(17-06-2015 06:44 )babelover48 Wrote: ^I doubt even if OFCOM now did a u - turn and said "We've classified the babe channels wrong let's make them proper 18+ adult channels after all" I don't think that would even improve the situation the channels are in now.
But when you see more and more webcam site springing up that the babes would probably sign up to, I would wonder if that is how we will only see the babes in future, once the shows are consigned to the archives of telly history, yet it would be great if the UK babes signed up to a UK based webcam site that doesn't have payment links to a overseas company would be good too. Whether we all see the Webcam thing as a light at the end of the tunnel for seeing babes is another matter.
But if this was to happen I fear it wouldn't take OFCOM very long to start clamping down on the contents of these sites (wouldn't be surprised if it was happening even now as I write this), and then we would be back to square one in our never ending battle.
Ofcom might clamp down, but there has always been a small gap between public policy statements for the press and reality, with loopholes for those in the know.
Even when Maggie Thatcher was at her height there were private cinema clubs that showed content that would not be allowed even a R18 certificate today. Newsagents and local newspapers openly carried ads for dodgy massage services. Camera clubs sometimes had special evenings. Swingers clubs seem to be legal now, even with paid events. Lapdancing clubs might be heavily regulated, but most operate 7 days a week for 12+ hours, meaning more openly advertised, licenced, legal stripping than ever before. Ofcom has not banned a single European hardcore satellite channel in its entire existence, despite these being advertised in UK magazines and having the power to do so where a channel is aimed at the UK on moral grounds - EU rules allow this.
Cam sites and hardcore clips on the web are just one aspect of this unstated policy of allowing porn for those who try hard enough.
No government is capable of or wants to clamp down totally. Some of their own members are "gentlemen with refined tastes". So are some of their supporters and financial backers. Not many, but enough. If they have their wits about them and accept impartial advice, they will know that clamping down only creates a dangerous pressure cooker situation.
Another factor might be foreign businesses, or rather, businesses that can be run anywhere. Bankers might or might not pay tax, but they contribute a lot to the UK economy. London is supposed to be chocca with high value high tech businesses. Remove the goodies, stop them having fun at the end of a long day, and a few influential people might decide to relocate to France, Italy, Spain, the USA or the Far East. Do it right and tax would be less and big houses in nice areas would be far more affordable.
We could end up with a situation where there is token regulation, big name sites registering with UK regulators and abiding by UK rules, but widely known and quietly tolerated alternatives.
The trouble is as soon as sites require payment, that becomes a significant amount, and a lot of people are reluctant to give their name, address, date of birth and bank card details to a pornographer, or a gateway site working with them. The whole payment and/or registration thing reduces the number of participants by at least a factor of ten, contributing to the pressure cooker effect.
Porn services will continue to be available one way or another, but they might be for the few, not the many.