+- 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 - cmiller - 06-03-2012 20:30
after reading about how the channels used to fight on these forums and that they report each other to Ofcom, i think it's about time they had a sit-down and put their differences behind them.
they should form their own governing body, agreeing on accepted behaviour & boundaries, areas where they will push Ofcom and a mutual course of action in response to Ofcom.
i know that they are competitors, but by taking a unified stance against Ofcom, they would be in a much stronger position instead of undermining oneanothers efforts like they currently are.
RE: Ofcom Discussion - Scottishbloke - 07-03-2012 00:26
Totally agree with you cmiller, this snitching on each other is achieving nothing other than speeding up the process of eventual closure for the lot of them, it's a no win situation.
Well this is the latest Ofcom bulletin regarding the babe channels and it's Playboy that are feeling the wrath at the moment
http://www.melonfarmers.co.uk/ow.htm
RE: Ofcom Discussion - eccles - 07-03-2012 00:45
They did set up an industry body a few years ago. It was supposed to challenge Ofcom in a way that would prevent retribution against named channels for daring to question their wisdom. It also represented a few channels in breach hearings. I think the idea was that the same legal arguments could be used by all channels and whoever was targetted first could appeal to the Courts and get a ruling that would be used by all channels, instead of one channel taking all the risk and paying solicitors. It went quiet after a few breach hearings and has not been heard of since. A cynic might say cooperation has about as much chance as RyanAir, EasyJet and BA forming a lasting alliance. Rules are so tame that the channel that bends them the most will take viewers and callers away from others.
But it really is turkeys voting for Christmas because each complaint gives Ofcom lasting ammunition.
The latest Bulletin is interesting because X-Factor gets off with a mild telling off for using the F word in front of millions of viewers while Playboy gets threatened with another fine or closure because a clothed womans costume on a specialist channel was skimpy shortly after the watershed.
Millions - mild warning. Specialist audience - threat.
Before watershed - mild warning. After watershed - threat.
Ofcom's latest bulletin - cmiller - 07-03-2012 02:10
(07-03-2012 00:26 )Scottishbloke Wrote: this is the latest Ofcom bulletin regarding the babe channels and it's Playboy that are feeling the wrath at the moment
http://www.melonfarmers.co.uk/ow.htm
"Ofcom concluded that this material was clearly unsuitable for children.
In Ofcom's opinion, viewers (and in particular parents) would not expect such material to be broadcast and available to view so soon after 21:00, particularly given that material broadcast on such services prior to 21:00 should be non-sexual in tone and apparent intent."
i'm gonna go fucking mental if i keep reading bullshit like this!!! what do they expect to see on a channel like this after 9pm??? who would let their kids anywhere near a show like this anyway??? whoever saw this and filed a complaint should have their eyes and ears removed to protect their delicate sensibilities!!! GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR
..................best website name ever, though
RE: Ofcom Discussion - ExtremelyCritical - 07-03-2012 07:14
Quote:In Ofcom's opinion, viewers (and in particular parents) would not expect such material to be broadcast and available to view so soon after 21:00, particularly given that material broadcast on such services prior to 21:00 should be non-sexual in tone and apparent intent."
So they think parents wouldn't expect such material? Since when? I don't remember them asking anybody. I never thought their opinion would represent everyone else.
RE: Ofcom Discussion - wickednip - 07-03-2012 12:16
Ofcom never seizes to give me a laugh.
It’s strange the way different body parts are increasingly naughty. Cleavage; no problem. Legs; sure. A bit of bottom; why not. Nipples; that’s a problem. Exposed parts of nipples; you must be joking. Nipples poking through clothing; you’re treading on thin ice. And pussy; well, get out of here. No chance.
Notice how there are regulations that get ramped up as the body parts get naughtier? But what if it’s the reverse? There are some folks who will find the less naughty parts more sexually arousing; for them, cleavage is worse than a naked pussy, there, wide open in front their screens. What do we do then? Ban what was once ‘innocent’ teasing because viewers are getting too aroused at the sight of a toe, or a shoe, or a bra? Things aren’t going to get any better. Say no to rules, children!
RE: Ofcom Discussion - KRISB - 07-03-2012 21:24
If Ofcom were in charge of regulating the food we eat, "steak would be
banned because babies can't chew"(quote nicked from The West Wing)
[split] Mainstream TV nudity vs babeshow nudity - continental19 - 20-03-2012 11:17
Hi guys slightly going of the topic for a second, but could someone tell me when Ofcom review the status of UK TV channels? The reason I bring this up is if memory serves me correct it was round this time last yr towards the end of march/April time that ofcom toughened there stance against the Babe channels, and I was wondering is this the time of yr when they review them?
If anyone could let me no I would be grateful
Thanks
RE: Mainstream TV nudity vs babeshow nudity - munch1917 - 20-03-2012 13:53
(20-03-2012 11:17 )continental19 Wrote: Hi guys slightly going of the topic for a second, but could someone tell me when Ofcom review the status of UK TV channels?
...
The general Ofcom discussion thread is probably more appropriate for this discussion
http://www.babeshows.co.uk/showthread.php?tid=14756
I'm no Ofcom expert, but I'm pretty sure they don't have any timetable by which they review channels.
If it was around this time last year when the rules were tightened, I think that was just in response to the level of complaints that had been received, and judgements made against the babechannels in the preceeding months rather than because it was 'that time of year'.
munch
RE: Mainstream TV nudity vs babeshow nudity - Digital Dave - 20-03-2012 14:13
^^^ Spot on. There's no 'review date' as such.