+- 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 stuff - mrmann - 21-09-2010 14:25
(21-09-2010 00:57 )eccles Wrote:(20-09-2010 22:51 )IanG Wrote: Unfortunately, it seems no fucker in this land is willing to charge OFCOM with Human Rights abuses and have their Code subjected to a Judicial Review
Trouble used to be that one of the largest players was a major operator of sex-shops and another was a major publisher of porn mags. Making R18 films available all night every night would have cost their sex shop and magazine businesses a fortune.
When Ofcom first consulted on their new Broadcast Code, including whether R18 should be shown on TV, one of the groups OPPOSING allowing it was the sex shop owners trade body, the AITA (see Ofcom Statement and AITA Letter)
That's right, the sex shop industry campaigned against it.
In broadcasting generally there is a clear recognition that if the same media organisation has both TV and print businesses there can be a conflict of interest between the two and there are restrictive rules about media cross-ownership. Doesnt seem to apply in this case - perhaps it should, perhaps sex shop owners and porn publishers should be banned from running TV channels. Theres seems to be a lack of fight among the big boys, and the smaller operators have been cowed into submission.
You say that seeing R18 would seriously hurt the person's business? What about the internet, where we can see much more and much worse than anything we're asking to see on the babe channels? We also have the websites for the women on the babe channels as well, so seeing R18 or even 18 on TV wouldn't make much of a difference.
RE: Ofcom stuff - Sootbag1 - 21-09-2010 18:46
I would assume (no firm evidence, just my summation) that allowing R18 strength films to be broadcast on TV would severely hurt the R18 DVD market. Why would anyone buy a DVD for pretty much the same as it would cost them to subscribe to a channel for a month?
RE: Ofcom stuff - johnm - 21-09-2010 19:32
(21-09-2010 18:46 )Sootbag1 Wrote: I would assume (no firm evidence, just my summation) that allowing R18 strength films to be broadcast on TV would severely hurt the R18 DVD market. Why would anyone buy a DVD for pretty much the same as it would cost them to subscribe to a channel for a month?
but people that have sky movies still buy films on dvd and rent them from places like blockbuster. love film etc, so i cant see R18 being on tv having any affect on sales from sex shops.
RE: Ofcom stuff - eccles - 21-09-2010 22:24
Yes, the AITA claimed that having R18 on TV would harm their sales.
Im not saying I agree with that, and the claim was made back in 2004 when the innernet was not as big as it is now and broadband did not exist.
They also claimed that sex shops have better protection mechanisms for under 18s than TV.
Point is that the sex shop representative campaigned against R18 on TV AT THE SAME TIME that one major sex shop owner was running encrypted sex shows.
What about today? Online porn sales are important for the big boys. Sex shops can cater for specialist tastes better than a general TV channel. DVDs still have a place for "that special evening" (that never quite works out that way) and rugby club ways. And the BBFC make it clear that there is a case for not allowing full strength live material - some R18 material pushes the boundaries of what is physically possible, etc and would be too risky live. Also some scenes are borderline legal even at R18, and if shown live would occasionally slip into absolute-ban territory. So Yes R18 sales could co-exist with R18 on TV. But its not my opinion that matters on this, campaigning by sex shop/magazine owners and channel owners will carry more weight.
RE: Ofcom stuff - SYBORG666 - 02-10-2010 00:41
For my first post, what I don't understand with the "in context" argument is how an arts channel can broadcast at lunchtime full frontal male and female nudity using the "in context" argument, yet the babechannels can't do the same after the watershed. Before people say they can't show detail, isn't showing a man's penis the same as a female's labia area on tv?
RE: Ofcom stuff - mikeboob - 02-10-2010 09:48
This is slightly off topic but related in a general sense, the government has clearly decided to reign in the nanny state somewhat with the announcements regarding teacher guidelines and the whole miasma of Heath and Safety regulations which restrict normal low risk activities. If the approach is carried through into OFCOMs baileywick there is some hope that they will be told that they should concentrate their energies on "consumer" protection rather than restricting content.
RE: Ofcom stuff - Scottishbloke - 02-10-2010 21:45
(02-10-2010 09:48 )mikeboob Wrote: This is slightly off topic but related in a general sense, the government has clearly decided to reign in the nanny state somewhat with the announcements regarding teacher guidelines and the whole miasma of Heath and Safety regulations which restrict normal low risk activities. If the approach is carried through into OFCOMs baileywick there is some hope that they will be told that they should concentrate their energies on "consumer" protection rather than restricting content.
Yes very true this country has turned into a nanny state, health and safety has gone completely ott, I have a bicycle and I've cycled it many times on a busy road without a helmet and if somebody told me I had to wear one I'd tell them to fuck off, I'll take my chances thanks very much, I smoke and some government health warning isn't going to make me stop. We'll all be dead anyway in a 100 years time from now anyway so why all this fuss about health and safety aswell as censorship rules. Why censor sex its what got us all here in the first place and its being going on since the dawn of time. Its a basic human emotion which we all have like it or not. If anyone has any knowledge of animal welfare sex is even listed as one of the 5 freedoms. Animal to animal obviously unless you're from Aberdeen as they shag sheep up there but the dons did get beat again so I suppose its the only fun those fans are going to get, but seriously ofcom are breaching our human rights.
RE: Ofcom stuff - lucent-x - 03-10-2010 10:55
(02-10-2010 09:48 )mikeboob Wrote: This is slightly off topic but related in a general sense, the government has clearly decided to reign in the nanny state somewhat with the announcements regarding teacher guidelines and the whole miasma of Heath and Safety regulations which restrict normal low risk activities. If the approach is carried through into OFCOMs baileywick there is some hope that they will be told that they should concentrate their energies on "consumer" protection rather than restricting content.
Yes, but we know the Womens groups, Religious groups, Daily Mail et al, anti-porn crusaders and the general self-appointed do-gooding moral twats will all kick up a fuss at the first sign of 'porn nudity' or actual adult consensual sex on the TV; and any Government would cave under the pressure and go with the media controlled perceived faux public opinion.
Reigning in the control of OFCOM is one thing, dealing with the sadly predictable media moral outrage is quite another.
RE: Ofcom stuff - eccles - 03-10-2010 21:31
I cant get the image of that picnic out of my head. Please noone mention Jayne Mansfield.
Derek & Clive
RE: Ofcom stuff - eccles - 03-10-2010 21:35
(02-10-2010 00:41 )SYBORG666 Wrote: For my first post, what I don't understand with the "in context" argument is how an arts channel can broadcast at lunchtime full frontal male and female nudity using the "in context" argument, yet the babechannels can't do the same after the watershed. Before people say they can't show detail, isn't showing a man's penis the same as a female's labia area on tv?
Youd have thought so, wouldnt you. But facts have little place in Ofcom world. Two women touching each other is allowed (within limits). All male-female shows are banned. This is despite the BBFC, that Ofcom tries to take as its model, clearly stating that it does not censor any sexuality more severely than any other.