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) 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 - mido - 04-12-2012 22:28 (04-12-2012 12:35 )mr mystery Wrote: Iv'e just been having a quick look through it and some babe channels are mentioned. I believe that the complaint here references Kimberley you will see from the 3rd set of caps there is a lot of breast fondling along with some aggressive/sexual facial poses while talking to a caller within the 5th or 6th set... TUT TUT KIMBO! http://www.babeshows.co.uk/showthread.php?tid=38603&page=13 the video from James Rockon shows that this isnt something younger viewers should have seen DOWN WITH THIS! RE: Ofcom Discussion - StanTheMan - 04-12-2012 23:10 ^^ Just watched this, and all I can say is that if this got ChatGirl into trouble, then Studio66 and Hannah have got some punishment heading their way too. RE: Ofcom Discussion - mido - 04-12-2012 23:52 well thats from the same day so I assume thats what it relates to, far too much excitement for that time of the morning really isnt there RE: Ofcom Discussion - eccles - 05-12-2012 00:10 Thanks Mystery, you read further than me. Sorry but who complains about a freeview? They have to tune in specially because noone leaves the set on a blank screen for 50 minutes. Either they are optimistic like I used to be an tune in for a flash or to decide if it is worth getting money out, or they tune in specially because they have an agenda. Noone deliberately selects a sample of a harder channel hoping for a flash then complains when they get it. And what is going on with dates? XXXFirstTimers goes all the way back to September, Red Hot and TVX to early October. Mind you, ITV Grimefighters is just as old and BBC Watchdog goes all the way back to June. 2010. Is something odd going on or is Ofcom on the verge of collapse? RE: Ofcom Discussion - eccles - 06-12-2012 02:22 (04-12-2012 12:35 )mr mystery Wrote: Ofcom's latest broadcast bulletin came out yesterday Issue Number 219 and dated 03/12/2012 . One of the four investigations started was against - sorry that implies prejudice, into - a freeview for XXX First Timers on 22/09/2012. It may be coincidence, but when the Daily Mail was campaigning against Ed Richards becoming BBC Director General in June they detailed "pre-watershed sleaze on offer" on XXX First Timers. Is it possible this is an Ofcom own initiative investigation, started in a direct response to the Daily Mail taunt? 3 months later but they might have been waiting for the dust to settle. Daily Mail Wrote:Given that Ed Richards is waiting to discover if he’s landed the job of running the BBC, it would be understandable if his eye was slightly off the ball when it comes to his near £400,000-a-year day job.http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2160841/Is-Labour-crony-turned-blind-eye-porn-fit-run-BBC.html RE: Ofcom Discussion - sala - 07-12-2012 18:53 I see ofcom fined the website “strictly broadband“ £60000 today for having hardcore stuff on their site. RE: Ofcom Discussion - mrmann - 07-12-2012 21:36 (07-12-2012 18:53 )sala Wrote: I see ofcom fined the website “strictly broadband“ £60000 today for having hardcore stuff on their site. How can they fine a website? RE: Ofcom Discussion - munch1917 - 07-12-2012 21:47 (07-12-2012 21:36 )mrmann Wrote:(07-12-2012 18:53 )sala Wrote: I see ofcom fined the website “strictly broadband“ £60000 today for having hardcore stuff on their site. Their website streams video, and under UK law, steps must be taken to prevent children having access to such material, even on the web. Playboy fell foul of the same ruling a while back. This rule rests on the material being considered 'television' content, and Playboy argued that their material was so strong it couldn't be considered tv content, so didn't come under this jurisdiction, but they still lost. Several others have also fallen foul of this, and many have chosen to move their websites overseas to get around it. I understand Strictly Broadband have done this already, as well as putting an age check in place. RE: Ofcom Discussion - mrmann - 07-12-2012 22:08 Still sounds like they want too much power, to control everything. Maybe they should control the tabloid papers first , as oppose to deciding what people can or cannot see RE: Ofcom Discussion - Gibbs Luvs Dani O - 07-12-2012 22:35 The Daily Mail have obviously got there own motives for this. Picking on one specific channel is a bit weak.Every channel has had their models dressed up as school girls,to cite xxxfirsttimers as Quasi-pedophilic,is grabbing at thin air. I have never been a fan of woman in school uniforms.As i personaly fell it's broaching to close to a subject that's rightfully illegal,taboo. As for the content of the channel itself i can't say anything about that as i have never seen any of there shows. (06-12-2012 02:22 )eccles Wrote:(04-12-2012 12:35 )mr mystery Wrote: Ofcom's latest broadcast bulletin came out yesterday Issue Number 219 and dated 03/12/2012 . |