Ofcom - More Babes in Breach

(09-02-2010 20:49 )aceman65 Wrote:  So unfortunately, until one of the babe channels actually get their act together, and put together a good well financed legal team to actually make a constructive challenge, then things will continue as they are.

Four of the channels (Cellcast/Bang Media/Sport/Babe World) put together a Trade Association several years ago: The Participation Television Broadcasters Association Ltd.

The lawyers representing them are: http://www.charlesrussell.co.uk/content.aspx?path=/

Their services do not come cheap:

(17-09-2009 01:19 )Hofmiester Wrote:  ...anything that could be called a profit is chewed up in legal fees challenging OFCOM.

We just need some of you to start making your views known to OFCOM... Because as far as they are concerned YOU don't exist or matter!!

http://www.babeshows.co.uk/showthread.ph...#pid224046

(09-10-2009 01:02 )Hofmiester Wrote:  Well being that I run 10 of the babe chanels, not sure why would I talk a crock of shit.

I also said that the together we spent £250,000 thats Babeworld, Sport, Bang Media, and Cellcast.

http://www.babeshows.co.uk/showthread.ph...#pid243051

Some of us were eager to lend support and let our thoughts be known to Ofcom.
I asked for clarification on a few issues from The Participation Television Broadcasters Association, before drafting a letter. This was in September 2009, haven't heard anything yet.
http://www.babeshows.co.uk/showthread.ph...#pid224750

Oh well, nice to see the ruling being taken seriously and Amanda wearing blatantly see-through pants tonight! And to think I worried this might mean a serious toning down...!

(10-02-2010 00:45 )Cobblers Wrote:  Oh well, nice to see the ruling being taken seriously and Amanda wearing blatantly see-through pants tonight! And to think I worried this might mean a serious toning down...!

I'm Looking And Thinking Red Thats My Favourite Colour I Think There Might Be A Spy Roaming Around So Hush Hush After All As They Said A *Viewer* Is Making The Complaints

Still can't understand how they let the guys on Dirty Sanchez get their cock and balls out in close-up clear view, stick pipes up their ass and even throw up and then eat it at 9 O'clock - but a few hot girls can't get a bit naked after 11 O'clock on so called "adult" channels that can be pin protected. Surely the acts depicted on such programs as Dirty Sanchez should be considered much more offensive and explicit than a beautiful girl showing a bit of pussy on a late night call-in show. Don't get me wrong, Dirty Sanchez is funny as fuck, it just seems a little strange that ofcom are more than happy to allow some Welsh Dudes to swing their junk around in front of shot, squirt beer out of their hairy asses and eat vomit, but when it comes to hot chicks getting a bit naughty on the 900 channels - that's way too offensive to allow... Utter Bollocks!!!!

I agree with you Cee it is utter bollocks fuck ofcom, What a bunch of interfering dickheads

This is the context thing they always go on about, how explicit material has to be editorially and contextually justified. In Dirty Sanchez, it's in the context of having a bit of a laugh and a jape in the name of entertainment - one could well argue that the phone channels are likewise, but I'm a bit hazy on why something can't just be what it is, as long as it's legal!

I can see what they mean by it, but it does seem ludicrous to apply it to interactive phone wank channels. They are what they are, anyone who doesn't understand that within a few seconds of watching them - well, they almost deserve to be offended, if you ask me...

(10-02-2010 07:39 )Vampkiss Wrote:  I agree with you Cee it is utter bollocks fuck ofcom, What a bunch of interfering dickheads

I'd recommend everyone fuck Ofcom, trouble is they're already fucking us.

(10-02-2010 03:08 )cee Wrote:  Still can't understand how they let the guys on Dirty Sanchez get their cock and balls out in close-up clear view, stick pipes up their ass and even throw up and then eat it at 9 O'clock - but a few hot girls can't get a bit naked after 11 O'clock on so called "adult" channels that can be pin protected. Surely the acts depicted on such programs as Dirty Sanchez should be considered much more offensive and explicit than a beautiful girl showing a bit of pussy on a late night call-in show. Don't get me wrong, Dirty Sanchez is funny as fuck, it just seems a little strange that ofcom are more than happy to allow some Welsh Dudes to swing their junk around in front of shot, squirt beer out of their hairy asses and eat vomit, but when it comes to hot chicks getting a bit naughty on the 900 channels - that's way too offensive to allow... Utter Bollocks!!!!

And that's the point. When it comes down to it, do the majority of people really get offended by nudity? And do they get offended by nudity when it's broadcast on a section of the broadcast platform that is screaming out at them that they will see nudity if they tune into those particular channels?.

Surely the greatest potential for offence is when something appears with a number of people not expecting it? So, if Stacey Slater suddenly got her tits out in Eastenders (now there's a thought) that is going to cause offence because people don't expect it.

To my mind, that covers the context argument. I would argue that people tuning into a late night adult channel would expect to see at least some full frontal nudity and therefore, it's in context. If the girls were ramming 6 inch dildos up one another all night then fair enough, I would agree that would be too strong for FTA tv.

At it's best, Dirty Sanchez is one of the funniest things around but you'd be hard pushed to justify some of what they do as being in context. In addition to that, a programme like that is easily accessible to children who are the most likely to decide to copy some of the stunts they carry out. Of course, a nice little disclaimer during the shows means they get away with showing some stuff that will, without any doubt, offend a large number of people viewing it.

Maybe it's just me but very little offends me and anything that does I switch off myself. I like the freedom to make up my own mind and decide for myself what I find offensive and I like the fact that I don't have to worry about Mr and Mrs Normal from Surbiton because if they find something offensive, they have the freedom to fecking turn it off themselves as well.

But what really irks me is that I know fully well that the people that make up Ofcom wouldn't be able to come up with even a handful of good reasons to justify some of their stances but that there's just no easy way of pointing facts like that out to them.

Sorry if I've posted inappropriately but first time.

I have been reading this thread with great interest and it heartens me that there are still people concerned with our individual rights and liberties.

Surely the answers for the 900's is to go down the teleshopping route advertising adult products as per the DIY Shopping Channels. The presenter, at her discretion of course, could demonstrate the uses of said adult products whilst explaining to the customer on the phone the pros and cons of the intem in question. Fully in context.

Of course, certain items may require the presenting skills of more than one presenter.[/font]

(11-02-2010 15:58 )CaptainVimes Wrote:  Surely the answers for the 900's is to go down the teleshopping route advertising adult products as per the DIY Shopping Channels. The presenter, at her discretion of course, could demonstrate the uses of said adult products whilst explaining to the customer on the phone the pros and cons of the intem in question. Fully in context.