Is Ofcom Fit For Purpose

(06-03-2010 13:45 )bombshell Wrote:  I understand where you are all coming from,but let's say all regulations were dropped tomorrow, do you honestly think all the girls on Babechannels would suddenly lay back naked with their legs in the air?

bombshell, no one is suggesting that "all regulations" are dropped. What people are suggesting is that Ofcom should adhere to the rules laid down by the Department of Culture Media and Sport and the TVWF directives incorporated into the broadcasting code.

No one is suggesting that Girls on the free to view 900 channels should be forced to lay there legs akimbo with internal organs on show, what they are suggesting is that Ofcom should not be given powers to fine channels vast amounts of money when a mike is accidentally left on and words such as "fuck" are uttered. What they are suggesting is that Ofcom shouldn't be allowed to fine a channel for something as trivial as a Girl sucking her own fingers.

Quote:I think not, some may,but a lot would'nt and where would that leave them,i really dont see what all the fuss is about,there are plenty of porn sites,or even Sexstation on here if you want to see pussies all day,

It isn't being suggested that vaginas should be on show all day, what is being suggested is that after the watershed on a free to view pin protected channel there shouldn't be fines for a channel showing a Girl "wearing a thong and shaking her buttocks in a sexual manner", because one person complains to Ofcom.

Quote:i know your saying why should they govern what we watch,and to some extent i agree,but i also feel there has to be some control,otherwise you would have all the unsavoury characters doing whatever they want.

If the BBFC grants a R18 certificate for a movie, then why shouldn't that movie be allowed to be watched be an adult, on a pin protected encrypted channel? There is control and regulation that works well in regards to this in every other country in the western world.
What makes the UK so unique that Ofcom feels the need to protect us?

(06-03-2010 13:45 )bombshell Wrote:  ... but i also feel there has to be some control,otherwise you would have all the unsavoury characters doing whatever they want.

bombshell, what do you mean, exactly, when you say 'doing whatever they want'? There's a huge heap of difference between freedom of expression and breaking the law.

(06-03-2010 14:42 )vostok 1 Wrote:  

(06-03-2010 13:45 )bombshell Wrote:  I understand where you are all coming from,but let's say all regulations were dropped tomorrow, do you honestly think all the girls on Babechannels would suddenly lay back naked with their legs in the air?

bombshell, no one is suggesting that "all regulations" are dropped. What people are suggesting is that Ofcom should adhere to the rules laid down by the Department of Culture Media and Sport and the TVWF directives incorporated into the broadcasting code.

No one is suggesting that Girls on the free to view 900 channels should be forced to lay there legs akimbo with internal organs on show, what they are suggesting is that Ofcom should not be given powers to fine channels vast amounts of money when a mike is accidentally left on and words such as "fuck" are uttered. What they are suggesting is that Ofcom shouldn't be allowed to fine a channel for something as trivial as a Girl sucking her own fingers.

Quote:I think not, some may,but a lot would'nt and where would that leave them,i really dont see what all the fuss is about,there are plenty of porn sites,or even Sexstation on here if you want to see pussies all day,

It isn't being suggested that vaginas should be on show all day, what is being suggested is that after the watershed on a free to view pin protected channel there shouldn't be fines for a channel showing a Girl "wearing a thong and shaking her buttocks in a sexual manner", because one person complains to Ofcom.

Quote:i know your saying why should they govern what we watch,and to some extent i agree,but i also feel there has to be some control,otherwise you would have all the unsavoury characters doing whatever they want.

If the BBFC grants a R18 certificate for a movie, then why shouldn't that movie be allowed to be watched be an adult, on a pin protected encrypted channel? There is control and regulation that works well in regards to this in every other country in the western world.
What makes the UK so unique that Ofcom feels the need to protect us?

Take your point,was'nt aware of fines you mentioned,as i said i agree to a point.

(06-03-2010 13:45 )bombshell Wrote:  I understand where you are all coming from,but let's say all regulations were dropped tomorrow, do you honestly think all the girls on Babechannels would suddenly lay back naked with their legs in the air?

I think not, some may,but a lot would'nt and where would that leave them,i really dont see what all the fuss is about,there are plenty of porn sites,or even Sexstation on here if you want to see pussies all day,i know your saying why should they govern what we watch,and to some extent i agree,but i also feel there has to be some control,otherwise you would have all the unsavoury characters doing whatever they want.

Nobody is saying all the girls would. Just as not every girl goes naked on the shows that allow the girls to do that. The whole point is that there is absolutely no reason whatsoever that the girls who go naked aren't allowed to take away their hands, sheet, sticky black tape etc.

I think you are a latecomer to the babe channel scene from reading some of your posts. There were channels a few years back that did do full frontal nudity. Channels like Babestar and the old Sexstation/Blue Kiss used to show full frontal without any legs akimbo at all. As far as I'm concerned that kind of level should be perfectly acceptable for an adult channel after the watershed.

And not sure I get your point about porn being available on lots of sites. You can see topless girls on even more sites. Does that mean there's no call for the babe channels at all? Of course not.

(06-03-2010 15:03 )bombshell Wrote:  Take your point,was'nt aware of fines you mentioned,as i said i agree to a point.

Have a read of the latest Ofcom broadcast bulletin:

http://www.ofcom.org.uk/tv/obb/prog_cb/o...sue152.pdf

Ofcom are considering a statutory sanction against Bang Media that could result in a large fine or a suspension of their broadcast licence.

Ofcom suggest that the "2 4 1's" on Bang Babes are harmful and offensive and should not be shown.

(06-03-2010 16:30 )vostok 1 Wrote:  

(06-03-2010 15:03 )bombshell Wrote:  Take your point,was'nt aware of fines you mentioned,as i said i agree to a point.

Have a read of the latest Ofcom broadcast bulletin:

http://www.ofcom.org.uk/tv/obb/prog_cb/o...sue152.pdf

Ofcom are considering a statutory sanction against Bang Media that could result in a large fine or a suspension of their broadcast licence.

Ofcom suggest that the "2 4 1's" on Bang Babes are harmful and offensive and should not be shown.

I have to say,i knew nothing of this,in fact have been voicing on this forum how superior their 2-4-1s are,i now see where you are coming from,in fact i should have read the previous posts,as i was going from memory of one i read sometime ago from someone who wanted babechannels to go full frontal,i will be more diligent in the future

(05-03-2010 23:58 )stoly Wrote:  It's all good and well talking about this, but what do we need to do, to get these fuckers out of the picture.

A rant similar to this heading in the direction of the fucker, who complained to OFCOM about Bang Babes, would be a good start...

Nudity late at night really is a non-problem. What worries me far more are some religious channels asking supporters to donate their savings or encouraging wife beating, blatant political bias, supposedly independent channels pushing products, fixed phone in competitions conning MILLIONS of people.

It's not as if what people are asking for is outragous, all most posters want is what most couples get to see in the bedroom. What many teenagers can see by buying a top shelf mag in 95% of newsagent perfectly legally.

In fact many man would be happy seeing material the same strength and explictness as in many ordinary cert 18 feature films, such as Intimacy, 9 Songs, Cheeky, Crank, Lust Caution, Destricted, Hostel, Shortbus, Brown Bunny, Black Angel ...

If you watch Alexander, Braveheart, QI, Pineapple Dance Studios, Armstrong & Miller, 30 Days Of Night or Father Ted this weekend, just remember 30 years ago they would have been banned from television too.

As it stands at the moment there is no alternative to the "Babe Channels", where the girls can, if they so wish, be more explicit. Ofcom have seen to that. Their draconian stance, even on encrypted material, has forced the broadcasters to stop their live shows.
They (Ofcom) state, in their latest bulletin, that:

"Ofcom seeks to ensure that material of a sexual nature, when broadcast, is editorially justified, appropriately scheduled and where necessary access is restricted to adults".


However, as we all know, they also say that they refuse to allow explicit sex i.e. full R18 on these encrypted channels as they have evidence that children are watching. (that's bullshit, as they've twisted the information & statistics to suit themselves).
They can't have it two ways. But, of course, they can as their Ofcom and untouchable. Couple this with a bunch of broadcasters who are so subservient and you have this ridiculous situation in the UK.
Our neighbours in Europe have shown full-on sex on tv for many years. Has that harmed them? Is the UK a better society for NEVER having full R18 on tv?
As evidenced by this board, the babe channels are a very popular genre, the girls have a great following and provide an excellent service. For those of us who would like more explicit & erotic adult entertainment, we have Ofcom.

Anyone notice something missing from this list of channel viewing figures?

http://www.barb.co.uk/report/weeklyViewingSummary?_s=4


@blackjaques, are you elluding to Ofcom's PIN research, which states that the BARB viewing figures for ages 11-17 "declines dramatically after midnight"? To put this in context, 26% of people aged 11-17 in homes with subscription channels claim to be watchng after 11pm - this figure then "declines dramatically after midnight"...

Actually, folks, this little section on viewing figures makes for some startling reading in light of what Ofcom allow $ky movies to show after 8pm....

Ofcom: Research into the Effectiveness of PIN Protection Systems in the UK (2005) Wrote:The number of children watching TV post watershed every day/most days drops off significantly as the evening progresses, with 66% watching post 9pm and 23% watching post 11pm.

Analysis of BARB viewing data for this age group also shows a relatively high level of viewing in the 2300– 2400 slot, which declines dramatically post midnight.

70% of the children interviewed claimed their household subscribed to premium subscription channels at home.

Within premium subscription households, the vast majority (86%) of children are watching these subscription channels.
• 11 – 15 year olds are significantly more likely to be watching premium subscription channels in households with access than 16 – 17 year olds (88% cf. 78%)
• Males are significantly more likely to be watching premium subscription channels in households with access than females (91% cf. 80%)

(emphesis added)

Are Ofcom really protecting the under 18s from more 'adult' material?

Don't you just love hypocrisy!