+- 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 - eccles - 17-04-2012 01:50
(17-04-2012 00:27 )shan_123 Wrote: Everyone loved bangbabes but the truth of the matter is they didn't listen or take notice when ofcom was complaining about them e.g refusing to pay fines and a certain someone that being Amanda rendall failing to control herself and she too is to blame for bb going bust. U all loved bb, u all loved babestar, u all loved babeworld but wht happened at the end? They all went bust because they didnt listen. Basically to cut this long thing short, if these shows actually comply then maybe just maybe ofcom will take a backseat
bangbabes committed suicide for reasons that are not clear. Amanda was not out of control, there was a camera crews, producer and director who could have influenced things.
Even if Bangbabes had not happened Ofcom would still have been on the channels backs. They will be as long as the content is sex themed, no matter how tame it is.
Enforcement is out of all proportion to the volume of complaints or harm, unlike pretend religious channels that peddle fake cancer medicine or scam gameshow channels. As for taste and decency or protecting children, The Human Centipede was shown unencrypted today on a non babe channel (obviously). The was a film that barely scraped though an 18 certificate and would offend my mum far more than knowing there is a bit of nudity out there.
Ofcom have a systematic anti sex bias and no legal or moral basis for it.
RE: Ofcom Discussion - eccles - 17-04-2012 01:51
Monday 16 April: No broadcast bulletin from Ofcom because last week had a bank holiday in it. Apparenly protecting the nation can wait.
RE: Ofcom Discussion - StanTheMan - 17-04-2012 02:54
(17-04-2012 00:27 )shan_123 Wrote: Look the point I'm trying to make is u guys are talking about ofcom way too much or arguing about the way they conduct their business, you even have a thread called 'ofcom latest discussions', come on isn't there better stuff to do than start that thread and ranting?
I see you've avoided answering my question to the point you made in the post that started this, so let me remind you of what you said.
shan_123 Wrote:[...] you can't really blame ofcom for using the word 'harmful' because it's more than justified through past history.
What past history? What are you referring to? When was it ever proved that these channels are harmful, outside the deranged heads of those at Ofcom?
RE: Ofcom Discussion - shan_123 - 17-04-2012 09:48
Past history meaning the stuff babestar was showing and also the stuff bb was showing, that's where they probably got the word 'harm'
RE: Ofcom Discussion - StanTheMan - 17-04-2012 12:44
(17-04-2012 09:48 )shan_123 Wrote: Past history meaning the stuff babestar was showing and also the stuff bb was showing, that's where they probably got the word 'harm'
So because Ofcom have decided that these channels are harmful, that makes it so, despite them not having a single shred of evidence to back it up??
Your comment suggests that you agree with them, that you too think these channels are harmful. If this is the case I would dearly love to hear your theories.
RE: Ofcom Discussion - HoneyRocks - 17-04-2012 18:26
Was talking with a friend about the old ITV Schools educational TV show Living & Growing which started in the mid 70's.
Yes it was educational & yes we did laugh & get excited like silly school kids when we watched it, I was 12 when I first saw it, but would OFCOM let it get shown now on morning TV?
Saw a Scooby Doo episode on Boomerang late last week where the 2 female villains seemed to be wearing skimpy PVC black skimpy cat suits leaving little to the imagination and I was a tad surprised seeing it on a kids channel! Wonder whether anyone complained about it?
Also anyone seen or posted in the Digital Spy thread on Adult Channels in their Broadcasting section?
RE: Ofcom Discussion - fedup1 - 18-04-2012 11:50
(17-04-2012 12:44 )StanTheMan Wrote:(17-04-2012 09:48 )shan_123 Wrote: Past history meaning the stuff babestar was showing and also the stuff bb was showing, that's where they probably got the word 'harm'
So because Ofcom have decided that these channels are harmful, that makes it so, despite them not having a single shred of evidence to back it up??
Your comment suggests that you agree with them, that you too think these channels are harmful. If this is the case I would dearly love to hear your theories.
I think shan_123 and Addison work for oftwats...
Forget porn,forget porn on the web,,even if i had 20-30 girlfriends or visited a strip club,forget these..This argument is about UK TV and ofconts,they ban female genatalia and thats sexist..
It means that what is between a womens legs is more shocking than extreme violence,stabbings,shootings,blood and gore,projective vomiting shown on Youve been framed,heads been chopped off,operations on any part of body,van hagens corpses,shooting of animals ,flashing images,abattoirs,racism,football hooliganism,smoking and drinking alcohol and rolling about drunk with vomiting and peeing in the streets,ALL this is allowed on UK tv but show a vaginal lip and never mind the vaginal hole or urethra and they get fined 20-50k or have their licencse removed.
That is sexist and and proves that what a women was born with is more shocking than anything else on planet Earth,Period.
ed richards has his cock right up channel 4,s bum hole and he is not doing his job,ofshits never do anything about what you complain about..I hope they muck up the 4g spectrum and are sued and shut down..Failure to do that i would love to meet the little shit and paste him black and blue..I am doing NOTHING WRONG we are been censored by richards & your DAMN right i will kick up a stink. I will NOT use capitals on that sexist evil tory boys name but like to see it cease on this planet.Forever
RE: Ofcom Discussion - shan_123 - 18-04-2012 14:00
Don't work for ofcom but i was in charge of hiring and firing girls boy would I get rid of the useless deadwood on the channels cara(can't get a new wardrobe), Lynda Leigh (boring as hell and sleeps in her secretary clothes and uses it for work), Ashley Emma (no movement on her night shows and just stares at a camera), Laura j (stale as hell, vikki Thomas likewise). Man should mention more but I won't.
(17-04-2012 12:44 )StanTheMan Wrote: So because Ofcom have decided that these channels are harmful, that makes it so, despite them not having a single shred of evidence to back it up??
Your comment suggests that you agree with them, that you too think these channels are harmful. If this is the case I would dearly love to hear your theories.
For starters there are some vids that were made on babestar tv, U know the usual stuff such as flashing off pussy, sammie see going on the mic using crude language etc, wouldn't u think ofcom will use that as evidence? Also don't forget the vids are available for download freely so whose to say that ofcom cannot download them and use as evidence? Again the same for Amanda rendall, there is a whole load of vids of her performances to relate to.
RE: Ofcom Discussion - shankey! - 18-04-2012 14:32
what i see is the simple fact that there are no written guide lines to what they can or cannot do, typical example was only last night . though i am not complaining one bit rlc and bailey , she was naked before 11pm now please correct me if i am wrong but according to "rules" ofcom have stated that no full nudity should be aired before 11 , is it the channels now exactly what the rules are and are afraid to share it with us because if there is a dip in form we will be on their backs i wonder ? until i actually see it in black and white what the rules are i will not be satisfied by what the channels say ever , they lie about everything else
RE: Ofcom Discussion - fedup1 - 18-04-2012 18:18
(18-04-2012 14:00 )shan_123 Wrote: Don't work for ofcom but i was in charge of hiring and firing girls boy would I get rid of the useless deadwood on the channels cara(can't get a new wardrobe), Lynda Leigh (boring as hell and sleeps in her secretary clothes and uses it for work), Ashley Emma (no movement on her night shows and just stares at a camera), Laura j (stale as hell, vikki Thomas likewise). Man should mention more but I won't.
Right see from your point of view and what you do ,apologies..i think when the world picks up and jobs are aplenty i am leaving the UK..The place is going to the dogs..