+- 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 - ledders69 - 08-10-2010 18:48
The ridiculous ofcom censorship is getting beyond a bloody joke. The girls are not to blame, it's the people who are in charge of the shows who are to blame. Why have this utra consevatism towards channels? it's unneccesary and restricts people to with what they want to do next. On BS they have been placing the cameras in all sorts of different positions of which does my head in.
What I reckon should happen is that the executives should look at the CVs in detail and if they have a reference of a footballer in their spare time, it shouldn't really qualify for them to have a producer role. Makes a complete mockery of the shows in my books. Even more puzzling is the BS3G service is still censored, bloody hell how long are they going to take this? it frustrates the hell out of you.
If you have a favourite babe you want to see full on action, not part of it. Georgie from BS is becomig a victim of this and you cannot understand why the cameras adjust the positions. Doesn't add up and not just that makes the show a little tedious. For BSs wishlist they need some camera staff that actually know what they are doing and the same goes for the producers too.
Another annoying aspect of BS is the monotonus adertising/plugging of BSXtreme, we all complain about censorship but this in my opinion is worse because it spoils the shows even more. Whilst the girls are on phones they want to be left alone on the phone and not interfered with by stupid advertisments for an encrypted channel that hasn't really been a success story. We know babechannels are businesses, but all this advertising is just impractical and unrealistic.
It's like one rule for BS and another rule for another channel,complete double standards to my view and shouldn't happen. Another aspect that is getting my back up is the lack of daytime babes at night. The babe channels need to start caring about us more instead of bleeding consumers dry of hard earned cash. These babes spice up the night schedules and can actually be more effective performers than established night performers.
Be nice to have a bit more variation, Dannii Harwood is mainly on days, but I believe her night shows are better than a lot of babes of whom are night-time regulars. Just detect a lot of predictablity on the channels at the moment instead of something that is going to shock us like Paige Tyler has surprised us a lot this year by going from introverted daytime girl to a night-time nymph which you cannot stop.
When the producers organise the schedules maybe they should look at the criteria of performance rather than who can bring in the filthiest calls. It would be a more democratic system and wouldn't be as misleading as the current system. There the way I see it should be a referendum of how the management of babe channels should do things in future. Producers look too much backwards instead of forwards and it ruins the channels.
Just wish they'd have like I said in my previous post more natural beauties on night shows instead of people who've resorted to silicone and porn stars. The producers(night) are majorly confused who is attractive and who isn't. Like I mentioned in my other paragraph It's about the babes who are busiest on the phones and that sadly is the porn stars. Daytime producers make an effort so why should the night show producers be different? it perplexes us right down to the ground.
RE: Ofcom stuff - eccles - 14-10-2010 20:51
Government curbs Ofcom's powers
Guardian 14/10/2010
"Ofcom is to have a number of its powers curtailed including its responsibility for running regular reviews of public service broadcasting and media ownership rules ...
The culture secretary, Jeremy Hunt, made the announcements today as part of sweeping changes that will see 19 of the 55 public bodies for which the Department for Culture, Media and Sport is responsible either abolished or significantly reformed.
... confirmed ... that Postcomm, the postal services regulator, will be merged into Ofcom.
Hunt also announced eight key changes to how Ofcom's duties will be changed. The DCMS said that the restructure was designed to "return the policy-setting role to the secretary of state, reduce unnecessary expense and to avoid duplication".
DCMS (Dept Cult Med Sport) Press Release:
[1]Amend the duty for Ofcom to review public service broadcasting every five years (part 3, section 264 of the Communications Act 2003) so that a review will only be conducted at the discretion of the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State will also determine the scope of the review.
[2]Allow Ofcom flexibility to implement changes to its governance structures (part 1 section 12-21 of the Communications Act 2003). Any revised structure will require the approval of the Secretary of State.
[3]Remove the duty on Ofcom to promote development opportunities for training and equality of opportunity (part 1 section 27 of the Communications Act 2003);
[4]Change the regional Channel 3 networking arrangement review from an annual review to a reserve power for Ofcom to assess as required (section 290-294 and Schedule 11 of the Communications Act 2003);
[5]Amend the duty for Ofcom to review the media ownership rules every three years (section 391 of the Communications Act 2003) so that a review will be conducted at the discretion of the Secretary of State.
[6]Remove the requirement for public service broadcasters to provide annual statements of programme policy (266 and 270 of the Communications Act 2003); and
[7]Amend the duty on Ofcom to review a “change of control” to a Channel 3 licensee or Channel 5 (section 351 and 353 of the Communications Act 2003) so that one isn’t automatically required. However, the Secretary of State will retain the power to request one. The fit and proper persons regime on new owners of channel 3 and 5 licences will remain.
[8]Enable Ofcom to charge fees for satellite filings made to the International Telecommunications Union (section 28 of the Communications Act 2003)
![[Image: AAD5DB7C-AB6A-46D2-51F73F747248FBE9.jpg]](http://cached.imagescaler.hbpl.co.uk/resize/scaleToFit/427/285/?sURL=http://offlinehbpl.hbpl.co.uk/news/OWM/AAD5DB7C-AB6A-46D2-51F73F747248FBE9.jpg)
Ofcom HQ - note concealed evil missile launcher
RE: Ofcom stuff - ledders69 - 15-10-2010 19:07
Ofcom need to be flushed down the toilet as soon as possible. No wonder why Tammy Taylors shows on night shows are censored some of the time or Charlie O'Neal for that matter whilst she was at BS. We want our shows to be entertaining not play it safe. Makes me furious and why the dickens do they have to have black boxes on BS saying uncensored pics? Cellcast do not get this, we are the customers, yet we are being treated with total and utter contempt. To that Cellcast and Ofcom have disgusted me big time. Ofcom thinking they can tell people what to do is one thing, but Cellcast unintentionally revolting is another. They are both wrong and don't understand really what the paying customer wants. Both organisation bodies have shot themself in the foot big time. Even worse BS let Karina and Camilla do what they like yet Georgie and to an extent Paige get the unfair censorship and they are better performers. Absolute discrimination to my vocabluary, extremely unfair. One rule for one and another rule for another. My definition is a total disgrace why do BS have these double standards? it's unfair, undemocratic and aboe all shows complete favouritism. Surprised people haven't done written complaints about it. BS please deliver us the entertaining shows we deserve otherwise your fans will be lost, everyone knows you have ofcom on your back, but please deliver for us and not your own benefit.
RE: Ofcom stuff - blackjaques - 16-10-2010 07:50
[/i]
(14-10-2010 20:51 )eccles Wrote: Government curbs Ofcom's powers
Guardian 14/10/2010
"Ofcom is to have a number of its powers curtailed including its responsibility for running regular reviews of public service broadcasting and media ownership rules ...
The culture secretary, Jeremy Hunt, made the announcements today as part of sweeping changes that will see 19 of the 55 public bodies for which the Department for Culture, Media and Sport is responsible either abolished or significantly reformed.
... confirmed ... that Postcomm, the postal services regulator, will be merged into Ofcom.
Hunt also announced eight key changes to how Ofcom's duties will be changed. The DCMS said that the restructure was designed to "return the policy-setting role to the secretary of state, reduce unnecessary expense and to avoid duplication".[i]
~~~~~~
~~~~~
So, in view of the statement bolded above, do we think that the Secretary of State will continue with the current Ofcon-implemented "child friendly" policy in terms of our adult channel output or will they allow UK adults to be grown up and watch full R18?
RE: Ofcom stuff - Tonywauk - 16-10-2010 17:03
(16-10-2010 07:50 )blackjaques Wrote: So, in view of the statement bolded above, do we think that the Secretary of State will continue with the current Ofcon-implemented "child friendly" policy in terms of our adult channel output or will they allow UK adults to be grown up and watch full R18?
From the way I read it the changes do not involve Ofcom's duties as a regulator of programme content at all. If I am wrong here, I am sure somebody will point out my error. Besides which as this is a Babe Channel forum, is anyone suggesting that R18 strength material should be aired on FTA channels? There is no reason I can see why encoded subscription channels should not carry material which is legally available in this country, but Im not sure that I would support the FTA channels doing so.
TW
RE: Ofcom stuff - Scottishbloke - 16-10-2010 18:47
I've personally fucking had it with government be it new fucking Labour, Old fucking Labour, Tories, Lib Dems it doesn't fucking matter who's running this country because either way we're all getting fucked left right and centre. To make matters worse after a long days shift at work you can't even watch some decent R18 type material on tv. As for Babestation I'm getting pretty fucking sick and tired of this constant plugging of the Babestation extreme channel. If it was that fucking good why's it not on sky and only freeview. Although the shows are undoubtedly better than 2 years ago they are now beginning to look old and stale with the now same old routine. The barrier has to be raised higher now by that I mean the same level of content as what you would see or sexysat tv or eurotic tv. I want to be entertained not this constant fucking hand over p****** tease routine every night, just show us the fucking thing and be done with it. Fuck ofcom, entertain the punters instead.
RE: Ofcom stuff - 7 stars of the orient - 16-10-2010 20:29
(16-10-2010 17:03 )Tonywauk Wrote: From the way I read it the changes do not involve Ofcom's duties as a regulator of programme content at all. If I am wrong here, I am sure somebody will point out my error.
Cameron has said all along that there will be no changes to Ofcom's duties as a regulator of programme content.
RE: Ofcom stuff - blackjaques - 16-10-2010 20:38
(16-10-2010 20:29 )7 stars of the orient Wrote:(16-10-2010 17:03 )Tonywauk Wrote: From the way I read it the changes do not involve Ofcom's duties as a regulator of programme content at all. If I am wrong here, I am sure somebody will point out my error.
Cameron has said all along that there will be no changes to Ofcom's duties as a regulator of programme content.
It's the policy which is wrong. Ofcon set it; now it's going to be the government who set it & Ofcon who regulate it.
Will the Con-Dem coalition change the policy, i.e the broadcasting code towards full R18.
I am not advocating this for FTA shows, btw, only subscription channels.
RE: Ofcom stuff - Scottishbloke - 16-10-2010 21:35
(16-10-2010 20:38 )blackjaques Wrote:(16-10-2010 20:29 )7 stars of the orient Wrote:(16-10-2010 17:03 )Tonywauk Wrote: From the way I read it the changes do not involve Ofcom's duties as a regulator of programme content at all. If I am wrong here, I am sure somebody will point out my error.
Cameron has said all along that there will be no changes to Ofcom's duties as a regulator of programme content.
It's the policy which is wrong. Ofcon set it; now it's going to be the government who set it & Ofcon who regulate it.
Will the Con-Dem coalition change the policy, i.e the broadcasting code towards full R18.
I am not advocating this for FTA shows, btw, only subscription channels.
I'm sorry but I think you're missing the point here, fta shows should have less restrictions perhaps not as much as the subscription ones but the censorship is still far too much in what is effectively a sexline adult channel. If the internet isn't censored which anybody of any age can access at any point of the day then Isn't is reasonable and justifiable that the restrictions be lifted from the live tv shows especially as the watershed rules are being obeyed.
RE: Ofcom stuff - SYBORG666 - 17-10-2010 14:11
From what i've read on here is that Ofcom allow nudity within the context of the programme on fta channels. So here is what I can't understand, i'm flicking through Sky around 10am and come across a programme showing full frontal female nudity on Sky arts. So if that is allowed because of the context rule, then the babechannels should show material that is within context e.g full frontal nudity, dirty talk. Ofcom are in my eyes then just a bunch of hypocritical retards that should just fuck off and join the rest of us in the 21st century instead of living in the medeival times.
