Ofcom Discussion

The thing that baffles me and allways has about the repressive censorship in this country is that we live in a free society, so much so I can openingly critise the government and call David Cameron a fucking arsehole without fear of arrest or retribution.

Anybody who thinks they live in a free society in the UK, or any other major country for that matter, is astonishingly naive.

You walk down any major street and cameras are following you. Every email, text or phone call you make can be monitored by the authorities. Free country my arse.

And I'll explain to you why it is so difficult for the channels. Ofcom have discretionary regulatory powers over what is broadcast on television in this country. Therefore, they can set the parameters of what is deemed to be offensive and harmful themselves. Of course, they can't just make up rules where any old thing is deemed to be offensive because that wouldn't last 5 minutes due to the numbers that would complain about it.

But the fact is not enough people disagree with their stance on sexual content for them to shift on it.

The best comparison I can give regarding discretionary powers is a nightclub with a dress code. Is it against any law to wear jeans and trainers? Of course it isn't but clubs can refuse entry at their discretion to people wearing them. You can bang on about your human rights, freedom of expression, the fact that you live in a free country and taking it to the European courts as much as you like but a club is within their rights to do it.

Ascot racecourse recently signalled their intention to strictly enforce their dress code regulations from now on. One of the main reasons they gave for doing so was that they had received complaints from people about others who were inappropriately dressed.

Similarly, Ofcom can do likewise. Now if you think just how difficult, or impossible even, to challenge a club that wouldn't let you in wearing jeans would be for you maybe you'll also understand just how difficult it is for the channels to challenge Ofcom.

(29-04-2012 12:02 )MARCCE Wrote:  The best comparison I can give regarding discretionary powers is a nightclub with a dress code. Is it against any law to wear jeans and trainers? Of course it isn't but clubs can refuse entry at their discretion to people wearing them. You can bang on about your human rights, freedom of expression, the fact that you live in a free country and taking it to the European courts as much as you like but a club is within their rights to do it.

Ascot racecourse recently signalled their intention to strictly enforce their dress code regulations from now on. One of the main reasons they gave for doing so was that they had received complaints from people about others who were inappropriately dressed.

Similarly, Ofcom can do likewise. Now if you think just how difficult, or impossible even, to challenge a club that wouldn't let you in wearing jeans would be for you maybe you'll also understand just how difficult it is for the channels to challenge Ofcom.

A very interesting post but I feel that your comparison about private clubs and their rules fall down when regarding broadcasting. Don't get het up about this it's only my opinion and not the gospel truth.

All the channels are subject to OFCOM regulations so it's level playing field. Yet I have seen pussies exposed on British TV channels in certain films.

Do these channels who broadcast the films get the sort of fines that some of Babe Channels have been hit with? No.

I watched Countess Dracula on the Horror Channel the other week and the frankly fantastic Ingrid Pitt was caught in several poses that would have OFCOM coming down on them like a ton of bricks if it had been broadcast by Elite, Babestion, RLC, etc.

I fully realise that explicit 'action' on British channels is never going to be allowed but to hit them with fines because of the occassional pussy flash seems contradictory.

And if you are so offended by the all too rare slips, these days, then what the fuck are you doing watching that channel in the first place.

This is a fine, Sunday afternoon rant, possibly fuelled by alcohol. I hope that everyone takes it in the spirit it was intended. Nastilly.

(29-04-2012 15:05 )Captain Vimes Wrote:  

(29-04-2012 12:02 )MARCCE Wrote:  The best comparison I can give regarding discretionary powers is a nightclub with a dress code. Is it against any law to wear jeans and trainers? Of course it isn't but clubs can refuse entry at their discretion to people wearing them. You can bang on about your human rights, freedom of expression, the fact that you live in a free country and taking it to the European courts as much as you like but a club is within their rights to do it.

Ascot racecourse recently signalled their intention to strictly enforce their dress code regulations from now on. One of the main reasons they gave for doing so was that they had received complaints from people about others who were inappropriately dressed.

Similarly, Ofcom can do likewise. Now if you think just how difficult, or impossible even, to challenge a club that wouldn't let you in wearing jeans would be for you maybe you'll also understand just how difficult it is for the channels to challenge Ofcom.

A very interesting post but I feel that your comparison about private clubs and their rules fall down when regarding broadcasting. Don't get het up about this it's only my opinion and not the gospel truth.

All the channels are subject to OFCOM regulations so it's level playing field. Yet I have seen pussies exposed on British TV channels in certain films.

Do these channels who broadcast the films get the sort of fines that some of Babe Channels have been hit with? No.

I watched Countess Dracula on the Horror Channel the other week and the frankly fantastic Ingrid Pitt was caught in several poses that would have OFCOM coming down on them like a ton of bricks if it had been broadcast by Elite, Babestion, RLC, etc.

I fully realise that explicit 'action' on British channels is never going to be allowed but to hit them with fines because of the occassional pussy flash seems contradictory.

And if you are so offended by the all too rare slips, these days, then what the fuck are you doing watching that channel in the first place.

This is a fine, Sunday afternoon rant, possibly fuelled by alcohol. I hope that everyone takes it in the spirit it was intended. Nastilly.

Excellent post, captain.

May I ask you why do you think that explicit "action" will never be allowed on British TV?


P.S. I loved Ingrid Pitt.

(29-04-2012 17:43 )blackjaques Wrote:  Excellent post, captain.

May I ask you why do you think that explicit "action" will never be allowed on British TV?

P.S. I loved Ingrid Pitt.

Because as a nation we love being outraged about the things 'others' are getting up to while if we do it is a matter of personal freedom.

See the Daily Mail who frequently bang on about online porn, porn, look at these people getting up to porn like things while funded by non-tax paying, immigrant, pornographers. Yet it is one of the most popular sites on the web, full of what it would call slacious images of the latest celebrities in states of undress.

We are just weird like that.

P.S. Your are correct to love Ingrid Pitt. This is not an opinion and is gospel truth.

All the channels are subject to OFCOM regulations so it's level playing field. Yet I have seen pussies exposed on British TV channels in certain films.

Do these channels who broadcast the films get the sort of fines that some of Babe Channels have been hit with? No.

I watched Countess Dracula on the Horror Channel the other week and the frankly fantastic Ingrid Pitt was caught in several poses that would have OFCOM coming down on them like a ton of bricks if it had been broadcast by Elite, Babestion, RLC, etc.

The critical difference being that pussies exposed in films aren't intended to get people to call in and spend £1.63 a minute to have a model talk dirty to them.

And Ofcom's discretionary view is that the purpose of the pussy exposure is all important. And that's very important in their discretionary opinion apparently!

Marcce irrespective of what the purpose is for banning the vagina on the babe channels, it's banned because in Ofcoms opinion they deem it to be dangerous which could cause serious harm to the minors if viewed, well let's say they did so happen to stumble across it on a late night babe channel, what actual harm would it cause anyway, other than look I see a fanny, big fucking deal, besides if the vagina is banned why is it then deemed suitable to be shown in an encryption channel, if mummy or daddy has TVX or Playboy TV then surely the odds are exactly the same for this kind of exposure.

I think I've said this before back in 2006 they were grouped together in the 900+ section so as to avoid confusion as also so that they could then easily be blocked which wasn't as easy as before when the shows were scattered all over the SKY EPG, infact I remember at the time it was a nightmare trying to find the channels. Get Lucky TV if I remember rightly was formally placed on the EPG as SKY channel number 235. So the decision to have them all together in the one place made perfect sense and was viewed by many at the time that all obligiations to protect minors from viewing them was now firmly in place to satisfy Ofcom regulations and the ball was firmly in the place of the parents/guardians.

I have also stated on numourous occasions before that rather than Ofcom hammering the channels they would operate so much fairer if when a complaint is made towards the babe channels that the complainant is given clear and concise information over the phone how to put all parental blocks in place, a government freephone helpline funded by Ofcom should be the way ahead so that us grown up's can get on with enjoying the type of shows as they were intended to like in the the first place other that what they are at present which is not being delivered because of the ridiculas, draconian rules in place.

This notion it's because they are charging a premium rate number to call the shows thus the reason the vagina cannot be shown is a ridiculas argument and holds absolutely no water whatsoever. It's either OK to show the vagina on the telly or it's not regardless of what type of entertainment you are selling.

Why can't parents just use fucking parental control or a four digit code if they want to protect their children, is it that fucking hard for them to do that, instead of whining and complaining all the time to Ofcom. If parents are concerned that their 10 year old son may be watching porn on the internet, well don't give your son a laptop, he doesn't need one at that age, I didn't get my until I started going to college. There are solutions out there if parents want to protect their children, some just can't be bothered to take responsibility

(29-04-2012 20:43 )Scottishbloke Wrote:  Marcce irrespective of what the purpose is for banning the vagina on the babe channels, it's banned because in Ofcoms opinion they deem it to be dangerous which could cause serious harm to the minors if viewed, well let's say they did so happen to stumble across it on a late night babe channel, what actual harm would it cause anyway, other than look I see a fanny, big fucking deal, besides if the vagina is banned why is it then deemed suitable to be shown in an encryption channel, if mummy or daddy has TVX or Playboy TV then surely the odds are exactly the same for this kind of exposure.

I think I've said this before back in 2006 they were grouped together in the 900+ section so as to avoid confusion as also so that they could then easily be blocked which wasn't as easy as before when the shows were scattered all over the SKY EPG, infact I remember at the time it was a nightmare trying to find the channels. Get Lucky TV if I remember rightly was formally placed on the EPG as SKY channel number 235. So the decision to have them all together in the one place made perfect sense and was viewed by many at the time that all obligiations to protect minors from viewing them was now firmly in place to satisfy Ofcom regulations and the ball was firmly in the place of the parents/guardians.

I have also stated on numourous occasions before that rather than Ofcom hammering the channels they would operate so much fairer if when a complaint is made towards the babe channels that the complainant is given clear and concise information over the phone how to put all parental blocks in place, a government freephone helpline funded by Ofcom should be the way ahead so that us grown up's can get on with enjoying the type of shows as they were intended to like in the the first place other that what they are at present which is not being delivered because of the ridiculas, draconian rules in place.

This notion it's because they are charging a premium rate number to call the shows thus the reason the vagina cannot be shown is a ridiculas argument and holds absolutely no water whatsoever. It's either OK to show the vagina on the telly or it's not regardless of what type of entertainment you are selling.

I agree totally and in the past have posted things saying similar but anyone involved in this thread will, or at least should know, that Ofcom differentiate between editorial content and advertising/teleshopping.

It's why the babe channels are classed as teleshopping channels and are therefore viewed differently from the BBC etc. In Ofcom's eyes the channels are selling sexual services of a sort.

I don't like it anymore than you do but it is important to understand just why Ofcom are able to do the things they do with regards to the babe channels. Just as it's important to understand why it's difficult for the channels themselves to challenge Ofcom.

(29-04-2012 20:12 )MARCCE Wrote:  The critical difference being that pussies exposed in films aren't intended to get people to call in and spend £1.63 a minute to have a model talk dirty to them.

And Ofcom's discretionary view is that the purpose of the pussy exposure is all important. And that's very important in their discretionary opinion apparently!

I said not to get all het up about this.

Why is it the responsibility of a quasi-governmental body to decide whether someone phoning a TV station for £1.63 a minute is anybody's business apart from the caller and the girl on screen? And what can be shown.

Let's be honest the babe call in channels make no effort to hide what they are doing. In that respect they are brutally honest.

If there is no coercion on either part who gives a damn.

I couldn't give a fuck if there was a gay channel with blokes calling blokes for £1.63 a minute and it involved upright members. I would switch over beacuse that wouldn't float my boat but I wouldn't condemn it.

I have to put up with, okay I don't because I turn over, with all sorts of religious channels spouting their message of love and brotherhood but only if you are willing to donate your money to their cause will God embrace you into the fold. I find these channels offensive but I'm not going to go bleating to OFCOM to have them banned.

They are spin meisters of the first order enriching themselves from the gullible. Do I want them banned? No. As I said I turn over.

There is lots of crap on satellite channels that we disagree with but being an adult I pick and choose what to watch.

(29-04-2012 21:17 )Captain Vimes Wrote:  I said not to get all het up about this.

Why is it the responsibility of a quasi-governmental body to decide whether someone phoning a TV station for £1.63 a minute is anybody's business apart from the caller and the girl on screen? And what can be shown.

Let's be honest the babe call in channels make no effort to hide what they are doing. In that respect they are brutally honest.

If there is no coercion on either part who gives a damn.

I couldn't give a fuck if there was a gay channel with blokes calling blokes for £1.63 a minute and it involved upright members. I would switch over beacuse that wouldn't float my boat but I wouldn't condemn it.

I have to put up with, okay I don't because I turn over, with all sorts of religious channels spouting their message of love and brotherhood but only if you are willing to donate your money to their cause will God embrace you into the fold. I find these channels offensive but I'm not going to go bleating to OFCOM to have them banned.

They are spin meisters of the first order enriching themselves from the gullible. Do I want them banned? No. As I said I turn over.

There is lots of crap on satellite channels that we disagree with but being an adult I pick and choose what to watch.

I'm far from getting het up about it I can assure you.

And yes we know all that, there's 132 pages of this thread saying the same thing over and over again.

The point is what exactly can be done to persuade Ofcom, or indeed the politicians, that your argument, my argument and everyone else who has contributed to this thread's argument is entirely reasonable?

My original post was highlighting the fact that expecting the channels themselves to do the challenging is not an option.