The UK Babe Channels Forum
Ofcom Discussion - Printable Version

+- 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)



RE: Ofcom Discussion - oldboy1047 - 08-05-2012 08:56

the problem is if ofcom relaxed the rules completely a lot of our fav girls would no longer want to work on these channels and we would only have the porn girls that we can see on plenty of websites now.i would just like to see the rules relaxed back to 2010 when we had the occasional slip.it was the anticipation of waiting just in case,whereas now we know there is no chance


RE: Ofcom Discussion - shankey! - 08-05-2012 09:03

(08-05-2012 08:56 )oldboy1047 Wrote:  the problem is if ofcom relaxed the rules completely a lot of our fav girls would no longer want to work on these channels and we would only have the porn girls that we can see on plenty of websites now.i would just like to see the rules relaxed back to 2010 when we had the occasional slip.it was the anticipation of waiting just in case,whereas now we know there is no chance

thats not entirely true, b/s extreme has models on it that dont go the whole hog, lori for one ,a mix of both x rated and soft core would be the answer to everyones prayers, if only


RE: Ofcom Discussion - Rammyrascal - 08-05-2012 09:09

(08-05-2012 08:56 )oldboy1047 Wrote:  the problem is if ofcom relaxed the rules completely a lot of our fav girls would no longer want to work on these channels and we would only have the porn girls that we can see on plenty of websites now.i would just like to see the rules relaxed back to 2010 when we had the occasional slip.it was the anticipation of waiting just in case,whereas now we know there is no chance

that's how i want the babeshow rules to be, back to how they were in 2010 when the babeshows were at their best


RE: Ofcom Discussion - cmiller - 08-05-2012 09:59

i'm not asking to see pussy, just what film and mainstream tv can show. from what i've seen of 2010, they had it spot on. no pussy, no sex, but anything else goes


RE: Ofcom Discussion - mrmann - 08-05-2012 16:45

A bit off topic, but here is a latest Ofcom investigation that I came across on Google, regarding the new film Prometheus.

Ofcom wastes so much time on non issues Rolleyes

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/may/08/channel-4-ofcom-investigation-prometheus-exlusive

Did a studio exec reach through the TV, strangle someone and force them to buy a ticket? NO!!! Just another example of Ofcom assuming the people of England aren't capable of thinking for themselves Rolleyes


RE: Ofcom Discussion - StanTheMan - 08-05-2012 22:49

(08-05-2012 09:09 )Rammyrascal Wrote:  that's how i want the babeshow rules to be, back to how they were in 2010 when the babeshows were at their best

2010? You'd have to go back further than that for them to be back at their best in my opinion.


RE: Ofcom Discussion - Scottishbloke - 08-05-2012 23:01

Yes I'd agree try 2006 when we had babestar tv and sexstation tv both FTA showing full nudity aswell as the use of sex toys night after night, but also agree that 2010 was a very good year, it came a close second in my opinion in terms of the babe shows in their greatness so I'd be more than happy if we could at least see now what we were only 2 years ago, with the exception of Babestation the rest are just too tame now and the rules need relaxing to make them once more enjoyable viewing.


RE: Ofcom Discussion - *Kal-El* - 09-05-2012 14:10

And with the Government now set to monitor your Internet thats pretty much it now Sad


RE: Ofcom Discussion - continental19 - 09-05-2012 16:48

Three words: F**KIN NANNY STATEImportantannoyedannoyed


RE: Ofcom Discussion - eccles - 09-05-2012 20:09

Sexual content is the only area where the limits are different for encrypted and clear content, and the only area where limits differ from DVDs and cinema. Why? Is it uniquely harmful? Uniquely offensive? Of course not.