Ofcom - Current Investigations

(20-05-2010 17:39 )mrmann Wrote:  Babestation may be registered in Holland, but they obviously still abide by Offcom's regulations. Do we see full frontal on Babestation? Didn't think so.

I can understand Offcom not wanting to allow hardcore porn,[i] but what harm will full frontal cause? It's a human body, not something disgusting.

Elite has been very strict lately on showing any glimpses of vajayjay, especially when Caty Cole is on. When there is going to be a quick glimpse, the cameraman does a super pan, like he's about to fall over, and the camera goes all crazy like a glimpse of a vagina is the apocalypse

What's also a bit silly is that these channels allow the women to simulate masturbation, oral sex, getting ejaculated on, having sex, fingering and licking their fingers, tongue kissing, nipple sucking, ass spanking, but under NO circumstances can you show your hoohoo

There is also no harm to be found from viewing R18 material. I don't understand Ofcon. They must have friends in high places to carry on with their ridiculous censorship.

Ofcom are a bunch of fuckin rats, why have they constantly got it in for bangbabes media, its a fuckin disgrace, refuse to pay the fine and see the fuckers in court, really take a stand on this. The laughable situation is that bangbabes right now are probably one of the tamest stations on the 900's and I really do feel sorry for them and the models trying there best every night to put on an entertaining show only to be constantly constricted by ofcoms ridiculas rules. If there is a loophole in the system I urge all the babe channels to follow suit before that option becomes unavailable. So much for David Cameron promising to stop ofcom in policy making, what a fuckin lier.

It's puzzling that none of the babe channels licenced in mainland Europe have ever taken advantage of the fact that supposedly they are immune to Ofcom's jurisdiction. There must be more to it.

I can only assume that there are other UK laws regarding nudity and premium phone chat which inhibit broadcasters in the same way as Ofcom, which raises the question - why go to the trouble of licencing in a foreign country in the first place?

If it is the case about the country in which the licence is from doesn't that then make all the fines that bangbabes media has recieved unconstitutional.

well all i can say is lets see if there are complaints now that amanda has left,and if so what are they complaining about?
because if it gets any tamer it would qualify has a daytime show for me,when compared to the rest of them.

just noticed jemma is on so i take back some of the comment about been tame back, but apart from her i stick by every word.

(20-05-2010 22:32 )Digital Dave Wrote:  It's puzzling that none of the babe channels licenced in mainland Europe have ever taken advantage of the fact that supposedly they are immune to Ofcom's jurisdiction. There must be more to it.

I can only assume that there are other UK laws regarding nudity and premium phone chat which inhibit broadcasters in the same way as Ofcom, which raises the question - why go to the trouble of licencing in a foreign country in the first place?

DD, I would guess there is more to it but just what I'm not sure. There's the issue of advertising 'R18' type material, which, surprise, surprise is "illegal" in the UK according to the well out of date and totally fucking 'pornophobic' Video Recordings Act 1984 (which was NEVER actually legally enacted the UK (and thus was ILLEGALLY enforced) until January 2010 when New Labour 're-enacted' it unamended and undebated as the VRA 2010) - that's 26-year-old knee jerk legislation (and all thanks to the Sunday Telegraph and other wankstains at the Daily Mail) from the days of supposed 'video nasties', all of which are now available uncut and most with 15 ratings.

Until Dec. 2009 (it gets worse than this...), your assertion that foreign-resgistered TV channels were 'immune' from Ofcom is only sort of correct. Ofcom, like the ITC before them, have the legal power to ask the DCMS to "proscribe" (i.e. ban advertising and sales of cards/equipment for) channels which breach UK standards (on grounds of obscenity and such like). Ofcom exercised this power in 2005 (iirc) against a station said to be broadcasting 'violent porn'. So, Ofcom CAN and ALWAYS have had the power to 'ban' foreign porn channels (or at least the sale of cards and equipment to receive them). You will note however that since 2005, Ofcom have done NOTHING whatsoever to ban any other R18-type foreign broadcaster/channel (of which there are many available in the UK with the right equipment - just not $ky). The question is "why not?" - WHY NOT if R18-type porn is so 'dreadfully dangerous' it MUST be banned from TV in the UK?

I can only give a bit of reasoned speculation as to WHY Ofcom have NOT banned these other services - i.e. THEY CAN'T. They can't ban these other channels because they're not in breach of criminal law. They show R18-type material, which, since 2000, is LEGAL to buy and watch in the UK. I say its legal to buy...one VERY SILLY rule in the VRA limits sales of R18 in the UK to "licensed sex shops", however, since 2000 you are perfectly within your legal rights to import any legal hardcore porn from overseas without interference from any State busibody (like Customs or, indeed, fucking Ofcom!). Buying porn over satellite TV or Internet is the same as importing it into Britain and, moreover, YOU'RE well within your legally enforcable RIGHTS to do that - so hands off, Ofcom...!

As I indicated above however, this situation is now under some threat. The new AVMS Directive allows all TV regulators across the EU (Ofcunts included) to demand any foreign broadcaster with a majority of its audience in 'their country' to abide by 'their TV rules'. This is known as the "country of reception principle", which completely reverses the "country of origin principle" that we're (I think) all familiar with. So, its no longer the strict rules of legality which determine Ofcom's abilities to fuck about with what you're entitled to watch on your own bastard equipment but, instead, how popular those un-Ofcom'd channels are with British viewers (who, no doubt, chose those foreign services BECAUSE they were out of Ofcom's pornophobic fucking reach...until now!). You see how WRONG this is? We make a CHOICE and Ofcom now get to slam the door in our face. That my friends is Dictatorial FASCISM.

I'm afraid we live in a backward, repressive, sexually-repressed reminant of Victorian insanity. Of course, this suits the mentally ill, backward and sexually-repressed tossers that make up whinging Britain. It suits Ofcom too, who just love to believe they're upholding 'standards' when what they're actually engaged in is an insult to Human Rights, to the notion of Freedom and, to Democratic Rule and Equality under The Law. Ofcom are clearly prejudiced against real Adult Entertainment and, all members of the public who enjoy real Adult Entertainment. Porn fans are not equal under Ofcom's Code. You cannot complain that a programme fails to meet your expectations or fails to live up to the advertising claims if it involves "adult sex material" - Ofcom simply ignore your complaint or 'suggest' you're being "vexacious" because..."we've banned the stuff and you should know that...we can't have that filth on UK TV". Trouble is Ofcom have not produced ANY guidelines the PUBLIC can read to familiarise themselves with what they SHOULD EXPECT from UK 'adult channels' and, moreover, what's NOT 'allowed' to be shown on UK TV. Is that 'clear'? Is it 'transparent'? Ofcom are supposed to be BOTH - by Law...

"No R18-type material" doesn't tell you anything about what you CAN expect to see, it means NOTHING to those that don't know what R18-type material 'is'. How 'far' an 'adult' TV channel CAN go is NOT stipulated ANYWHERE in Ofcom's glorious Code - they've 'left that job' to when they stand in judgement of a channel after a BOGUS complaint from some self-harming tosser who's too fucking sick to be watching any adult TV if they're COMPELLED to complain to Ofcom everytime half a labia majora pokes out some gal's knicker elastic. It's Ofcom Complaining Disorder - O C D - get sum therapy you dozy t w a t !

Ofcom will of course pamper to the obsessive whims of this insane individual (I think we know WHO it is though...don't we?). When they hand down their almighty judgement, Ofcom will claim to have provided "clear guidance" in a plethora of fortnightly bullshitings that are neither consistent, transparent, clear, concise, precise or of any fucking use what so ever. To 'know' what you're supposedly 'allowed' to broadcast, or, indeed, to know what you're 'allowed' to watch as a viewer or paying subscriber, requires you to read through 120 (over 5 years worth of) Broadcast Bulletins and pick out which bits of holy wisdom apply to your programming and/or viewing interests. The Broadcasting Code however tells you nothing, even though this is supposedly the Holy Bible of British Broadcasting regulation.

is all this ofcom stuff the reason thier is no 2 for 1's on bangbabes

I have a simple theory. It seems someone is carrying out a direct and sustained attack on our viewing options. I reckon it is either one of the opposing channels (which seem to be modus operandi in the adult tv world) or one puritanical crank. Ofcom should explain if all these complaints are from one source or are from different people. If they are from a lone source they should all be treated as a single complaint and not individually.

what i would like to know is how do we complain to ofcom that the programs aren't explicit enough?
and if they would take the complaints seriously. i dare say that if they got say 1000 complaints for lack of explicit material to every 1 they get for too explicit we may get somewhere.

basically petition every complaint / adjudication with the express intent of overturning there rulings.
not to mention them being complicit in the robbery of the companies and there pay per view/adult channels customer, by selling an adult sex license then refusing to allow the programming which the license covers. (but i guess sum1 more educated than me will have tell me if my point of view is valid on this 1)

just a thought!!!...

(21-05-2010 09:27 )Hexit Wrote:  what i would like to know is how do we complain to ofcom that the programs aren't explicit enough?
and if they would take the complaints seriously.

There's nothing in the broadcasting code saying that programming needs to be explicit. Unless you can show that the broadcasting code has been broken your complaint would not be regarded as valid.