+- 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: Is Ofcom Fit For Purpose (/showthread.php?tid=17796)
RE: Is Ofcom Fit For Purpose - HenryF - 08-04-2011 18:11
That you found the need to ask the question, answers the question.
RE: Is Ofcom Fit For Purpose - Scottishbloke - 08-04-2011 22:58
(08-04-2011 18:11 )HenryF Wrote: That you found the need to ask the question, answers the question.
Congratulations you haven't done a single post in about 2 months and barely post at all and you come away with that rubbish.
RE: Is Ofcom Fit For Purpose - HenryF - 09-04-2011 01:00
(08-04-2011 22:58 )Scottishbloke Wrote:(08-04-2011 18:11 )HenryF Wrote: That you found the need to ask the question, answers the question.
Congratulations you haven't done a single post in about 2 months and barely post at all and you come away with that rubbish.
I don't see how it is rubbish. The consensus from the day Ofcom published its first broadcast code and appointed its standards committee (including Non-TV-watching, evangelist Christian, Jonathan Edwards) was that it was not fit for purpose. It has dominated numerous threads on this site over the years and no doubt will continue to do so with the help of this one. I wasn't having a pop at the original poster, it was a statement rather than a rhetorical question.
Take a straw poll of the views on here and other fora and you can count the Ofcom appeasers on a couple of fingers. If people still feel the need to ask themselves this question, they need only consider the absurdity of watching an adult sexual entertainment programme in which they can see no sexual content, before pitching up on here to read about momentary flashes of nudity minus the images for fear that the boards are being monitored by the very people who insist on censoring the TV programming. You couldn't make it up.
RE: Is Ofcom Fit For Purpose - Scottishbloke - 09-04-2011 01:22
Fair enough point Henry but from my point of view it seemed like a smart ass comment to come away with, we are all on this forum for the same purpose and reason so let's not lose sight of that but welcome back anyway, where have you been for the last 2 months?
RE: Is Ofcom Fit For Purpose - HenryF - 09-04-2011 01:25
And to put H-H's thread back on topic with Ofcom inconsistencies, last week I particularly enjoyed watching Embarrassing Bodies in which we were allowed to see every details of a middle-aged man's itchy arsehole - in glorious close-up. The context: he just couldn't stop scratching it! Well, that's all right then.
This week however, we have Elite TV and the latest broadcast bulletin -
Ofcom broadcast bulletin and, yes, you guessed it - showing an arsehole in this context is all wrong, wrong , wrong.
Hurray for our guardians at Riverside House.
RE: Is Ofcom Fit For Purpose - HenryF - 09-04-2011 01:35
(09-04-2011 01:22 )Scottishbloke Wrote: Fair enough point Henry but from my point of view it seemed like a smart ass comment to come away with, we are all on this forum for the same purpose and reason so let's not lose sight of that but welcome back anyway, where have you been for the last 2 months?
I pop in to read threads and check out the Ofcom discussions, but I don't watch the channels anymore as they are so vanilla. There is nothing there worth watching, let alone create a discussion about.
I switched my dish over to the old Sirius sat position (4.8 East) and have been watching HotBox recordings on Hustler. Now that's a proper live show!
RE: Is Ofcom Fit For Purpose - Scottishbloke - 09-04-2011 01:55
I've no such luck I'm kindo stuck with the UK babe channels at the moment as the block of flats I stay in has a communal satellite dish and doesn't permit you to put your own dish's up but seeing as I own half of my property I'm just waiting to get planning permission or better still increase my share to 51% to get by their ridiculous rules. I used to have 2 dish's at my last flat and one was pointing at 19.2 degree's so I used to get Sexysat and Eurotic Tv which I'm missing dearly having only access to British SKY now.
RE: Is Ofcom Fit For Purpose - eccles - 09-04-2011 23:34
(09-04-2011 01:25 )HenryF Wrote: And to put H-H's thread back on topic with Ofcom inconsistencies, last week I particularly enjoyed watching Embarrassing Bodies in which we were allowed to see every details of a middle-aged man's itchy arsehole - in glorious close-up. The context: he just couldn't stop scratching it! Well, that's all right then.
This week however, we have Elite TV and the latest broadcast bulletin -
Ofcom broadcast bulletin and, yes, you guessed it - showing an arsehole in this context is all wrong, wrong , wrong.
Hurray for our guardians at Riverside House.
Nothing wrong with the odd flippant comment, I know Ive made a few, it helps relieve the tension. Constructive comments help too, and this thread is a good place for any kind of inconsistency by Ofcom. That could mean going against their own research, or against their own Broadcast Code, or finding one Babe channel in breach for something another was let off for, or the bizzare inconsistencies between shows on pet channels and ones on channels Ofcom dislikes, as outlined above.
I still cling to the hope that one day a prince will ride up, gather the collected evidence and slay the Ofcom dragon. Evidence of prolonged clear shots of genitals, bumholes and sex on mainstream channels with hundreds of thousands of viewers can only help. Was there any credible claim to serious educational/medical purpose, or was it just another freakshow? Do you remember the channel, date and time?
RE: Is Ofcom Fit For Purpose - Gold Plated Pension - 10-04-2011 21:34
(06-04-2011 01:22 )eccles Wrote: Agree (mostly) with ScottishBloke that late night censorship is a complete waste of public money.
Ofcom talks big about "potential to cause offence" but there is a significant lack of proof. Ofcom claims to be an evidence based regulator. What does cause offence is crudity or personal attacks in unexpected places, like Top Gear and Frankie Boyle shows. OK, not totally unexpected, but hundreds of people felt lines had been crossed.
By contrast probably less that 12 people have complained about the entire babe sector - day and night - in the past year, and there are grounds for believing them to be professional complants with an agenda rather than genuinely offended representative members of the public.
However as GPP says a change of focus seems unlikely.
Abolishing the SIA seemed a lunatic step, there are too many psycho bouncers as it is. But I hope they stick to the proposed ban on clampers.
There was supposed to be relaxation in licencing of pub entertainment, abolishing the requirement for expensive licences and full blown health & safety audits for occasional entertainment with 1-2 people. Hope that is still in the plan. It might just result in the return of Friday lunchtime strippers at the local, unless a sex encounter licence is required. Apart from anything else, occasional strippers used to be a lifeline for pubs in financial difficulties. Some Friday drinkers would turn into regulars. So its in societies wider interests.
On the negative side, it seems a little noticed extra licening fee has been slipped in to cover social impact. Early estimates are that it will be about £2000 a year for ost pubs, more for city centre ones.
And many sex shops are seeing local authority licensing fees jump after being frozen for years.
Just staying slightly off topic, in contact with Westminster Council last week asking about their proposed policy concerning Sexual Entertainment Venues and threw in a few questions about Sex Shops.
With the greatest proliferation of sex shops of any local authority Westminster has a dedicated team of officers to rid the West End of all unlicensed premises charging just under £30,000 per licence for the privilege.
One such licensee has deemed this amount unacceptable and is judicial reviewing their fee policy. When these premises generate income between £800,000 to £2.5m per annum such legal action is small change. An interesting point is that the Adult Industry Trades Association is not party to the JR nor have they ever made any representation to this LA concerning supporting or objecting any licence application. Neither are they recognised on Westminster's web site as a Trade Association.
http://www.westminster.gov.uk/services/business/businessandstreettradinglicences/general-licensing/sex-establishment-licences/
And yet Ofc@m accepted their representation against the proposal to allow R18 strength material on TV.
Westminster will also be adopting the provisions of the Policing and Crime Act 2009 and allow all of their striptease premises to apply for a Sexual Entertainment Venue licence, unlike other authorities like the City of London who have stated they will not allow existing striptease premises to continue trading. I believe there will be lots of challenges in the courts to such policy.
If you have read the guidance to the new legislation we now come into the realm of Ofc@m thinking from central government.
The legislation talks about a 'live display of nudity' and defines it in the case of a woman as, exposure of the nipples, pubic area, genitals or anus. Any such display must reasonably be assumed to be provided solely or principally for the purpose of sexually stimulating any member of the audience. Defining the extent of the pubic area will be interesting, but let's hope Ofc@m don't adopt such thinking otherwise it will be back to knickers on.
eccles your theatres are exempt so shows such as The Hurly Burly Show will not be affected.
RE: Is Ofcom Fit For Purpose - SYBORG666 - 11-04-2011 02:18
Another thing is that on all the mainstream channels, it's perfectly fine to advertise gambling sites and rapid cash loans with huge APRs all day everyday but full on female nudity on fta adult channels after the original 9pm watershed is not allowed.
Which brings me to the point that there is far more destructive things on tv than nudity:
How many people have lost their house, car or families due to nudity on tv?
Now, how many have lost the same things due gambling debts?
The simple fact is, Ofcom need to put things into perspective and realise that seeing full female nudity is harmless because it is a natural thing, whether on tv, magazine or real life.
But maybe thats just wishful thinking
