+- 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 - eccles - 28-10-2010 20:33
(28-10-2010 17:49 )Gold Plated Pension Wrote:(28-10-2010 00:58 )Scottishbloke Wrote: Heres a link for you referring to job cuts at ofcom, lets hope more follows for the bastards.
http://www.bectu.org.uk/news/1034
Scottishbloke
If there is ever any good news associated with redundancy then it's that the area deemed to be in scope is the Contents and Standards department, yes those buggers who keep harassing the babe channels following single complaints. Just because as the BECTU official stated 'these staff help to generate income for the Exchequer' through their fines and licence fee's does not justify employment.
From the article
BECTU has insisted that it will help its members to resist compulsory redundancies after Ofcom announced (21 October) that it wants to close 170 posts.
The industry regulator is tasked with making budget cuts of 30 per cent by 2015 in response to government decisions taken in the Comprehensive Spending Review.
After briefing staff today, management opened a 90-day consultation period with an invitation to staff in the affected pools to declare an interest in voluntary redundancy. Most BECTU members work in Content and Standards, one of the areas deemed to be in scope.
Commenting on the developments, supervisory official, David Beevers, said:
"We believe that the call for these substantial post closures from Content and Standards is ill-judged. These staff help to generate income for the Exchequer through their work on broadcast licences. Other roles, such as HR and legal, are deemed to be out of scope so we'll be questionning this rationale."
Believe you me the department will now fast track complaints, issue more fines or even revoke a licence if it felt it would protect their jobs, OR, they could just say B#llocks were working to rule, our enforcement protocol is light touch arms length and leave the babe channels alone.
In any case my sympathies are with them and offer this advice
http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Employment/RedundancyAndLeavingYourJob/index.htm
Useful advice here: Getting Started
RE: Ofcom stuff - Scottishbloke - 28-10-2010 20:59
lets hope that with the cuts in place they will indeed say bollocks to any more complaints towards the babe channels. Another point is it is good to see the boot on the other foot for a change maybe it will also give those responsible for handing down fines and revoking channels such as babestar tv throughout the years a sense of humility and realise how it feels to survive on dole money and hardship. I have no sympathy for ofcom because finally they're getting a taste of their own medicine. Lets hope that they eventually just scrap ofcom altogether.
RE: Ofcom stuff - Krill Liberator - 29-10-2010 01:06
Hear hear! I held a position that ALL quangos should be abolished and we should start from scratch, but then Ofgem went and got a load of ripped-off consumers their money back where it was deserved.
but also
so now I'm confused - a quango that does a good job and actually benefits those whom it is meant to serve?
I then tried to fit the same criteria to Ofcom and, don't worry folks, OF COURSE it was quite impossible! so I still want them encased in lead and dropped into an ocean trench.
RE: Ofcom stuff - ledders69 - 29-10-2010 16:33
Wondering if bs had pro ofcom producers last night. The 2-4-1 with GEORGIE and JADA according to mrmanns post was dissapointing. If you are going to do 2-4-1's you do them properly. Ofcom seriously are doing well at duffing up shows and ensuring that they are as censored as possible. I'm not amused of the slightest and as soon as this quango is gone I will be dead chuffed about it.
RE: Ofcom stuff - lucent-x - 29-10-2010 17:59
Interesting that Saw IV is on Channel 4 tonight at 11:20pm, I say the Babe channels should use this as reason to just let loose tonight after 12, with the full intention confronting any resulting OFCOM fine in court and making them explain, and more importantly demonstrate, how the sight of a naked female body is more harmful than a dark horror film full of swearing, violence, blood, gore and torture.
Why the hell not? Simply give a warning before hand - "Ok viewers, it's gone midnight, Channel4 are allowed to show horror and violence, so we will now be showing you a naked woman including full frontal nudity. If you believe you will be offended by this then you should change the channel now".
RE: Ofcom stuff - mrmann - 29-10-2010 20:42
(29-10-2010 16:33 )ledders69 Wrote: Wondering if bs had pro ofcom producers last night. The 2-4-1's with GEORGIE and JADA according to mrmanns post were dissapointing. If you are going to do 2-4-1's you do them properly. Ofcom seriously are doing well at duffing up shows and ensuring that they are as censored as possible. I'm not amused of the slightest and as soon as this quango is gone I will be dead chuffed about it.
Not just the 2-4-1, but also Georgie's sessions as well were very safe. When she got on her back, she wasn't allowed to open her legs without her hand there, like Jada, Karina and Michelle are allowed to, and she basically had barely ten minutes to herself nude, before she was put into another clothed 2-4-1. Her second or third session is where she went naked for longer, yet she was only on her back for a brief moment, and with her hand covering herself again, even though we can't really see anything anyway. The camera guy was doing whip pans to avoid seeing any minor glimpse! In all honesty, the censorship wasn't too bad with Jada, which makes me think that some women are allowed to do more because of the shape and anatomy of their bodies, and that they won't show as much in certain positions as others will. Fair enough, because of the censorship constraints, but these constraints shouldn't exist in the first place! Elite has now become much more safe and censored because of Offcom treating normal body parts and sexuality as something disgusting and something to be ashamed of, and it's sad to see this happen on adult channels, and after the watershed which was put there for a reason. In a way, it's a bit insulting as an adult to see the women on these channels doing very suggestive acts, only to have them cover a natural body part that everyone has.
RE: Ofcom stuff - Krill Liberator - 29-10-2010 21:08
(29-10-2010 17:59 )lucent-x Wrote: Interesting that Saw IV is on Channel 4 tonight at 11:20pm, I say the Babe channels should use this as reason to just let loose tonight after 12, with the full intention confronting any resulting OFCOM fine in court and making them explain, and more importantly demonstrate, how the sight of a naked female body is more harmful than a dark horror film full of swearing, violence, blood, gore and torture.I'm inclined to agree with you on this one - I would LOVE to see what SwitchItOfcom trundle out as a lame, warped apologist piece of crap excuse to justify their position whilst allowing an exploitative, titillating and child-unfriendly bit of horror-porn to slide by unmolested. And since the BBFC have certified and allowed Saw IV to be shown to appropriate audiences, how can Ofcom then attack it? They'd have a VAST back-catalogue to address! Excellent idea!
Why the hell not? Simply give a warning before hand - "Ok viewers, it's gone midnight, Channel4 are allowed to show horror and violence, so we will now be showing you a naked woman including full frontal nudity. If you believe you will be offended by this then you should change the channel now".
RE: Ofcom stuff - mrmann - 29-10-2010 22:15
Saw 4 on channel 4??????????????
Unbelieveable.
One of the most violent movies made, and it's on a NON adult channel, and one of the first channels as well. Tell me, what is more dangerous for a CHILD (Most impressionable children will be in bed by now, or away from the TV) to watch, a movie where people are split apart in horrendous ways which could scare the pants off someone, or seeing a natural nude female? Hmmm, that's a tough one
This feels like a big middle finger to all of us and the babe channels, and it's very hypocritical.
As a little boy at the age of seven, I happened to catch a few minutes of a girl on girl porno that was unencrypted on my TV. While it was new to me, it didn't faze me much, and actually made me more curious about females! Somehwhat soon after, I happened to watch Robocop. As you might expect, watching Peter Weller's character Murphy get blown apart infront of laughing thugs didn't sit too well with me. I managed to make it through the rest of the movie, but for the remainder of the day, I believe I was in a slight state of shock. Even for the rest of the week, I felt a bit like I wasn't really there, just kind of nervous as well. Over a little time that changed of course, and the movie didn't make me violent or anything like that, but I was a bit more aware of how violent the world could be. That's not something to show on channel 4, because that's not a channel that parents would think to put a lock on, whereas the babe channels give you tons of warnings and have a watershed time given to them, even though it's not anywhere near as dangerous for a child to watch as the non adult channel 4 which is showing something even more violent than Robocop! When it all comes down to it, regardless of whether or not a child (Age needs to be taken into account as well) happens upon a babe show, a nude female body is still something that is natural and normal. Watching people get mutilated and tortured is NOT.
RE: Ofcom stuff - mrmann - 29-10-2010 22:59
Eurotrash:The Sexy Bits is on 121 channel one right now, showing full frontal nudity. Penises, vaginas, and even a bit of anus as well. One of the photgraphers is even excited about shooting his first c*m shot underwater. It's all a bit arousing
This is further proof that the babe channels now have an obligation to show the same content as what we can see on non adult channels.
RE: Ofcom stuff - lucent-x - 29-10-2010 23:40
(29-10-2010 22:15 )mrmann Wrote: Somehwhat soon after, I happened to watch Robocop. As you might expect, watching Peter Weller's character Murphy get blown apart infront of laughing thugs didn't sit too well with me. I managed to make it through the rest of the movie, but for the remainder of the day, I believe I was in a slight state of shock. Even for the rest of the week, I felt a bit like I wasn't really there, just kind of nervous as well. Over a little time that changed of course, and the movie didn't make me violent or anything like that, but I was a bit more aware of how violent the world could be.
I genuinely still can't watch that scene even now. Makes me feel sick. How anyone could claim nakedness more harmful than that is a mystery.
(29-10-2010 22:59 )mrmann Wrote: Eurotrash:The Sexy Bits is on 121 channel one right now, showing full frontal nudity. Penises, vaginas, and even a bit of anus as well. One of the photgraphers is even excited about shooting his first c*m shot underwater. It's all a bit arousing
I've never understood why those types of programs are deemed ok to be broadcast so long as the genitals are blurred out. I mean the content and intention is clear; why pornographic activity can be shown, but the sight of genitals would somehow push it beyond acceptable is bizarre. Just shows that it's not the content, but a weird outdated obsession with classing gentials as offensive - I mean it's not as if any of the viewing audience have genitals themselves is it?