+- 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 - Scottishbloke - 20-02-2013 16:53
RCTV I agree with you that there needs to be a drastic overhaul of the way ofcom regulates the channel. By that I mean, for them to judge them less hashly. They can no longer peddle the word widespread offence when we all know that this is clearly not the case.
I am also not expecting to see anything in the way of hardcore being broadcast. But what I do expect to see is something that resembles the word erotic. From what I viewed last night, it was all so formulatic and pre rehearsed from the word go. The babe channels have got the so-called ofcom approved positions now down to a fine are but at what cost.
Apart from the odd fleeting moment's from RLC. Girl on girl action and decent 2 for 1 are at a premium. I mean the very fact that ofcom recently warned Studio66 and found them in breach of one of their so-called rules because wait for it. 2 women were rubbing each other's thighs at 3 in the bastard morning whilst wearing very revealing outfits. Well correct me if I'm wrong but exactly what was wrong with that.
Now fair enough if it was something along the lines of the infamous 2 girls 1 cup video but it wasn't. All we want to see is some spontaneity back in the shows without any fear of redemption and dare I say maybe some mild pussy uncensored without the need for the camera operator to suddenly panic and hence ruin the show.
I cap the shows from time to time as you all know but it's getting increasingly more difficult to post anything really good when the model on screen is only going to do about 4 positions which will then be repeated throughout the rest of her stint.
Now with regards to questioning ofcom I have only ever recieved one responce and that was with regards to the pin encrption put on the Playboy channels. I phoned Playboy up myself and they told me that it was now mandatory because of Ofcom new rules. I sent Ofcom an e-mail asking for clarification on this one and I was informed that this wasn't the case.
They informed me that Playboy TV had obviously decided to do it themselves which was most likely down to commercial reasons. I cancelled my subscription the following day because of this and the pin encrption still exists on their channels to the present day and that was almost 3 years ago now.
Apart from that one any other e-mail I have sent Ofcom has been ignored. I signed eccles petition last year but that appears to have come to nothing. Ofcom are still not listening. They make the rules based on bogus survery's which have never ever taken place. In short they are not fit to act as TV regulator. I wouldn't even let Ofcom run a pie shop nevermind anything else.
RE: Ofcom Discussion - RCTV - 20-02-2013 17:01
(20-02-2013 16:43 )shankey! Wrote: rctv may i ask what made you decide to become a member on this forum ?
is that really relevant?
Scottishbloke you will get a response, just need more time to write a proper response to that.
RE: Ofcom Discussion - RCTV - 20-02-2013 21:02
(20-02-2013 16:53 )Scottishbloke Wrote: RCTV I agree with you that there needs to be a drastic overhaul of the way ofcom regulates the channel. By that I mean, for them to judge them less hashly. They can no longer peddle the word widespread offence when we all know that this is clearly not the case.
They have got harsher there's no denying that, but I think this is also a two way street, in that channels are also very obviously ignoring what ofcom are saying, so there is a need for some harshness, don't agree with all of however. From a quick look there seems to be more mimetic symbols (is a geographical term, but it's good to describe some on screen graphics) than there has been in a few years, which the babe channels are by no way the worst at doing it.
(20-02-2013 16:53 )Scottishbloke Wrote: I am also not expecting to see anything in the way of hardcore being broadcast. But what I do expect to see is something that resembles the word erotic. From what I viewed last night, it was all so formulatic and pre rehearsed from the word go. The babe channels have got the so-called ofcom approved positions now down to a fine are but at what cost.
There is rehearsed and there is rehearsed, if rehearsed is done properly it looks natural, however most girls can't. You can have erotic, whilst following ofcom's rule. you can do erotic non-nude.
(20-02-2013 16:53 )Scottishbloke Wrote: Apart from the odd fleeting moment's from RLC. Girl on girl action and decent 2 for 1 are at a premium. I mean the very fact that ofcom recently warned Studio66 and found them in breach of one of their so-called rules because wait for it. 2 women were rubbing each other's thighs at 3 in the bastard morning whilst wearing very revealing outfits. Well correct me if I'm wrong but exactly what was wrong with that.
Now fair enough if it was something along the lines of the infamous 2 girls 1 cup video but it wasn't. All we want to see is some spontaneity back in the shows without any fear of redemption and dare I say maybe some mild pussy uncensored without the need for the camera operator to suddenly panic and hence ruin the show.
Agree with you, it is well after the watershed. I think camera operators are often given the 3rd degree by channel management, when it is actually the girls and producers, yes that may sound harsh, but if it is something that is obviously flouting the rules, then the girls should be told and warned, and have something like 3 strike. Not for the petty stuff, that they notice themselves or some of the petty stuff ofcom use.
(20-02-2013 16:53 )Scottishbloke Wrote: I cap the shows from time to time as you all know but it's getting increasingly more difficult to post anything really good when the model on screen is only going to do about 4 positions which will then be repeated throughout the rest of her stint.
If the girls think there are more than 4 positions which can be erotic, and be a good show.
(20-02-2013 16:53 )Scottishbloke Wrote: Now with regards to questioning ofcom I have only ever recieved one responce and that was with regards to the pin encrption put on the Playboy channels. I phoned Playboy up myself and they told me that it was now mandatory because of Ofcom new rules. I sent Ofcom an e-mail asking for clarification on this one and I was informed that this wasn't the case.
They informed me that Playboy TV had obviously decided to do it themselves which was most likely down to commercial reasons. I cancelled my subscription the following day because of this and the pin encrption still exists on their channels to the present day and that was almost 3 years ago now.
Playboy TV have always tried to protect themselves, however think saying that to you was wrong and they were out to make ofcom look bad. Encryption will happen, it's just a case of when.
(20-02-2013 16:53 )Scottishbloke Wrote: Apart from that one any other e-mail I have sent Ofcom has been ignored. I signed eccles petition last year but that appears to have come to nothing. Ofcom are still not listening. They make the rules based on bogus survery's which have never ever taken place. In short they are not fit to act as TV regulator. I wouldn't even let Ofcom run a pie shop nevermind anything else.
The survey's which take place, do actually happen, just they seem to use there Representative group of people, which if I remember rightly is about 100 people, not sure though.
I've not looked at Eccles survey, but will, and then comment fully, but tbh if they were looking at the bigger picture, most people on here have one very specific view and would be seen as a very small group of people.
I think individuals in ofcom are good, just not as a group of people, having to make decisions.
RE: Ofcom Discussion - Scottishbloke - 20-02-2013 21:37
Ok RCTV I'd like to pick you you up on your last point when you said this. "I think individuals in ofcom are good, just not as a group of people, having to make decisions"
Doesn't this then bring us back to the initial discussion that it's the captain of the ship that decides the direction. So it appears to me that as a group then Ofcom are hopeless. If you ask me they are probably being forced into following the policy's set out by ED Richards (PS - Shame you never got the top job at the BBC - Better luck next time - From all of us on the forum)
RCTV you also said this "I don't believe they have a negative agenda, more they don't necessarily understand why things are liked, if you look at the current contents board, none have babe channels experience, and there are no co-opted's/advisors, i believe could be wrong, involved in the babe channels"
So we are supposed to have a board that is neutral and also one that has a basic understanding of all the channels. It appear's to me that this government appointed qango is nothing but a pack of joker's who are not even qualified, nevermind hold an opinion but make massive decisions too. Ofcom are that bad you could infact script a comedy sitcom which would give Yes Prime Minister a run for it's money
Lastly you said this. "The day proper people who know the industry could overhaul ofcom will be a good day"
A bit of a strange of comment to be coming out with, did you not previously have experience in this line of work when you were on the ofcom committee as an advisor based on this statement you made last night. You could have put it to good use.
"I was freelance, so worked for several, used to do a fair bit for cellcast and bangbabes"
So there you have it. Ofcom is a complete and utter shambles.
BTW - I couldn't be bothered to used the quotation tool as it would have taken me too much time so I opted for the good old fashioned copy and paste function instead
RE: Ofcom Discussion - shankey! - 20-02-2013 21:54
(20-02-2013 17:01 )RCTV Wrote:(20-02-2013 16:43 )shankey! Wrote: rctv may i ask what made you decide to become a member on this forum ?
is that really relevant?
Scottishbloke you will get a response, just need more time to write a proper response to that.
maybe not but i do find it odd that after 4 years on this forum you decide to tell us about working for ofcom now , especially with the debate about them which has been going on since probably the forum started
RE: Ofcom Discussion - eccles - 20-02-2013 23:33
(20-02-2013 00:34 )RCTV Wrote: you are failing to look at the seriousness of those, could be something that isn't serious compared to babe channels, and how many of those complaints are for the same thing. I haven't looked at the bulletin that Mr Mystery says however.
When it comes to seriousness Ofcom are far from consistent.
One broadcaster repeatedly breached election rules by giving one controversial candidate unbalanced publicity, but time and again they have received nothing more than a mild telling off.
Money equals power. Manpower equals power. A maverick candidate potentially subverting the democratic process to gain a high degree of control over a £1.2 billion budget and 6,000 staff is a serious matter.
A channel showed a foreign talent show at kids tea time during school holidays where a man bit the head off a snake then skinned it with his teeth. The show was repeated the next day. They got a telling off, no more. A year or so later they showed a similar contest where a man bit the head off a live chicken.
This sort of imagery could seriously traumatise children, unlike a flash of fanny. Despite this they got no more than a "breach" finding.
Other channels transmit "strong" swearwords during kids time, blame it on operator error or the wrong tape and the case is Resolved, basically meaning the broadcasters excuses are accepted and they are let off.
Other channels have broadcast religious hate messages and gay hate messages that could be seen as endorsing religious killing or gay bashing. Relatively minor telling off, no fine.
The vast majority of complaints are dismissed after the briefest review of the complaint, despite the fact that offence in the viewers eye is genuine offence and exactly what Ofcom is required to minimise by law.
By contrast the vast majority of complaints against babe channels proceed to full investigation. It is only in the past year that this has dropped below 90%.
Rules are then applied with pedantry even where the complaint is relatively minor - skimpy clothing on an adult channel at 9pm instead of 10pm? Oh come on. A day time model dressing as a nurse? A tiny advert so small nipples cannot be seen for mobile phone clips that can only be received by adult registered phones?
There has never been a single instance of a complaint against an Adult channel being Resolved even when staff have been suspended, retrained or even sacked and procedures have been changed.
There is institutional leniency towards the BBC, and to a lesser extent towards ITV, Four, Five and Sky, tolerance of other channels with plenty of second chances, but intolerance and harsh application of rules against babe channels.
BTW Scottishbloke, if the Playboy encryption you mention is what I think, Playboy "voluntarily" introduced it some years ago when they were being investigated for their free to air content. At the time they told Ofcom they were planning to do it anyway to strengthen their sales package. Just a coincidence then.
RE: Ofcom Discussion - RCTV - 20-02-2013 23:45
Scottishbloke first of all lazy bastard for not using quote, saying that I am about to do same.
I wouldn't say it's an odd comment at all. As remember I was co-opted so they could only take my advice or ignore it. There are people with production experience, but a lot of them are academic, and not active in the industry. I've been working in the production industry since 1997, in Amdram and then 1999 when I finished GCSEs in professional theatre and got some running work from BBC.
shankey, if you actually realised I've only just come back on the forum and now have no association with any channel or proposed channel, which I did before.
RE: Ofcom Discussion - RCTV - 20-02-2013 23:48
(20-02-2013 23:33 )eccles Wrote: BTW Scottishbloke, if the Playboy encryption you mention is what I think, Playboy "voluntarily" introduced it some years ago when they were being investigated for their free to air content. At the time they told Ofcom they were planning to do it anyway to strengthen their sales package. Just a coincidence then.
Eccles, agree money equals power, and it has become worse.
I would happily tell you what I think of Playboy and encryption, they did purely because they were in shit, and that was the easy route out, and it wasn't to boast their sales package at all.
RE: Ofcom Discussion - eccles - 21-02-2013 00:26
While I might not always agree with what RCTV says I welcome the questions she raises. If we cant answer those challenges here we are unlikely to convince a skeptical or hostile audience like the Tory party, Daily Mail, Guardian or Parliamentary Media and Culture Committee.
Trying to make a positive contribution to a bright new organisation with no track record does not mean being responsible for every decision they made then, or in the years afterwards.
Also bear in mind that committee proceedings are only the tip of the iceberg. A lot goes on before anything gets to a committee, some documented much of it not (phone calls, conversations, opinions) and committees only get selected information.
BTW studies of organisations show that people tend to recruit employees that are like themselves, so it should hardly be surprising if Ofcom recruits censors who have a certain moral outlook.
Sadly the Content Committee seem to have a level of experience in drama where I would not shortlist them for the job. One runs an animation company. A couple are ex journlists (OK, possible credible interity, but no experience of challenging drama), ex civil servants and business executives. There isnt a Grade, Attenborough, Russell, McDermid or La Plante among them. It is doubtful if they would be given a job directing or writing XFactor, Ripper Street, Eastenders, Casualty or Waterloo Road with their grittty depictions of tough social issues. A bunch of vicars would have more credibility dealing with moral issues.
A few years ago one of the leading lights was an active Methodist whose broadcasting experience included being a Director of Broadcasting at a regional company (OK, senior, but not directing cutting edge drama and how often was their creative content complained about?), work on Radio Cumbria (other RC illumini include Richard Hammond) who saw nothing wrong with sitting on an appeal committee into her own decision.
RE: Ofcom Discussion - RCTV - 21-02-2013 00:40
Eccles look at the number of academics of members associated with universities, a large amount and there is one that has got a strong youth focus.