+- 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 - munch1917 - 16-01-2013 15:14
^^ This comes under existing regulations because the websites offer streaming video which is regulated by ATVOD (Authority for Television On Demand) on Ofcom's behalf.
Check the 'Notes for Editors' section in the ofcom ruling I linked to for further details.
RE: Ofcom Discussion - eccles - 16-01-2013 20:07
Yippee, I feel safer now!
Not.
As Munch says, this has been going on for some time. Playboy has been fighting this tooth and nail. The upshot is that they have moved their headquarters to Canada, and will move as many operations there as necessary to satisfy Ofcom that they are foreign run.
Even if Playboy were closed down hardcore porn from abroad would still be widely available so this has achieved nothing. What it does mean is that less scrupulous operators get a larger share of the market.
A list of Scope Determinations by ATVOD can be seen here. Its not just porn operators who have disagreed, The Financial Times, The Guardian, BBC World, Nickelodeon, MTV, Comedy Central, Everton, even Volkswagon, challenged ATVODs right to regulate their content.
RE: Ofcom Discussion - continental19 - 16-01-2013 20:28
Well i don't no what anyone else thinks of the new Dutch licence concerning Babestation? In my opinion i like the new content regarding a bit more G/G interaction plus the famous handthong is back as we all no. When i compare the content from the other channels, it's clear to me that Babestation seem to be leading the way due to there Dutch owners,and with Ofcom crying in the wings, it shows to me the influence of the foreign licence.
Now i've been thinking, do you think there's a possibility that other channels would seek an equivalent licence? and if so how difficult this would be, i dare say cost would be a factor, plus i don't think the other channel executives would want to sign there company over to them. Either way i think something is going to happen time will tell.
RE: Ofcom Discussion - Scottishbloke - 16-01-2013 20:52
When I read that shit about Playboy being fined 100 grande for content on their website being accessed by minors I had to check my calendar to see what the date was. I thought it was an April fools day joke you see.
What the fuck
so X Hamster is ok but Playboy ain't 
With regards to Babestation and their so-called new licence my understanding now is probably that all they did was renew their existing one.
But yes it seems to me that the only way to get ofcunt of your back is for as many channels to use the overseas loophole and take advantage of it.
Personally speaking I'd rather see the channels grow and set of balls and challenge the current rules and regulations in place because eventually ofcom will also find a loophole too and when they do they'll be hammering the channels left right and centre with everything they've got, foreign licence or no foreign licence.
RE: Ofcom Discussion - mrmann - 16-01-2013 20:59
I'm guessing X hamster isn't regulated by ATVOD on OfCON's behalf, and the same with many other sites, which is why they aren't being fined.
If I was Ofcom, I'd be much more concered with children accessing websites like heavy-r than anything Playboy has to offer!
RE: Ofcom Discussion - eccles - 16-01-2013 23:43
Well x hamster and u porn might not be Ofcom regulated, but thats not the end of the stupidity. Ofcom is implementing an European Union directive, so you might think regulation would be the same across Europe but I would put money on websites in France, Germany, Denmark and Czecholsavakia not having restrictions such as compulsary registration using real names and credit card payment. (Try http://www.google.fr http://www.google.cz etc and select local websites if interested in research).
So European rules are being used as an excuse for national prudery.
RE: Ofcom Discussion - IanG - 17-01-2013 16:02
eccles, the AVMS Directive re VOD states that "material which may cause serious impairment to the physical, mental or moral development of minors must be made available in such a way that it will not normally be seen or heard by them".
At no point have OFCOM or ATVOD provided any evidence whatsoever to show that porn CAN cause SERIOUS impairment to minors. Note also that according to the EC, a minor is defined as a person under 15 years of age not 'under 18s' as in the Comms Act legislation.
Clearly, the law doesn't say that "legal adults should be prevented from accessing adult material if they do not possess a credit card" but, this is EXACTLY what ATVOD have implemeted without providing proof of harm and justification for such unnecessary interference.
Moreover, EVERYONE has had unfettered access to porn via the internet for almost 20 years. IF there were any chance of minors sufferring SERIOUS IMPAIRMENT then it would be widespread and blatantly obvious by now - so WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE OF IT?
RE: Ofcom Discussion - mr mystery - 17-01-2013 17:57
(06-01-2013 16:31 )Chilly Wrote: ^^^^
![[Image: capturewzc.jpg]](http://imageshack.us/a/img15/3297/capturewzc.jpg)
![[Image: capture1sh.jpg]](http://imageshack.us/a/img22/1261/capture1sh.jpg)
(06-01-2013 16:39 )mr mystery Wrote: ^^^ My guess is a courier will be booked and a new batch of DVD's ordered me thinks, Ofcom's next few complaint bulletins will be interesting .
(06-01-2013 22:41 )Digital Dave Wrote: ^^^ Indeed - bitch, moan and dob them in!
(17-01-2013 17:34 )darren73 Wrote: Looks like the nurse'e outfits are gone from daytime Rosie has tweeted thisNo more nurse outfits allowed on RLC days apparently, i wonder why
https://twitter.com/RosieRedLight/status/291932309949661186
RE: Ofcom Discussion - Digital Dave - 17-01-2013 18:28
^^^ What a joke! It seems that the main enemy of the babe channels at the moment is not Ofcom, it's the jumped up little twerp running S66.
RE: Ofcom Discussion - shylok - 17-01-2013 19:14
(17-01-2013 18:28 )Digital Dave Wrote: ^^^ What a joke! It seems that the main enemy of the babe channels at the moment is not Ofcom, it's the jumped up little twerp running S66.
Totally with you DD. I'm so pissed with S66 I feel like just stopping watching them.........