Ofcom - More Babes in Breach

Oof, they fair got a hammering in this latest Bulletin...

Generally agree with the above - I was particularly annoyed by Ofcom feeling the need to point out all the grammatical and spelling errors in the defence provided by the channels with a [sic] after all of them - although having said that, if the channels are using a highly-paid individual or team of individuals to respond to these complaints, then I would expect them to be able to spell the word "offence"!

Their justification for these reprimands raise a few questions too. The position of these channels in the adult section of the EPG is always said to be no justification for allowing saucier material on free-to-air. What, therefore, is the point of the adult section of the EPG? You can show nothing more explicit than you can on the non-adult section of the EPG, so why bother having it??

Secondly, this frequent reference to strong and very strong sexual material - really? Miming, the odd flash and some brief close-ups of the very fringes of genitalia? If that's their idea of strong and very strong, then they must lead very sheltered lives indeed. I daresay they would faint theatrically if shown actual R18 material...

Lastly, this:

"The material shown was so strongly sexual that it would have exceeded the likely expectation of the vast majority of the audience"

Really? The MAJORITY of people watching the Babe Channels are offended by strong sexual material? Where is the evidence of this? Are they being serious? This is the most ridiculous statement I've read in a long time.

Has anyone ever written to Ofcom, in a non-ranty, rational and intelligent manner and asked them exactly why they come to these ludicrous conclusions regarding the Babe channels?

And if we exclude the possibility of it being the other channels complaining to get their rivals into trouble, then why aren't Ofcom asking the one or two individuals who write in complaining what it is they expect to see when watching the adult section of the EPG for any length of time? That's like complaining to car manufacturers because you were caught speeding...

Dear Sir,

I tuned into a channel called Party Babes and was horrified to find a woman in skimpy clothing - what would such a woman be doing on a channel in the adult section of the EPG? I was so horrified, I watched for half an hour until I could just about see the outline of a nipple.

Sigh....

"The material shown was so strongly sexual that it would have exceeded the likely expectation of the vast majority of the audience"
this is a totally ridiculous statement. the vast majority of people would have LOVED the strongly sexual material. ofcom are a bunch of prudes

(09-02-2010 16:40 )Rammyrascal Wrote:  "The material shown was so strongly sexual that it would have exceeded the likely expectation of the vast majority of the audience"
this is a totally ridiculous statement. the vast majority of people would have LOVED the strongly sexual material. ofcom are a bunch of prudes

that made me laugh as well. who are they to judge what us perverts are likely to expect

maybe we should all write to ofcom, and complain that we are not seeing full on hardcore shows,

Dear ofcom,

i am writing to complain about the sexual content shown on the "900" channels on sky television, it's seriously disappointing, when i'm horny, drunk or lonely (sometimes a mixture of all three), i tune in to these channels to "crack one off" (i can imagine the disgust on your face reading this with your colleagues...but lets be honest you do it as well). i'm greeted with a selection of girls in a topless state of dress laying on a bed. Now I find this way below what is expected from a "sex" channel. I have tuned in may times hoping for a full on dildo show involving vaginal and anal insertion... but no all i get is a topless girl, i may even get lucky and see one that changes position.... God forbid the slightest bit of thong movement showing the mere slip of piss-flap, the camera moves away at such speed, i fear the cameraman may loose control and injure someone.

Regards,

BIgChuck

(09-02-2010 17:55 )BigChuck Wrote:  

(09-02-2010 16:40 )Rammyrascal Wrote:  "The material shown was so strongly sexual that it would have exceeded the likely expectation of the vast majority of the audience"
this is a totally ridiculous statement. the vast majority of people would have LOVED the strongly sexual material. ofcom are a bunch of prudes

that made me laugh as well. who are they to judge what us perverts are likely to expect

maybe we should all write to ofcom, and complain that we are not seeing full on hardcore shows,

Dear ofcom,

i am writing to complain about the sexual content shown on the "900" channels on sky television, it's seriously disappointing, when i'm horny, drunk or lonely (sometimes a mixture of all three), i tune in to these channels to "crack one off" (i can imagine the disgust on your face reading this with your colleagues...but lets be honest you do it as well). i'm greeted with a selection of girls in a topless state of dress laying on a bed. Now I find this way below what is expected from a "sex" channel. I have tuned in may times hoping for a full on dildo show involving vaginal and anal insertion... but no all i get is a topless girl, i may even get lucky and see one that changes position.... God forbid the slightest bit of thong movement showing the mere slip of piss-flap, the camera moves away at such speed, i fear the cameraman may loose control and injure someone.

Regards,

BIgChuck

@ Quote *God forbid the slightest bit of thong movement showing the mere slip of piss-flap, the camera moves away at such speed, i fear the cameraman may loose control and injure someone.* Made Me Burst Out In Laughter As I Imagine It Actually Happen - But What Ofcom IS Trying To Say Is (No Rubbing Of Breast/Genital Area No Sexual Movements Little To No Stroking Of Body Parts) So Basically All They Want Is For The Girls To Do Is Sit/Stand There And Do Nothing Of Any Sexual Orientation And Take Your Calls *I Know Sounds Dull But Thats There Plan* If We Wanted Girls Like That Just Flick Over To Babestation Cause Thats All They Do Day In Day Out

"Ofcom received two complaints" ..... "The material shown was so strongly sexual that it would have exceeded the likely expectation of the vast majority of the audience"

Two complaints - vast majority - so does that mean that there were only three people watching? Or were the "vast majority" who had their expectations shattered so shocked that they couldn't compose themselves for long enough to write or email a complaint, therefore Ofcom decided to make a presumption of offence on their behalf?

Sorry, but two viewers complaining does not give me the impression that the vast majority were offended, or indeed, had their expectations exceeded, whatever that might mean!

(09-02-2010 20:15 )Cobblers Wrote:  "Ofcom received two complaints" ..... "The material shown was so strongly sexual that it would have exceeded the likely expectation of the vast majority of the audience"

Two complaints - vast majority - so does that mean that there were only three people watching? Or were the "vast majority" who had their expectations shattered so shocked that they couldn't compose themselves for long enough to write or email a complaint, therefore Ofcom decided to make a presumption of offence on their behalf?

Sorry, but two viewers complaining does not give me the impression that the vast majority were offended, or indeed, had their expectations exceeded, whatever that might mean!

I've made this point on here before. You quite simply won't find an example of a viewer group for any channel, who are less likely to be offended by the content they see, than the regular babe channel viewers.

Plus they always seem to come down harshly on the babe channels following a small number of complaints.

It's a fact that programmes such as X Factor would generate more complaints against it in a week than the babe channels would in a whole year between the lot of them and yet complaints against programmes like that are almost treated with contempt by Ofcom.

Quite frankly, what right does this unelected board have to decide if one person's level of offence is more valid than someone else's but that is exactly what they seek to do.

Therefore, one complaint about sexual content on the babe channels is leapt upon with almost rabid zeal whilst 80 complaints from people taking offence at the likes of X Factor using tactics to milk as much money as they can from the British public are almost laughed out. And I would say that the teen generation are probably more likely than any other age group to cast votes on X Factor. Protecting minors? I don't think so.

The whole basis of Ofcom, what they do, their contradictions, their haphazard judgements and the way they seek to impose their nannying on people who really don't want it is completely nonsensical but the ultra PC world we live in dictates that they will continue to behave in that way and for all the excellently argued criticisms of them on here, I can't really see a way of challenging them.

Most of these bases have already been covered... The complaints are a bad joke for sure, but it's always been a straightforward situation complicated by OFCOM (and some people in the adult industry too).

The thing with the free-to-air phone sex channels, is that it suits most channel owners/producers/girls for things to be as they stand. Some girls have complained about the rules, but they could always do a webshow or something more if they wanted to. These channels have always been about phone sex/roleplay with a bit of visual. So if you're just a casual viewer who wants to see a bit of eye candy, then there is not much to complain about...

The main issue has always been the pay-per-view/subscription channels, which have more restrictions put on them by OFCOM than any of the other services (at least in terms of what should be expected). OFCOM have no jurisdiction over webshows/websites, so at least that partially solves the problem for most people wanting to see stronger content.

It will not be long before TV sets get integrated web browsing built into them.
What will ofcom do then, when at the flick of a button, the sexstation webshow can be viewed just as easily as BBC1.
Most schoolkids probably already watch it on their laptops anyway.
Ofcom are just wasting their time and annoying people.

I agree there are two issues here - Babe style channels and PIN-protected subscription adult services.

But the problem for both is the same - namely that Ofcom's regulation of both is disproportionately severe and restrictive, and based on a whim rather than any solid evidence of harm and protection.

I'm not sure why the channels would want to protect the status quo, but my feeling is that they do - which is odd. I'm quite sure that what they've spent on fines and representation against Ofcom rulings could easily have gone towards a judicial review of Ofcom's approach to them, and if they act collectively, it needn't be ruinously expensive for any of them. At the very least, it would force Ofcom to reveal just how they arrived at the conclusion that the present restrictions are both proportionate and necessary. That no one seems to want to just allows them to continue to be unaccountable in terms of how they interpret the TWF directive and the Human Rights Act.

I'm sorry to say that OFCOM will always continue to pick on the babe channels, as they are an easy target.

OFCOM are after all a government appointed body, that has to look like it's doing something. There never going to challenge a programme like X-Factor, as they know fine well that a company like that has a well financed legal team that would pull them apart in court of law. (unless the breach is so blatant, that even OFCOM can't lose).

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.

Disappointing I know, but true.