole situation over for some time now. I too was wondering about the length of these slips and flashes and what 'harm' or 'offence' a half-second fanny flash MIGHT 'cause' (esp. to an audience that tunes-in to see glamour/porn models with their kit off). I think any sane and rational babe channel viewer would believe the odd fleeting fanny flash is most certainly justified by context.

I've also been considering Scirocco's post re PIN protected shows http://www.babeshows.co.uk/showthread.php?tid=17075. I'm going to post on that thread but what struck me is that during the original CONsultation in 2004, Ofcom's 'preferred option' was to "maintain the status quo". Well, the 'status quo' in 2003/4/5 allowed the girls to FTG and POP just before midnight when these 'hardcore channel' babeshows went encrypted (there are many examples of the good old days on this site). Sexstation, which wasn't a hardcore show, also used to have regular slots throughout the night when the girls would perform a full stiptease. Babestar was famed for all-nude girls talking dirty and flashing throughout the night. So, as Ofcom certainly did decide to maintain the 'status quo', one wonders where the fuck has all the stuff we used to have gone?

Ofcom have set UK TV broadcasting back at least 20 years - and for no good reason at all.

As I recall, Babestar received ONE complaint from a mother who, at around 9pm, discovered her 13-year-old son and his mates hearing Sammi asking folks to call-in if they wanted to fuck Ariel up the arse or cum on her tits. Now, we might think that the 'strongest language' shoudln't go out until after the watershed but, THIS WAS after the 9pm watershed and, indeed, that mother (probably for the first time in her stupid life) was monitoring what her under 18 was actually watching on TV AFTER 9pm when TV is ALLOWED to cater to ADULT audiences. The LESSON here is that parents are more likely to NEGLECT their kids IF they believe there's nothing 'unsuitable' on TV until much later (IF EVER...). Ofcom's idea of 'protection' is actually leaving kids more vulnerable and neglected than ever before. Parents need to be ENCOURAGED to monitor their children's viewing rather than rely on a bunch of faceless censorial dickwads in Rverside House to 'magically' do it for them. Ofcom have undermined the very NOTION and PURPOSE of the watershed, spreading it out like some vague mist. Why is it $ky Movies can start showing mature films from 8pm while the rest of the adult TV world can't put on ANY adult material until after 10pm (or indeed, never show true adult material at anytime)? Some favouritism maybe? Some backhand dealings perhaps? Wouldn't surprise me to discover Ofcom are on $ky's payroll.

The "generally accepted standards" (according to LAW) applied to TV regulation across most of Europe follows the guidelines set out in the TVFW/AVMS Directives such that:
a) the time of broadcast, coupled with
b) an audio warning prior to broadcast, and
c) an on-screen symbol (detailing the type of material or suitable age-rating)
are deemed MORE THAN SUFFICIENT to guard against any 'harm or offence'. Ofcom have implemented NO such MANDATORY protection, which, CAN by applied to ALL and ANY channels without the capabilities for PIN protection.

Films such as Romance, Baise Moi, 9 Songs and many others are NOT considered 'adult-sex' works by the BBFC BECAUSE the explicit hardcore sex scenes they all contain are not "intended to turn people on" (although why that's an issue I do not know!) and are "justified by context". Now, these films can and have been broadcast by the likes of $ky Movies and Film Four. But anyone flicking through the channels who stumbles into one of the hardcore sex scenes isn't going to see that on-screen sysmbol or hear the audio warning - and if they are one of the under 18s or one of the immature, 'vulnerable', religiously-brainwashed British wankers that are offended by explicit sex then, they could be forgiven for believing they were watching an R18-rated movie because they will not have the benefit of experience of those scenes in the full context of the movie. Ofcom have done absolutely NOTHING to protect the very people they claim need to be protected by banning R18-type 'adult-sex (works)' material from our screens and, consequently, unjustly discriminating against the broad-minded, adult-channel viewing, porn loving members of society - i.e. US!

According to the TVWF/AVMS, "Other technical means" like PIN codes are an OPTION only (and rightly so, because not all platforms can provide such a function!), and come AFTER all 3 'non-technical' measures above have been implemented (on all platforms!). In short, Ofcom cannot 'demand' what they themselves claim is an INADEQUATE means of PIN code protection until EVERY channel is required to put a content/age-rating symbol on-screen throughout the duration of a programme, and thus, allow EVERY viewer in Britain to KNOW what they might be exposing themselves to while flicking through the channels (and self-censor accordingly).

Unjustified censorship protects no one. It is in fact a fundamental abuse of our rights. Censorship is not in the public interest as it constitutes a lie by ommission - as proven by the MPs expenses scandal.

As I think we are all people who have no issues with explicit sex or nudity, I suggest we are all being unfairly discriminated against by Ofcom. We have every right to watch on TV the type of material that is LEGAL to possess in this country. Indeed, it is illegal for Ofcom to restrict any legally available material on the basis of mythological claptrap from those who have self-imposed mental issues with human sexuality and pornography. In fact the Human Rights Act does not permit the beliefs (i.e. opinions) of the easily offended to infringe or curtail the legal rights of anyone who does not share those beliefs (or opinons). Any 'offence' a person feels is purely subjective and, indeed, dealing with 'offensive' material in a sensible fashion is what defines a mature adult from an immature cretin. It seems to me that Ofcom have made a career out of pampering to the unsubstantiated whims of completely immature cretins - they should all be told to grow up instead of having their 'unhealthy fantasies' reinforced and catered-to by Ofcom's illegal, dictatorial and authoritarian brand of censorship.

(08-02-2010 16:07 )SOCATOA Wrote:  I think its time all the channels get together and get this sorted. Its far too random and everyone has their own agenda. For myself i would like to see the channels get together and appoint a suprimo who,s job it would be to act in the intrests of all the channels and deal with Offcom face to face rather than the channels in dissaray and Offcom basically doing what they like, but that,s just me

There already is a Trade association that Cellcast/BangBabes/BabeWorld/Sport are all members of: The Participation Broadcasters Television Association.
Those four companies all have appointed the PTVBA lawyers to deal with Ofcom issues.

(08-10-2009 01:31 )Hofmiester Wrote:  You may be interested to know that most of the Adult Stations are members of a Trade Organisation called the PTVBA (Participation TV Broadcasters Association) -

http://www.babeshows.co.uk/showthread.ph...#pid242217

And the "Supremo" that they have hired costs them a lot of money:

(09-10-2009 02:02 )Hofmiester Wrote:  I also said that the together we spent £250,000 thats Babeworld, Sport, Bang Media, and Cellcast.

http://www.babeshows.co.uk/showthread.ph...#pid243051

Another superb post IanG. One which mirrors exactly my own thoughts and probably the majority of others on this forum. Not only that, you always put across your reasons with justifications so it is CLEAR to see, that if people do not agree, then common sense, at least, must.

Stresses the fact that Ofcoms "rules and/or regulations" are so out of touch. Also that, where they are concerned at least, this is definitely dictatorial censorship.

I only wish that someone/some "body" would have the courage to challenge them.. because, as i stated above, if nothing else, common sense must prevail and a court of law would only back that.. surely?

.. if these barmy so called "human rights" laws and bass ackward political correctness can cause such change they have.. then what legs do/will Ofcom have to stand on..?

schmoo is bang on the money IanG Great post and well written

Nice to see someone using that grey squishy thing between their ears IanG Both intelligent and well put.

Absolutely agree with Ian G's perspective and applaud the cogency of the argument he puts forward. Schmoo and Kenilo beat me to the posting punch - I just hope more people get to read Ian's posts in this and other threads and have a think about the issues and possibilites. TOP POSTING.