Ofcom Discussion

^ Time and/or a high profile mistake (or two) will eventually do for Ofcom and their moralistic censorious attitude IMO. Like all juggernaut bodies that become too big for their boots I see them as eventually over reaching themselves and becoming an embarassment to some future government.

It might help if their errors lie in the over censoring of some mainstream programme but its more likely a form of breakup or enforced rebrand will come from leftfield (from our perspective) given Ofcom regulates on a multitude of areas. 

There are two problems with ending Ofcom however... 1. TV regulation is always needed, so what rules do their successor's enact? (They may well simply adopt Ofcom's two tier approach - a system that keeps the babeshows very effectively held to a ridiculously high standard) and 2. Regulators take their tone from government policy... while government policy is often kneejerk and informed by the need to control (left and right of the political spectrum in this country may have their own reasonings but both are about control at the end of the day; neither have proven themselves libertarians for many a year now). We are in backlash period against personal freedoms atm that plays right into this aim. So, its actually the zeitgeist excuses for same that need to be seen for what they are... Ofcom is simply current weapon of choice. 

What is actually required is for the powers that be to have no excuses left to weild. No wiggle room to argue for further controls.

Its important to note at this point that this zeitgeist is not actually public opinion, its an exaggeration of it, a hype, a calculated bastardisation of it proporgated by various organisations that benefit from the 'something must be done' reaction to various 'scandals'. Want a 'something' done as a government? Get together in a backroom with your covert third party organisation; suggest evidence is needed to reach an invitable conclusion; vola twisted survey (or broadly intrepreted one) is produced by third party to back preordained action.

Government has colluded with the (best intentioned but over reaching) NSPCC in this manner recently in order to bloster their push to internet censorship. Ofcom similiarly pervert their survey results all the time in order to lie about how cutting back on sex/nudity/etc on screen is a massive priority for the public. Actually their own numbers show the public (despite endless propaganda pushing the agenda) has many bigger fish to fry in terms of what they deem as requiring action. And Ofcom have to conflate many offense categories to get the relevant numbers as high as they do even then... But the presentation methods used for their summeries and judgements are key. They want to find justification in the numbers and so they do.

The polarising nature of the social media bubble plays into said aims of all these self perpetuating controlling bodies. Twitter in particular with its endless tirades of SJW's, drunk on meaningless little victories over this or that coroporation, fuels the convient idea that the wider public think along the same censorious lines as these identity politics obsessives. They do not. Anyone that looks to present twitter as the arbitor of public consciousness does so for a reason - again it is a perversion of the truth adopted to offer a required excuse. 

There is no over arching conspiracy to all this. Just disparate groups that have learnt to work the system to achieve their own ends. The death of Ofcom is not actually a requirement in any turn around. What we need instead is for the public to get annoyed enough at their names being taken in vain. We need a backlash on the current judgemental backlash. We need Boris to be held to account on his recent statements over maintaining personal liberties. We need identity politics to be labelled for the dodgy belief system it is. We need the currently budding feeling of 'had enough of this shit' to spread and bear fruit in the right areas.

It seems to me the battle between personal liberty and authoritarianism is never really won or lost, it only ebbs and flows like the tides. Only public apathy tends to allow those in power the space to exert their egostical desire to leave their mark where none is actually required; that is the one true enabler to the forces we oppose. And that is what needs to change in order for the tide to turn once more.

how can a program like naked attraction still be aired on ch4 or 5 (can't remember which 1 it's on) and yet the babeshows get hauled over the coals for the slightest hint of anything sexual

Naked and afraid goes out on DMAX on Freeview at 16.00 hours.
Just as the kids are getting home from school.

It's down to how they're categorised as far as I'm aware. I don't know if anything has changed recently, but the babe channels are/were classed as a form of teleshopping due to them selling a service and the premium rate numbers used. As weird as that sounds, you know, 'cos tits and stuff.

(22-01-2020 20:10 )skully Wrote:  It's down to how they're categorised as far as I'm aware. I don't know if anything has changed recently, but the babe channels are/were classed as a form of teleshopping due to them selling a service and the premium rate numbers used. As weird as that sounds, you know, 'cos tits and stuff.

I don't buy that as a reason. Whenever Ofcom put out a notice that there is a complaint against the channels, the reasons they use are always the same, it's how "easy it is to find the channels on sky/freeview" (complete bullshit as it's far easier to find Sky Atlantic/Channel 4 etc) and the "potential harm of adult content on a child" (also complete bullshit, where are these hypothetical children scarred for life because of some tits and ass ?).

I never see the description from Ofcom say "the channels can't do x or y because they have a certain license". Maybe they have put that out there but I can't ever recall seeing it.

It just feels that Ofcom has an agenda and if the channels went and fought their case against them then logic and common sense would prevail and Ofcom would be back in their box, but the channels seem to be devoid of the will to fight their corner, maybe they just don't have the finances to undertake such a fight, I dunno but the stranglehold Ofcom has seems like a massive over reaction on their part when it is completely unwarranted.

(23-01-2020 00:17 )Stemmw Wrote:  

(22-01-2020 20:10 )skully Wrote:  It's down to how they're categorised as far as I'm aware. I don't know if anything has changed recently, but the babe channels are/were classed as a form of teleshopping due to them selling a service and the premium rate numbers used. As weird as that sounds, you know, 'cos tits and stuff.

I don't buy that as a reason. Whenever Ofcom put out a notice that there is a complaint against the channels, the reasons they use are always the same, it's how "easy it is to find the channels on sky/freeview" (complete bullshit as it's far easier to find Sky Atlantic/Channel 4 etc) and the "potential harm of adult content on a child" (also complete bullshit, where are these hypothetical children scarred for life because of some tits and ass ?).

I never see the description from Ofcom say "the channels can't do x or y because they have a certain license". Maybe they have put that out there but I can't ever recall seeing it.

It just feels that Ofcom has an agenda and if the channels went and fought their case against them then logic and common sense would prevail and Ofcom would be back in their box, but the channels seem to be devoid of the will to fight their corner, maybe they just don't have the finances to undertake such a fight, I dunno but the stranglehold Ofcom has seems like a massive over reaction on their part when it is completely unwarranted.

Ofcom describe the babe channels as a "Teleshopping service"
Here is a link to the Ofcom licence details of Studio 66, it shows that the type of service provided by S66 is Teleshoping http://static.ofcom.org.uk/static/radiol...io66tv.htm
The babe channels are not classed by Ofcom as "editorial" broadcasts.
Ofcom have stated that the Babe channels due to the fact that they are Teleshopping/advertisement broadcasts have less leeway than editorial broadcasts

The Babe channels are governed by the BCAP code, this stands for "Broadcast Committee of Advertising Practice" .

Ofcom mention when dealing with breaches by the Babe channels that they come under the BCAP codes of practice
Check this broadcast bulletin, it concerns when Ofcom found Studio 66 in breach https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/p...lletin.pdf

Ofcom used the BCAP code of practice among other things, when determining if S66 were in breach .

Ofcom have just found Meet the Babes/Babecall in breach, for a Mr P show that was broadcast on the 18/7/2019 at 00:30
Info here with explicit lurid details lol https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/p...y-2019.pdf

^^ it's quite funny when you read what Alice said word for word, and frankly mad that it's the main thing ofcom didn't like about the whole thing, to claim that Mr P lightly touch her ass will cause wide spread harm to the viewer it a lol moment, but that's ofcom still stuck in the last century and not moving with the times,
Looks like it was just a slap in the rist and don't put that on tv again though so so real harm done to bs, and no surprise that all the Mr P shows are web only now,

I said a while back that this was what that OFCOM complaint was about and nobody agreed with me, turns out I was right. I must say though after reading the doc, they've gotten away with it a bit as there are some things in there which aren't exactly true, as I watched that particular show on cam. But I won't say what exactly as I don't want to cause any further troubles, you know, just in case.

Interesting.
Three observations:
1. It's Babestation for a change (I don't mean for that to come across as catty).
2. It's about a new gimmick, at night rather than a day show.
3. Am I right in thinking that the licensee's response was more robust than those I've seen from S66?