+- 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 - mrmann - 29-08-2012 15:26
Ofcom did allow them to swear, but then changed their views and told them it was not allowed.
RE: Ofcom Discussion - Jack Bishop - 29-08-2012 15:58
Was it not swearing but swearing in a provocative manner that was the problem? Good job KP is not RLC
RE: Ofcom Discussion - mr mystery - 29-08-2012 16:45
(29-08-2012 15:26 )mrmann Wrote: Ofcom did allow them to swear, but then changed their views and told them it was not allowed.
Yes i seem to remember posts being made on this forum sometime in 2010 (i think) were it was mentioned that the rules were going to be relaxed so that the girls could swear (never verified), when the Elite girls started swearing on the mic i thought that the new language rules had come into force , if i remember correctly i even made a post in the BS threads asking why the BS girls weren't allowed to swear like the Elite girls do, i can't remember exactly what i posted and can't be bothered to check, but i seem to remember the BS rep more or less admitting that the girls could swear but asked if we really need to hear them swear, or something like that .
RE: Ofcom Discussion - KRISB - 29-08-2012 20:00
This is the ruling from Ofcom:
at no time broadcast sexually explicit language; and
ensure any sexual language broadcast is restrained, and avoid its use altogether
before midnight.
When does sexual language become sexually explicit language?
RE: Ofcom Discussion - eccles - 29-08-2012 23:44
(28-08-2012 20:54 )Shawnwilson Wrote: One of the biggest difference's from the shows of the past to now is girl on girl interaction. did ofcom ban girls from kissing or have the channels stopped it themselves????
Yes, the teleshopping guidelines warn against kissing, thigh rubbing and other actions that could "cause widespread outrage" or something like that.
It's allowed on Causualty and other soaps but not sex channels. Also there seems to be an antigay agenda waiting to be challenged.
RE: Ofcom Discussion - eccles - 29-08-2012 23:50
(28-08-2012 21:26 )Scottishbloke Wrote: Yes Rammy being optimistic is something you have to maintain because for as long as we have the channels and this type of entertainment then you still have a glimmer of hope, Playboy magazine is a perfect example of this how constant perseveres can eventually get you results. Back when that magazine started in the 50's they weren't allowed to publish any pictures showing full frontal nudity. Look at it now, it's stronger and bigger than ever.
Didn't Playboy have to fight a series of court battles in the USA?
One of many things that hacks me off is how little the babe channels seem willing to do to fight their own corner. As far as I can see not one has sought a High Court review of Ofcoms procedures or commissioned their own research into standards - £25k would probably be enough.
RE: Ofcom Discussion - Digital Dave - 30-08-2012 00:48
This is the root of the problem - the channels will not, under any circumstances, defend themselves. Even worse, they grass each other up. There have been various posts on this forum which maintain that it's up to us to effect change and not the channels, something I'll never understand.
In any event the channels themselves obviously find it commercially viable to run a business under Ofcom's ever-changing regime, and have decided that challenging Ofcom is not worth their while. I think they're wrong.
I've also seen comment on this forum that it would take years for any change to be brought about, but look how quickly Ofcom were defeated when challenged by Sky recently - it took a matter of months and Ofcom were publicly accused (by the court) of rejecting evidence which didn't suit their criteria. Sound familiar?
RE: Ofcom Discussion - MARCCE - 30-08-2012 10:14
(30-08-2012 00:48 )Digital Dave Wrote: This is the root of the problem - the channels will not, under any circumstances, defend themselves. Even worse, they grass each other up. There have been various posts on this forum which maintain that it's up to us to effect change and not the channels, something I'll never understand.
In any event the channels themselves obviously find it commercially viable to run a business under Ofcom's ever-changing regime, and have decided that challenging Ofcom is not worth their while. I think they're wrong.
I've also seen comment on this forum that it would take years for any change to be brought about, but look how quickly Ofcom were defeated when challenged by Sky recently - it took a matter of months and Ofcom were publicly accused (by the court) of rejecting evidence which didn't suit their criteria. Sound familiar?
A matter of months? It was a 2 year legal process. They challenged Ofcom's position back in 2010.
I think it's quite evident that the channels, even all grouped together, would never be able to sustain a legal challenge of that magnitude with the costs it involves.
RE: Ofcom Discussion - shankey! - 30-08-2012 11:49
(30-08-2012 10:14 )MARCCE Wrote:(30-08-2012 00:48 )Digital Dave Wrote: This is the root of the problem - the channels will not, under any circumstances, defend themselves. Even worse, they grass each other up. There have been various posts on this forum which maintain that it's up to us to effect change and not the channels, something I'll never understand.
In any event the channels themselves obviously find it commercially viable to run a business under Ofcom's ever-changing regime, and have decided that challenging Ofcom is not worth their while. I think they're wrong.
I've also seen comment on this forum that it would take years for any change to be brought about, but look how quickly Ofcom were defeated when challenged by Sky recently - it took a matter of months and Ofcom were publicly accused (by the court) of rejecting evidence which didn't suit their criteria. Sound familiar?
A matter of months? It was a 2 year legal process. They challenged Ofcom's position back in 2010.
I think it's quite evident that the channels, even all grouped together, would never be able to sustain a legal challenge of that magnitude with the costs it involves.
maybe they want us to chip in , as if they dont make enough from 1.53 a minute !
RE: Ofcom Discussion - eccles - 31-08-2012 02:31
Cynics might be surprised that the more money grabbing channels (or models) havent started a premium rate line to call.
Ring 0898-xxx-123 to support our legal challenge to Ofcom
Ring 0898-xxx-456 if you think Ofcom has got it right
(all calls charged at £1.53 per minute plus £2 connection fee)
Or how about getting supporters to buy legal expertise - is it Amazon that runs present lists?
Click here to buy 1 hour of a barristers time (£500)
Click here to buy 1 hour of a solicitors time (£100)
Click here to buy an investigative journalist (a drink and a favour)
There was a rumour that the channels were scared or retribution, but thats wearing a bit thin. Its gone on long enough for them to have organised a campaign with no traceable links, and it would be in their interests. Buy up a bunch of distressed channels cheap, keep them ticking over for a few years and make a massive profit when they suddenly able to show hard material.
Quite a few channels have changed hands since the early days and new owners will have bought them knowing what the sales volumes are, unlike the original owners who saw their sales and profits nosedive.
Fortunately Im not in this for the owners benefit and Im sure most people on this thread arent either.