Ofcom & The UK Adult Industry

OFCOM are mainly interested in the tits and ass not the prices consumers pay to chat as far as I can see.

(11-02-2011 21:29 )blackjaques Wrote:  I am intrigued why you think the rules "should be stuck by".
Why do you think that Ofcon's rules are correct?

They are there only to appease a certain minority in UK society.

Just because i say they should be stuck by, doesn't mean i agree with them. and also like to point out that the channels are actually the minority, and the minority actually don't like them, a far more people actually like them.

(11-02-2011 20:50 )Scottishbloke Wrote:  Yes RCTV the rules are there for a reason, but it begs the question who's reason, because it certainly doesn't reflect the majority of this society, these reasons are based on these fucking ofcom religious cretins who values's are stuck in the dark ages and is not a true reflection on what value's we have in place in the 21st Century. It is clear for all to see on this forum that you are an ardent supporter of ofcom and you come on this forum for one and only one true reason, to wind the rest of us up, none of the above post hold's any water and it spouts the same bullshit from your mouth as the majority of your posts.

This forum happens to be biaised, and i can tell you this forum is in the minority compared to what people think. I could quite easily go on a parents forum and get their view it would be totally different, maybe if any of you guys have kids you will actually understand why they are there.

(11-02-2011 22:56 )smell the roses Wrote:  I will probably get opposition to the views I am about to give...

Agree with that.

(11-02-2011 22:56 )smell the roses Wrote:  I will probably get opposition to the views I am about to give, but here go's just the same. It pains me to say this, but after being very critical of Ofcom in the past. I think I am in many ways coming round to their way of thinking. Not that I agree with any form of censorship, but I think I can see why they now choose to be so tough with the adult channels. and it's not what these channels put out, even though the content of the shows is always cited as being the reason. I think a more likely reason is found in the ethos of what these channels truly stand for. And that is a total disregard for the customers, other than wanting to take their money from them. One as to remember, members of Ofcom are not likely to be the type of people that will pay up to two pounds per minute to talk to some, albeit attractive girl on a telephone and must find the idea of such a thing baffling, something that even I find hard to fathom. And when they hear about some of the cynical ways that are used by these company's to get as much as they can from the punters, this is when Ofcom think they then have to step in to save the viewer and his/her money from going their separate ways.

That is just my theory be it right or wrong. But I just cannot for the life of me, get my head around why someone, be it a tv watchdog or anyone else should object to the sight of the female form in an unclothed state before a certain time of day. Other than wanting to protect what they might view as the more gullible members of our society.

I'm afraid you're totally wrong. if Ofcom went after the babe channels, in particular Cellcast, for ripping off the customers, I'd be right behind them. That should be the true purpose of Ofcom.

However, they immerse themselves in a pointless and ludicrous moral crusade based on 'generally accepted standards' of which nobody agrees, including the results of Ofcom's own surveys.

RCTV as well as being more than able as responsible parents/guardians should do by locking out the adult channels they should also have the kids tucked away in bed asleep hence the reason why we have the watershed, so if you just want to get back on that fucking high horse you sit on so high on and go back to your pro ofcom website and please inform them on how to do it so they can all shut the fuck up about protecting the minors from watching these type of channels. I'm getting sick and fucking tired of all mindless bullshit coming out of the mouths of those at ofcom and yours. Smell the Roses I can see where you're coming from but let's be honest the only thing ofcom give a fuck about is which channel has overstepped their so-called rules and regulations furthermore ofcom are nothing but a bunch of arseheads and money grabbing c****ts and the sooner they are disbanded the better it will be for everyone.

Sorry SmelltRoses, I cant really agree with you except to say that Ofcoms position is baffling. There was a piece in the Evening Standard today about a TV channel being funded by a banned religious fundamentalist who is on record as saying members of his religion should all be terrorists and is banned from the UK for saying that and probably other reasons. There have been complaints about various religious TV channels in the past, and Ofcom have given them the lightest possible ride.

But with adult channels they are actively looking for ways to punish them. Got a website address buried on red button information and some dodgy content three clicks down? Thats a fine. Rude language on a sex phone in show? Hmm, give me a few minutes to flick through the rule book ... ... ah, yes, breach of ICTIS advertising rules. Accidental pussy flash at 3am? The channel is in breach and lets start collecting information to make a case for channel revocation.

Fact is any large organisation is going to be skitzophrenic because it is made up of 100s of individuals. Some will be pro-porn, some anti, some lazy, some zealots.

There must be a management chain, and with that a chain of command. Its difficult to order all your underlings not to do something, short of issuing official procedures. Which means any head of section or team leader can instruct their team members to check one area carefully, to be on the lookout for repeated breaches.

Its a one way coin. You cant order your underlings to lay off a sector (without making it official), but anyone in the chain can do the opposite, and any junior who takes it easy will be disobeying their boss and open to accusations of failing to protect the public.

Go easy on religious channels, thats official son, we have to respect other peoples views in a multicultural society and permit free speech.

Come down hard on the babe channels son, the devious bastards break the rules every opportunity they get, the public need protecting. If you dont believe me read the Annual Report, its in there and thats what the top brass meant.

There are about 20 babe channels, most operating 24 hours a day. Well OK, some of them. Some of the operators are putting out more live content than the BBC. The odd slip up is inevitable (Im not counting the deliberate rule breakers).

Yes look at the details and it turns out the BBC is the worst offender for using the F word on daytime TV (mainly interviews at live festivals). One Alan Titchmarsh show on ITV was little more than an extended infomercial for Jane Seymour cosmetic products. This Morning recently featured a chef naked from behind in a planned event. A few years ago a morning show featured an artists model in a gown and it fell open to reveal her minge on daytime or breakfast TV.

Getting back to the point, numerically the BBC is the worst offender for daytime use of the F word, and has 100s of taste and decency complaints against it. Channel 4 has 1000s for taste and decency complaints (Big Brother). These channels have audiences of millions or tens of millions, including thousnds of kids even in term time.

Yet which channels get singled out to be hammered time and time again? The ones with the most or least complaints? The most or least viewers?

So back to trying to discredit forum members just because you can't se their point of view, it always comes back to the same thing with some you. I feel sorry for the likes idly Eccles, gold plated pension and iang etc that post well researched posts.

As it's pointed out to you the reason the babe channels get treated differently is because they have different lincenses to other channels and have to play by certain rules, which the channels know.

Yes children should be blocked/moderated to stop them viewing unsuitable images by their parents but they should always be a back up for lazy/stupid parents. are some of you that narrow mindeed/selfish that you would allow a child to view potentially damaging images etc just so you can see a bit of tit or pussy?

Yes they may be no scientific studies to say that nudity could harm children but they never will be because you just can't do that. To find something like that out you'd need to have a couple Of hundred children to experiment on on show them certain sexual images over a number of years and then montoter them for at least ten years just to see how it cOuld possible change them.


Yes most of us can agree that ofcoms rules are a bit extreme but I would never in a million years put my sexual needs in front of an innocent Childs right to develop at their own pace.

At the end of the day the rules are there and need to be followed.

Everybody know's that the BBC is protected by the government so ofcom's power's are limited in that respect and as far as the naked chef go's on This morning that was only a bit of fun but if ofcom are going to clamp down on anybody yes it should be these culprits but both the BBC and ITV are massive you only need to look at the recent X Factor complaint also and I believe it was a record amount of complaints too but ofcom wouldn't stand a chance fighting these 2 massive corporate giants so time and time again it is allways the babe channels who are the one's on a hiding to nothing. Ofcom enjoy fining these channels especially when not one of them will dare take them on. At the end of day it's easy money for ofcom, nothing to lose but everything to lose with the BBC and ITV and piss the BBC off and guess what David Cameron just decides to shut down ofcom altogether that's why big channels get away with these breaches time and time again and not the babe channels.

(12-02-2011 00:30 )RCTV Wrote:  Just because i say the [rules] should be stuck by, doesn't mean i agree with them.

Think I know what you mean here, accepted that civil disobedience wont get far, but arent a lot of people here saying they disagree with the rules and they should be changed? Surely you are not saying the rules are wrong but there should be no change?

Quote: and also like to point out that the channels are actually the minority,

So are psychic channels (the viewing figures are similar) and some totally creep me out. I suspect they influence some peoples lives more than babe channels do. But there is no move to ban those. Or how about religious channels that tell people to eat vegetables instead of taking cancer medication? Definitely niche, arguably dangerous, offensive to many, yet tolerated.

Being in a minority is not grounds for banning. Gays are a minority. Big fat gypsies are. Anyone who watches documentaries is. So are Polish people.

Quote: and the minority actually don't like them, a far more people actually like them.
...
This forum happens to be biaised, and i can tell you this forum is in the minority compared to what people think. I could quite easily go on a parents forum and get their view it would be totally different, maybe if any of you guys have kids you will actually understand why they are there.

Now Im confused. The majority like babe channels and at the same time the majority dont? Or have I misread that?

As for parents forums, the correct phrase is Mums forums. Dads are a minority on those, and will be careful what they say because wifey is watching. But in the real world Dads read porn, watch porn, and in some cases it keeps the marriage together when wifey just isnt interested. And kids should not be watching or even awake at 1am, 2am, 3am.

(12-02-2011 02:39 )eccles Wrote:  

(12-02-2011 00:30 )RCTV Wrote:  Just because i say the [rules] should be stuck by, doesn't mean i agree with them.

Think I know what you mean here, accepted that civil disobedience wont get far, but arent a lot of people here saying they disagree with the rules and they should be changed? Surely you are not saying the rules are wrong but there should be no change?

Quote: and also like to point out that the channels are actually the minority,

So are psychic channels (the viewing figures are similar) and some totally creep me out. I suspect they influence some peoples lives more than babe channels do. But there is no move to ban those. Or how about religious channels that tell people to eat vegetables instead of taking cancer medication? Definitely niche, arguably dangerous, offensive to many, yet tolerated.

Being in a minority is not grounds for banning. Gays are a minority. Big fat gypsies are. Anyone who watches documentaries is. So are Polish people.

Quote: and the minority actually don't like them, a far more people actually like them.
...
This forum happens to be biaised, and i can tell you this forum is in the minority compared to what people think. I could quite easily go on a parents forum and get their view it would be totally different, maybe if any of you guys have kids you will actually understand why they are there.

Now Im confused. The majority like babe channels and at the same time the majority dont? Or have I misread that?

As for parents forums, the correct phrase is Mums forums. Dads are a minority on those, and will be careful what they say because wifey is watching. But in the real world Dads read porn, watch porn, and in some cases it keeps the marriage together when wifey just isnt interested. And kids should not be watching or even awake at 1am, 2am, 3am.

Eccles, I know you're desperately trying to like and understand RCTV but please don't waste your time. He/she has been here long before you and has posted contradictory nonsense from day one. Forum fantasist extraordinaire.

(12-02-2011 02:39 )eccles Wrote:  Now Im confused. The majority like babe channels and at the same time the majority dont? Or have I misread that?

As for parents forums, the correct phrase is Mums forums. Dads are a minority on those, and will be careful what they say because wifey is watching. But in the real world Dads read porn, watch porn, and in some cases it keeps the marriage together when wifey just isnt interested. And kids should not be watching or even awake at 1am, 2am, 3am.

sorry to confuse, i ment minority babe channels and majority don't like them. typing error

kids are very aware of it, as we are living in a much more globalised society.

Dave who may think that, but you would be wrong.