New Ofcom Rules

(02-01-2011 20:39 )blackjaques Wrote:  I suppose this is one of the disadvantages of being an "island race". Mainland Europe has, for years, been comfortable with full sex on TV and gives the responsibility for ensuring their children don't watch anything unsuitable to the parents.
In the UK, Ofcon say they cannot trust UK parents so have to do the work for them.

We may be an Island but we are a democracy,and our democratic elected government agreed to the `Television without frontiers` agreement.
Google it and see what it says.
These cunts at Ofcom are and have been for years breaking the agreement that was accepted by the government.
That is law,Ofcom isn`t.
So all you sex..babe..encypted..or just late night sexy channels,get your fucking act together and lets put a stop to these cunts stopping our pleasure viewing

(02-01-2011 18:59 )Krill Liberator Wrote:  They were pert. Ever so pert. And a little pointy, yet still fulsome... I'll stop before I start getting carried away there!
~~~~
~~~~

Well said! but in the future I would ask you to keep the sentences a little shorter.
It was like listening to our lass telling what happened at the pub

(02-01-2011 11:57 )Jay39 Wrote:  This forum makes me laugh at times, no matter how much banter and discussion goes on on here, as long as the channels continue to bow down to ofcom things will not change. They had an opportunity when the channels had a so called meeting with Ofcom to discuss, well be dictated to, about acceptable standards. If the channels went in and then walked out with their tails between their legs then Ofcom will have the upper hand, regardless of survey's etc or even the wishes of 44,600 members on here. As long as the channels are making revenue they will not give a toss about what we think. In respect of the day shows well I agree they needed to be railed in a little, but as for the night shows the new rules are pathetic to say the least, no consitency from Ofcom who see the babe channels as an easy target. Bring back the days of the ITC when they cost very little to the tax payer compared to the 125 million that the new Mary Whitehouse brigade cost, plus we got a lot better viewing.

Great point, Jay, and I couldn't agree more. As I said elsewhere in a recent post, it makes you wonder what the Babeshow producers were threatened with at that meeting for them to have kowtowed so easily.

I can only hope the Babeshow producers read this Ofcom section of the forum, because there's only so much the viewers can do. If they do read it then it's obvious none of them have the balls to give their thoughts and opinions. I honestly would love to hear why they pussyfoot around Ofcom like they do.

As it stands, all Ofcom have to do is fart and the Babeshows crawl up and have a crap!

(02-01-2011 11:57 )Jay39 Wrote:  If the channels went in and then walked out with their tails between their legs then Ofcom will have the upper hand, regardless of survey's etc or even the wishes of 44,600 members on here. As long as the channels are making revenue they will not give a toss about what we think.

The members on here aren't all wishing for the same thing! How many times does this have to be said before the anti-Ofcom hardcore crew accept this and make allowance for it in their thinking and statements? Take a look at the current state-of-play in StanTheMan's poll here, re. the 'tightening up' of babe shows: the majority of voters haven't been affected at all by the clamp down. The second biggest chunk of voters say their viewing enjoyment has only been marginally affected. As Stan states in his opening post in that thread, polls aren't the be-all-and-end-all, but they do give an indication of what a range of viewers is looking to get out these shows, and lot of people just aren't hankering after snatch slips or hackneyed dominatrix outfits, it has to be faced! (and there are too many of these people to be dismissed – not that dismissing the views of a minority would ever be right, necessarily – as a loony faction whose tastes/opinions are beside the point).

(05-01-2011 19:00 )Addison Wrote:  

(02-01-2011 11:57 )Jay39 Wrote:  If the channels went in and then walked out with their tails between their legs then Ofcom will have the upper hand, regardless of survey's etc or even the wishes of 44,600 members on here. As long as the channels are making revenue they will not give a toss about what we think.

The members on here aren't all wishing for the same thing! How many times does this have to be said before the anti-Ofcom hardcore crew accept this and make allowance for it in their thinking and statements? Take a look at the current state-of-play in StanTheMan's poll here, re. the 'tightening up' of babe shows: the majority of voters haven't been affected at all by the clamp down. The second biggest chunk of voters say their viewing enjoyment has only been marginally affected. As Stan states in his opening post in that thread, polls aren't the be-all-and-end-all, but they do give an indication of what a range of viewers is looking to get out these shows, and lot of people just aren't hankering after snatch slips or hackneyed dominatrix outfits, it has to be faced! (and there are too many of these people to be dismissed – not that dismissing the views of a minority would ever be right, necessarily – as a loony faction whose tastes/opinions are beside the point).

Agree, we all want different things from these channels, i like the flirtatious girl next door type who allows you a quick peek at the treasure from time to time. Sometimes i get frustrated when the night girls get naked to quickly. Give me a bit more tease. These are lots of dresses out there for the day girls to wear to entice callers without being overtly sexual.
Whilst i don't know if i'm in the hardcore anti-ofcom crew but what i do want to see is the channels being given the choice to put on erotic adult entertainment within the adult section on FTV with hardcore available behind subscription pin protection.
Personally Ofcom are fighting a losing battle in trying to maintain adult erotic entertainment off the TV when there so many different media devices available to the under 18's offering access to everything up to extreme pornography.
Ofcom licence these broadcasters and it is there duty to ensure children are protected from the content not for the broadcasters to second guess what is acceptable.
Adult content after the watershed within an adult section of the EPG with audio and constant visual 18 warnings are all the AVMS directive requires. End of.
In relation to the current poll you are wrong in stating that the majority of voters have not been effected by the new rules.
Out of 102 votes only 40 people have not been effected or just over 40% with over 59% being effected by some degree, small point but using your logic is how Ofcom developed the restrictive broadcasting code following their consultation and manipulation of the results. See eclles detailled and thorough explanation here.

http://www.babeshows.co.uk/showthread.php?tid=27976

(05-01-2011 22:03 )Gold Plated Pension Wrote:  In relation to the current poll you are wrong in stating that the majority of voters have not been effected by the new rules.
Out of 102 votes only 40 people have not been effected or just over 40% with over 59% being effected by some degree, small point but using your logic is how Ofcom developed the restrictive broadcasting code following their consultation and manipulation of the results. See eclles detailled and thorough explanation here.

http://www.babeshows.co.uk/showthread.php?tid=27976

The vast majority of members are just interested in the babes, not discussion about rules, polls, etc and who can blame them.

(05-01-2011 19:00 )Addison Wrote:  

(02-01-2011 11:57 )Jay39 Wrote:  If the channels went in and then walked out with their tails between their legs then Ofcom will have the upper hand, regardless of survey's etc or even the wishes of 44,600 members on here. As long as the channels are making revenue they will not give a toss about what we think.

The members on here aren't all wishing for the same thing! How many times does this have to be said before the anti-Ofcom hardcore crew accept this and make allowance for it in their thinking and statements? Take a look at the current state-of-play in StanTheMan's poll here, re. the 'tightening up' of babe shows: the majority of voters haven't been affected at all by the clamp down. The second biggest chunk of voters say their viewing enjoyment has only been marginally affected. As Stan states in his opening post in that thread, polls aren't the be-all-and-end-all, but they do give an indication of what a range of viewers is looking to get out these shows, and lot of people just aren't hankering after snatch slips or hackneyed dominatrix outfits, it has to be faced! (and there are too many of these people to be dismissed – not that dismissing the views of a minority would ever be right, necessarily – as a loony faction whose tastes/opinions are beside the point).

So thats it then in a nutshell.
The majority of people subscribing to this forum don`t give a shit about being told what they can or can`t watch [Is this what you are saying]
They don`t want to watch anything racier than girls dressed in underware or late at night topless?
They would not enjoy a pussy slip now and then and if this happened on a regular basis would stop watching the babe channels.
If you really believe this then why on earth don`t you join the Mary Whitehouse brigade and try to get all forms of nudity banned from all media!
I would love to know just how many of we 44,600 members voted on Stans poll.and for that matter how many even read it!

(06-01-2011 01:10 )nailpouchofmine Wrote:  So thats it then in a nutshell. The majority of people subscribing to this forum don`t give a shit about being told what they can or can`t watch [Is this what you are saying]

No. I'm not interested in acting as a spokesperson for thousands of people. What I'm saying is that Jay39 shouldn't try and act as that either (he claimed that the entirety of the forum – over 44,000 people – all want what he wants from these shows. Even accepting that people often exaggerate/simplify to give a point greater force, this goes too far).

(06-01-2011 01:10 )nailpouchofmine Wrote:  They don`t want to watch anything racier than girls dressed in underware or late at night topless? They would not enjoy a pussy slip now and then and if this happened on a regular basis would stop watching the babe channels. If you really believe this then why on earth don`t you join the Mary Whitehouse brigade and try to get all forms of nudity banned from all media!

I'm not interested in getting anything censored or denying anyone anything. I'm just pointing out that a proportion of us (not all of us, not most of us) get much out of the shows as they currently are. You and Stan etc, see genitally explicit as better – that's the 'holy grail' for you. But it isn't for me and others. I don't see a babe dressed in underwear or a bikini top and bottom as making for bland viewing, because it doesn't get racier than a babe with a great pair of legs and pretty feet showing them off on camera. That's my ultimate. That's precisely what I want to see. I find that as hot as you'd find a decent duration pussy flash (in the real world with a real person it's a different thing, but in terms of being displayed as part of a TV porn show, the genital flashes/close ups aren't something I want to look at in preference to what I like to look at most of all).

I'm fine with the idea of you hardcorers getting something of what you want from the FTA request shows, just as long as (and this is the only reservation I could see myself having if the rules were loosened to allow harder stuff) the variety currently offered up by the soft-core type shows doesn't completely disappear under a welter of explicit talk, snatch flashes and dildo work.

(06-01-2011 01:10 )nailpouchofmine Wrote:  I would love to know just how many of we 44,600 members voted on Stans poll.and for that matter how many even read it!

Or for that matter why it was even created, when the upshot of it (as is) fails to lend weight to 'the cause'?

Just to add here in this thread too, if I may, that until 15 December 2010 no-one, no-one (including the Channels themselves) had ever put in an official request to Ofcom under the FOI Act 2000 requesting clarification of the generally accepted standards.

I now have a preliminary detailed letter from Ofcom, pending the official reply to the FOI request.

It contains the splendid line: "....it is not possible to include a definitive list of generally accepted standards which sets out exactly what is acceptable or not acceptable for every genre of broadcast"

As you can imagine, that will be pursued.....

(07-01-2011 03:44 )Addison Wrote:  

(06-01-2011 01:10 )nailpouchofmine Wrote:  I would love to know just how many of we 44,600 members voted on Stans poll.and for that matter how many even read it!

Or for that matter why it was even created, when the upshot of it (as is) fails to lend weight to 'the cause'?

I've already explained it was created to satisfy my own curiosity. I'm surprised by the results, but not disappointed. I wasn't trying to prove anything, Addison.

You're perfectly correct to say its wrong to assume everyone wants the same thing from these channels, but for most of us it's Ofcom's principles that get our goat. The fact that there's a panel out there who decide what's acceptable for us. The fact remains that if Ofcom suddenly said okay, no holds barred, most (or even all) of the babe channels would broadcast hardcore material. I think that fact speaks for itself.