Ofcom Discussion

And so the number of babeshows on TV continues its post-2015 decline. (Ofcom have now been meddling over more years of declining operators than anything else.)

Apparently there were multiple bts redundancies involved in this latest 'streamlining' at 66. Producers, office staff, etc. all thrown out on their ear with next to no time to sort their shit from the premises even. Apparently everyone was told only 2 or 3 days before it happened. Apparently the bosses blamed the energy crisis...

So much for what is being said by people that were there. I now move on to speculation and the questions that remain. First, how far would an extra 15K (the size of the Ofcome fine 66 now have to pay) have taken the studio at that point? And was anything left out of the explanation of its demise given to all concerned?

In comment to these I'd say only this: Who else reading this has been made redundant in the past and thought they were merely being given the most palatable line by their bosses as to why it was occuring? And isn't there USUALLY more than one pressure on finances at the back these things?

The imponderable is then how much were Ofcom culpable here? Indeed, do they even think of this shit when passing down their parcimonious judgements on so called breaches? And has the regulator once again contributed to bringing about RL consequences on people's lives and livelihoods in this? If so I'd call that inflicting RL, very tangible, HARM wouldn't you. You know actual HARM rather the unevidence, totally unverifiable, POTENTIAL type they like to claim they stop.

And for what? A couple of half nipples and a few rude words on TV... Because a couple of women were OTT on a channel barely any non-fans would be likely to be looking at. For transgressions against nebulous and entirely debatable broadcast "standards" (what are these if not moral codes?). And a dubious idea of what is potentially impactful to children and vulnerable people (this is an excuse in any case, it's about the control of adults really, but let's indulge them a mo)...

The idea that kids (and those of childlike mind) could accrue negative impacts from merely being passive witness to such limited expressions of adult sexuality (a sometimes beautiful, but always nothing but entirely natural thing) is positively Victorian in its outlook (and we know how hypocritical that lot were).

Regardless of any proper scrutiny, OFCOM and their ilk insist a certain portion of the public should be listened to beyond any other. Just because they believe there's a potential for harm there (while bringing forth absolutely no evidence at all to back that belief).* And now the regulator has shown once again that they are willing to facilitate RL harm in order to keep up this preverse pretence.

* One more thing, while we're on the surveys Ofcom use to back their opinions: Ofcom must know some of the public are basing their answers on a judgement of morals, rather the "potential harm" thing, but they conveniently choose to ignore this anomaly. Anyone might think its not the whys and wherefores Ofcom are interested in but simply in getting their stats to read the way they want them to read.

^ I had a strong feeling that this all happened to S66 in a hurry! There is no way that those presenters - particularly to the day show - were given advance warning. Jesus one or two of them had only just hung their coats up as new arrivals, before they were ushered out of the building again. Just on that, I wonder what will happen to Chloe?? who began a good tease hour almost minutes before she was gone too. Now she can't have been on the inside track??

Look, in fairness, I can see that Ofcom have a duty to ensure that unsuitable material - specifically for minors - isn't broadcast - certainly in the day time, so there was a lack of managerial diligence in not making cast iron certain that this didn't happen! They singularly failed - in a sense, this covered instances of 'open mic' as well, whether or not there was something said which was out of place! Having said all that, it sometimes seems to me, that the Ofcoms of this world, set themselves up as 'moral guardians' for society as a whole. Surely that is beyond the scope of their remit?? and further, what does it say about parental responsibility in ensuring (these channels can be pin encrypted) that output which may 'harm' is kept out of reach??

I myself think the decline in the number of babeshows isn't down to ofcom. I myself think it's down to the change in viewing habits in uk. Less & less people are consuming content in the traditional way, sitting in front of a tv to a set schedule, they're instead consuming content via smartphones & tablets using streaming services & things like BBC iplayer and Itv Hub

So the babeshows are going the same way, less tv presence & more of a presence online.

(18-09-2022 15:52 )Rammyrascal Wrote:  I myself think the decline in the number of babeshows isn't down to ofcom.

I didn't say it was cause and effect. I said they seem unconcerned for the part they play in the fostering of a sanctimonious intolerance. And on this occasion - as on occasions it for sure has in the past - it may have helped push people out of work. 66 mismanaged compliance for sure (mismanagement is a bit of a trend for babeshows) but let's not forget how Ofcom keep re-interpreting what they think should fall foul of their rules with zero justification (pervcam in daytime for instance). And that they'll soon be extending their sphere of influence over those new viewing habits Rammy. Would anyone like to bet on who will be their first victims online?

That's the thing with censors you see. They are never content. Because it's not about harm, it's about control and staying relevant. Self confirming their own validity with each successive action.

(18-09-2022 16:22 )ShandyHand Wrote:  

(18-09-2022 15:52 )Rammyrascal Wrote:  I myself think the decline in the number of babeshows isn't down to ofcom.

I didn't say it was cause and effect. I said they seem unconcerned for the part they play in the fostering of a sanctimonious intolerance. And on this occasion - as on occasions it for sure has in the past - it may have helped push people out of work. 66 mismanaged compliance for sure (mismanagement is a bit of a trend for babeshows) but let's not forget how Ofcom keep re-interpreting what they think should fall foul of their rules with zero justification (pervcam in daytime for instance). And that they'll soon be extending their sphere of influence over those new viewing habits Rammy. Would anyone like to bet on who will be their first victims online?

That's the thing with censors you see. They are never content. Because it's not about harm, it's about control and staying relevant. Self confirming their own validity with each successive action.

All valid points!!

(18-09-2022 16:22 )ShandyHand Wrote:  

(18-09-2022 15:52 )Rammyrascal Wrote:  I myself think the decline in the number of babeshows isn't down to ofcom.

I didn't say it was cause and effect. I said they seem unconcerned for the part they play in the fostering of a sanctimonious intolerance. And on this occasion - as on occasions it for sure has in the past - it may have helped push people out of work. 66 mismanaged compliance for sure (mismanagement is a bit of a trend for babeshows) but let's not forget how Ofcom keep re-interpreting what they think should fall foul of their rules with zero justification (pervcam in daytime for instance). And that they'll soon be extending their sphere of influence over those new viewing habits Rammy. Would anyone like to bet on who will be their first victims online?

That's the thing with censors you see. They are never content. Because it's not about harm, it's about control and staying relevant. Self confirming their own validity with each successive action.

Do agree about ofcom & censors. They are never content and are about control and staying relevant. I just think the reason why the number of shows on tv has declined is down to viewing habits changing

Anyone know if they there has been breaches since S66 was closed down

(29-11-2023 11:11 )HannahsPet Wrote:  Anyone know if they there has been breaches since S66 was closed down

^ That I don't know?? What I do believe is that S66 became extremely amateurish in the management (or mismanagement as I said in an earlier post) of the output! Pretty much ALL of the material that 'crossed the line' as far as ofcom was concerned, was foreseeable and preventable (open Mic, camera control). I trust that the 9pm to 10 pm segment that Anastasia Harris brought to us was NOT one of the examples cited by Ofcom?? If that was the case, there is no limit to what they will see as inappropriate (dress code - you know what I mean), and what remains in terms of Xpanded and/or BS will likely then be on borrowed time! NB that is if xpanded don't disappear all by themselves!

Just wondered because maybe if there is no one bringing the attention of OFCOM onto them maybe they will loosen up a little and produce better shows i know there are some great ones mainly beth and Ashlyn but others to maybe its the perk of losing S66 which as you said was amatuerish in there production

Its not a babeshow but interesting some one has finally taken ofcom to court

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/of....html?s=08