+- 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: Ofcom Discussion (/showthread.php?tid=14756)
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394
RE: Ofcom Discussion - MARCCE - 08-02-2012 13:53
This from the BBC gives an idea of the prevailing culture at the moment.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-16869029
There's also been calls to limit the number of betting shops on high streets which everyone's favourite buffoon, Boris Johnson, has been involved in.
Somewhere along the line, the moralistic crowd seem to have become the in crowd to be heard at the moment and it's that which defines the way Ofcom goes about it's business.
RE: Ofcom Discussion - eccles - 09-02-2012 01:47
I like the way these stories always trot out some poor woman who thought stripping would be a safe fun empowering career, only to find that spreading a fishing minge a boozed up middle aged men and drunk lads for 8 hours a day was less than glamorous. Always. Its like trotting out someone who has bought a newsagents, found it involves a 14 hour day and getting them on record saying they thought working in the media would involve mingling with celebs all day.
Fact is some women hate it, some love it and for many it turns into a job that is somwhere in the middle. The hours can be long and in some places the pay isnt great. The media are also quick to dismiss any woman who does enjoy the work as a tart, deluded, or both.
Did you know George Bush and Hillary Clinton may have posed naked? Students at Yale routinely posed naked for a science study and noone thought this odd for about 40 years. OK, it wasnt regular, or for money, but it is an example of how it is possible to pose nude without being deluded or a tart. http://www.nytimes.com/1995/01/21/us/nude-photos-are-sealed-at-smithsonian.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivy_League_nude_posture_photos
What the BBC fails to point out is that one reason women go into the sex industry with unrealistic expectations is because of the glamourised depiction in the media, including the BBC. Was Diary of a Call Girl realistic? How many films and shows depict fit young women with huge flats enjoying luxury lifestyles in return for very occasionally shagging a handsome athletic man in his forties?
What was important was this point
Quote:In late 2011, academics at the University of Kent began carrying out a 12-month study into the effects of lap dancing clubs on communities.
Academics are studying the impact of clubs on British communities But until this research is complete, hard data surrounding the impact of lap dancing clubs remains fairly limited, according to Birkbeck University's Dr Belinda Brooks-Gordon, author of The Price of Sex: Prostitution, Policy and Society.
As such, she argues, local authorities are making decisions about whether to grant licences without full access to the facts.
RE: Ofcom Discussion - ExtremelyCritical - 09-02-2012 01:57
The Media are paid to Stereotype, and are there to suit certain agendas when they see fit.
RE: Ofcom Discussion - eccles - 09-02-2012 22:33
CHANNEL FINED £25,000
Ofcom have fined Believe TV £25,000 for serious and repeated breaches of the rules 2.1 and 4.6 between 21 Dec 2010 and 4 Jan 2011.
Notable points include the reduced fine because revenue dropped as a result of pulling non compliant shows, and increased risk of harm because of the self selecting nature of the audience.
Wonder if Ofcom would reduce a babeshow fine for similar reasons, or accept that the risk of harm and offence was less because of the self selecting nature of the audience?
http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/enforcement/content-sanctions-adjudications/light-academy-limited.pdf
==============================
Rule 2.1 “Generally accepted standards must be applied to the contents of television and radio services so as to provide adequate protection for members of the public from the inclusion in such services of harmful and/or offensive material”.
Rule 4.6 “Religious programmes must not improperly exploit any susceptibilities of the audience”
Ofcom noted:
examples of: Paul Lewis, in the programmes Paul Lewis Ministries broadcast on 21 December 2010 and 22 December 2010, preaching directly to camera and providing ”healing” direct to individuals through the use of his "Miracle Olive Oil Soap‟; and Bishop Climate Irungu, in the programmes Bishop Climate Irungu Ministries, broadcast on 4 January 2011, providing testimony of “healing” direct to camera; and
“testimonies” of congregation members (supported by statements by Pastor Alex Omokudu), which clearly encouraged viewers to believe that the healing or treatment of very serious illnesses, including cancer, diabetes, and heart problems could be achieved exclusively through healing provided by being anointed with a product such as olive oil soap, Ribena or oil. (para 7)
Given that the content was also soliciting a response from viewers and such individuals experiencing serious illnesses may be vulnerable to the healing claims being made, Ofcom found there was a material risk that susceptible members of the audience may be exploited by the material broadcast on Believe TV, in breach of Rule 4.6. (para 8)
The Finding also referred to previous decisions by both the Advertising Standards Authority (the “ASA”) and Ofcom concerning content containing similar claims by Paul Lewis which had been broadcast on other channels (in 2007 and 2008) (para 9)
In its preliminary view Ofcom was minded to impose a fine of £35,000. (para 36)
Section 4 of the Cancer Act 1939 makes it a criminal offence for anyone to publish an “advertisement” offering to treat anyone with cancer or give any advice in the connection or treatment of cancer. Whilst the editorial content on Believe TV may not be interpreted strictly as an “advertisement”, the existence of such a crime on the statute book highlights that Parliament considered the public provision of any advice on how to treat cancer to be in a special category, and therefore that it should be tightly regulated in the public interest and only made by those specially authorised to do so. (paras 29, 40)
The fine was reduced because the actual level of revenue was lower than forecast "because the Licensee‟s “revenue [has] dipped as our compliance team had to reject a lot of contents as they were not compliant" (para 57) and Believe TV had rejected a number of pieces of programming which it had deemed to be non-compliant with the Code and that this was evidenced by the a significant reduction in revenue from the second quarter of 2011 (para 58).
Ofcom considered the cumulative effect of the repeated “testimony” or faith healing to be significant because ... the self selecting audience of Believe TV ... were less likely to question the content broadcast and be susceptible to the claims presented (para 32)
RE: Ofcom Discussion - Scottishbloke - 10-02-2012 01:43
Now it's been a while since I last came on this thread, I just feel now that all discussions have been exhausted on this subject. A religious channel being fined, well I'm not going to lose any sleep over that, at least it's not a babe channel so that's got to be positive. Without tempting fate it's been a while since the babe channels have felt the wrath of Ofcom but as we know Ofcom has a nasty habit of just when you think everything is calm on this front they go in like a lion coming out of a cage and hammer any of the channels they feel fit to do so. It's really a cat and mouse game when it comes to the relationship between the babe channels and Ofcom but it doesn't have to be this way. The channel execs should be knocking down the doors at Ofcom HQ demanding for change, going to the media, papers and even national news. Ofcom is and still is an attack on our very freedoms that make this Country a democracy in the first place. Now is the time for action. Ofcom will continue to fine and revoke licences anyway they see fit if the channels just simply ignore them and wish them away. I'm fed up of watching show's night after night where the sole purpose from the outset is to not to upset the censors. FFS they are all quite clearly as 18+ so we should expect to see that type of material. This classification rule of teleshopping channels is a croc of shit and is something invented by those at Ofcom HQ. 2012 now and we need action.
RE: Ofcom Discussion - StanTheMan - 12-02-2012 01:35
(10-02-2012 01:43 )Scottishbloke Wrote: [...] I just feel now that all discussions have been exhausted on this subject.
I pointed this out about a fortnight ago.
But while I'm here, can anyone explain why the adult babeshows are the only channels that have to adhere to a 10pm watershed when all the est are governed by the age old 9pm one?
RE: Ofcom Discussion - Scottishbloke - 12-02-2012 01:59
Answer to that one Stan is because Ofcom make the fucking rules up as they go along and as you are only too well aware they are biased in their approach towards the babe channel's in everyway compared to the main ones. I mean fuck me just look at SKY ART'S they get away with showing Spencer Tunnick at fucking lunchtime. Ofcom rules baffle me and allways will, to try to understand them is impossible because they go against all trains of logic
RE: Ofcom Discussion - Roquentin - 13-02-2012 12:42
I can't remember exactly how they put it but I think they talk about not wanting an abrupt change from the prewatershed to the harder levels of content. If things were liberalised a bit, and that twilight hour was not in effect, then I suppose we could see at 8.59 a girl in full clothes, move towards 9.01 full on handthong oil show grinding as fully as possible.
It slightly makes sense on a mainstream channel, where it would be easy to imagine children accidentally hanging about later than usual for a night and the telly to be left on in the corner. But I doubt if any responsible parent is sitting watching babestation daytime with their kids in the room!
I would imagine they do keep it in mind for mainstream channels as well, but as there is less 'breach' in their eyes they don't put in the additional measures. Plus for certain rated films and such, often the scenes in question may not appear right at the beginning, and if they did many broadcasters self regulate and put it on at 10pm anyways. But then again we have found counterexamples haven't we.
RE: Ofcom Discussion - Scottishbloke - 13-02-2012 19:35
Ofcom's argument could be used in the same way that it is for an over 18 to buy alcohol and cigarettes and then take it home to give to their kids, infact underage smoking and drinking causes more harm such as death
than a minor accidently stumbling upon the adult channels, so what if they did, would it actually cause them any widespread harm, no certainly not, all Ofcom's theories and beliefs are built on what if scenaria's with absolutely no concrete evidence to support there conclusions one bit 
RE: Ofcom Discussion - orchid500 - 13-02-2012 19:39
I think if parents were more open with their kids about sex and explained that the channels were for entertainment only then the whole point would be moot anyway - but hay in this society it never the parents - it's everything else!!!
Sorry bad day and needed a rant!
