+- The UK Babe Channels Forum (https://www.babeshows.co.uk)
+-- Forum: Channels (/forumdisplay.php?fid=8)
+--- Forum: UK Babe Channels (/forumdisplay.php?fid=9)
+---- Forum: Broadcasting Regulations (/forumdisplay.php?fid=138)
+---- Thread: Should The Channels Blur Private Parts So We Can See More? (/showthread.php?tid=39921)
Pages: 1 2
Should The Channels Blur Private Parts So We Can See More? - mrmann - 15-10-2011 21:28
Seeing how this would technically not be against the Ofcom rules, this might be a better way around the censorship. The non adult channel sex programs do this (Half of the time at least
) and never get any trouble from Ofcom, so would it work for the babe channels? Ofcom seems to think that these channels are in the teleshopping location, but are they really? I thought the 900 channels were designated to adult programs, and that it was common knowledge, or is Ofcom just making up an excuse? Is there another location for the babe channels to exist in, to show more, or is that a stupid question?
RE: Should the channels blur the private parts so we can see more??? - Scottishbloke - 15-10-2011 21:35
Short answer to that - NO, it's all or nothing to me as far as I'm concerned as in the long term this would achieve nothing, all your doing is just moving the goal posts and the shows still remain censored.
RE: Should the channels blur the private parts so we can see more??? - Sooky™ - 15-10-2011 21:40
How exactly can they blur elements of a live moving person?
Other channels use blurring because they're pre-recorded
And don't say they can blur it by making use of the broadcast delay........they struggle to even get names right in OSG, so I doubt they can be relied on for anything more complex
RE: Should the channels blur the private parts so we can see more??? - mrmann - 15-10-2011 22:25
Good point. It would be tricky to blur it while moving, but they could do it when the women are on their backs with legs open, and not moving too much.
I too agree about all or nothing, but if things are never going to improve, then I would settle for some blurring during more open positions.
I still think these channels should have sessions where the women go full frontal, but are shadowed so that it's more exciting and they can movie around. Black lighting, smoke, behind the screen etc. All of that to me is better than seeing them constantly on their stomachs because they can't move.
Just trying to think of something, seeing as the babe channels appear to be incapable of thinking outside the box.
RE: Should the channels blur the private parts so we can see more??? - Scottishbloke - 15-10-2011 22:39
Sorry again, I'd say why? It's still censorship just from another angle and would soon get as repetitive as the models lying on their stomaches, I oppose censorship on the babe channels in any way, shape or form, 2011 FFS I want to see the lot!!!!!!!!!!!!
RE: Should the channels blur the private parts so we can see more??? - Chimpy - 15-10-2011 22:42
(15-10-2011 22:25 )mrmann Wrote: they could do it when the women are on their backs with legs open, and not moving too much.
So you had Storm in mind?
RE: Should the channels blur the private parts so we can see more??? - Captain Vimes - 15-10-2011 22:51
(15-10-2011 21:40 )Sooky™ Wrote: How exactly can they blur elements of a live moving person?
I find drinking copious amounts of alcohol helps.
RE: Should the channels blur the private parts so we can see more??? - SOCATOA - 15-10-2011 23:17
You can all borrow my glasses for the same effect
RE: Should The Channels Blur Private Parts So We Can See More? - eccles - 16-10-2011 01:25
Sport used to pixellate before they went encrypted, and Ofcom still managed to fine them. If it looks like real sex Ofcom reckons its banned on FTA even if you cant see it. As for blurring full frontal, what would that achieve? The babe might was well hold her hand in front or tell us she is naked underneath her clothes. And if permitted today is sure wouldnt be permitted tomorrow.
We have the absurd situation where there is a designated Adult section that cannot show cert 18 material. It can only show cert 15. And thats not Adult.
Sometimes the channels stick up an "18" label or put "18" on the EPG, but then Ofcom can treat that as an admission of guilt. If the channels arent labelled "18" they cant claim to have given adequate warning. Wheres my copy of Catch 22?
What might work would be for a channel to have an Editorial licence instead of Teleshopping. BUT they would not be able to earn money from premium rate calls, unless clearly linked to show content. At best that would mean one caller at a time with no links to of screen operators.
RE: Should The Channels Blur Private Parts So We Can See More? - mikedafc - 16-10-2011 10:25
No, have you never seen Japanese porn? it is terrible because they blur the private parts!!