+- 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 - Digital Dave - 22-02-2013 23:39
(22-02-2013 22:10 )RCTV Wrote:(22-02-2013 18:56 )mr mystery Wrote: What were the guidelines you questioned and managed to make a slight change ? .
ofcom don't classify it as adult tv. therefore under their rules was for teleshopping. Load of bollocks.
I can't remember the exact guidelines. was going back nearly a decade.
I see you avoided the second part of mr mystery's question.
When you claim to have been associated with Ofcom (2004-2008) the babe channels were classed as adult entertainment. They were changed to shopping channels on 1st September 2010, two years after you apparently left.
http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/consultations/participationtv3/statement/statement.pdf
As you say, load of bollocks.
I see Eccles has also countered some of your other claims.
Ever heard of the word 'mythomania'?
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/mythomania
Oh what a tangled web we weave.... etc
RE: Ofcom Discussion - Scottishbloke - 23-02-2013 01:53
Now based on the information RCTV has given us if the facts are to be seen as accurate and true and I thank her for her input into this discussion then I think obviously it's more than ED that is the problem at the moment within the ofcom organisation. But on the other hand the sole responsibilty still rests on his shoulder's. I'm going to give you a football analogy so as to make sense of this argument.
Recently Dundee United changed their manager. Out went not only the departing manger but also the assistant and the first team coach also. So based on that I'd imagine whoever replaces ED in any future Ofcom committee would also want to bring in his/her own team.
This then brings me back to my final point. It is indeed that captain of the ship that steers it in the right direction. When the Titanic sunk in 1912 it was the captain that was ulitimately to blame and nobody else
RE: Ofcom Discussion - eccles - 23-02-2013 04:04
To be honest I dont know where the push is coming from, despite having tried to look at the CVs and public pronouncements of various figures at Ofcom. The Chairman? The CEO? The head of the Content Committee? External pressure from civil servants or minstiers at the DCMS*?
What is public knowledge is that various members of the Content Committee have had fixed term contracts rolled over for another couple of years. Most organisations dont do that for trouble makers or people whose views just dont fit, and it is difficult to see how that fits in with best recruitment practice. There is potential for people higher up to exert subtle influence.
Second, in many organisations the CEO is the top full time manager, and keeps an eye on the general direction of each department, and that includes spotting excessive spending on minor matters and adverse publicity. From time to time Ofcom is headline news with the Daily Mail attacking them or investigating the latest schock broadcast. Being seen as a tough regulator, even in one small area, might be a strategic decision. Even if it is not, the CEO should be aware what is going on and Accept, Encourage or Discourage.
If a small department constantly obsesses about something that does not have stakeholder support then a CEO might step in, tell them to focus on organisational priorities and stop wasting time and money.
Ed might not be the problem but if it is a loose cannon below him they need to be reined in.
* That would make an interesting episode of Yes Minister, with Sir Humphrey and Jim Hacker dithering about whether to allow fanny licking before reaching some glorious compromise like delegating responsibility to local councils.
RE: Ofcom Discussion - munch1917 - 23-02-2013 08:01
(23-02-2013 01:53 )Scottishbloke Wrote: Now based on the information RCTV has given us if the facts are to be seen as accurate and true
...
Therein lies the issue here. I think some people are giving this fantacist way too much credit. Even the mods no longer appear to believe 'she' is actually a she and have changed 'her' username colour to boyish blue since 'she' started re-posting.
This individual has provided nothing of substance to any of the discussion here that couldn't have been gleaned from google. Everything is made sufficiently vague as to leave room for manouvre.
A few things that have been stated have been untrue : the babe channels are 'arts and entertainment', no they are not, they are classed as teleshopping. Babestation has a dutch license ofcom can't touch it, no it has a mix of dutch and ofcom licenses. When these inaccuracies are pointed out, he/she backtracks in a classic arse covering manner.
And these inaccuracies from someone who portrays themselves as the expert on ofcom, and has posted in a rather disparaging way about some of the stuff the rest of us have posted.
Lastly, this person claims to be a PhD, yet reading his/her posts there is a lack of basic good english there, sentence construction and basic grammar leave much to be desired. That is not uncommon on this forum, and I won't claim to be an expert myself, but I would expect better from someone with that level of education, whatever field the PhD may be in.
This person came here promoting a new channel, which conveniently never materialised. Claims to have worked on the channels, no evidence provided. Claims to have been offered a job as a babeshow girl, but conveniently didn't take it. Claims to have 'worked for' ofcom, no evidence to support this.
it all smacks of fantasy to me. Someone else mentioned the phrase attention seeking, and that seems a good fit, time to stop feeding this troll and move on.
RE: Ofcom Discussion - Digital Dave - 23-02-2013 11:00
^^^ Spot on, munch.
I knew she was a fantasist when she was last here two years ago because there were too many inconsistencies and generalities in what she said.
I've done a little digging on her and it's very interesting. She made the classic error of linking to her real Facebook page from her profile here (she's now removed the link).
I say 'real' because with a mythomaniac it's very hard to get at the actual truth. Still, it gave me a lead and I can state categorically that she is not a 'Film and TV Production Professional' and she is not in Spain. I'll PM interested parties over the weekend.
You're right about the grammar too. No way is that degree level, let alone PhD.
RE: Ofcom Discussion - dan g 27 - 23-02-2013 11:25
Quote:Therein lies the issue here. I think some people are giving this fantacist way too much credit. Even the mods no longer appear to believe 'she' is actually a she and have changed 'her' username colour to boyish blue since 'she' started re-posting.
I've actually observed some of this discussion and kind of feel a little foolish in thinking some of her stuff was ground breaking information. But how do mods know she is not a girl? On her signature it says she is, but don't members usually have to let mods know you're a boy or a girl before registering.
Quote:Lastly, this person claims to be a PhD, yet reading his/her posts there is a lack of basic good english there, sentence construction and basic grammar leave much to be desired. That is not uncommon on this forum, and I won't claim to be an expert myself, but I would expect better from someone with that level of education, whatever field the PhD may be in.
LOL, I've just realised that now
I have a lecturer, who has a PhD and have read some material that are PhD level and I don't think she even comes close to that level.
RE: Ofcom Discussion - admiral decker - 23-02-2013 11:55
(23-02-2013 01:53 )Scottishbloke Wrote: Recently Dundee United changed their manager. Out went not only the departing manger but also the assistant and the first team coach also. So based on that I'd imagine whoever replaces ED in any future Ofcom committee would also want to bring in his/her own team.
So by following events at Dundee United we can better understand how Ofcom works.
RE: Ofcom Discussion - MONEY BANG - 23-02-2013 15:54
(23-02-2013 08:01 )munch1917 Wrote: Therein lies the issue here. [snip]
You have changed your tune since the last time a liar and a fantasist was exposed:
http://www.babeshows.co.uk/showthread.php?tid=52247&pid=1187011#pid1187011
What happened to "getting on with their own life" and "digging for information on fantasist forum members to expose their lies is far more sinister than creating a false persona"?
RE: Ofcom Discussion - The Silent Majority - 23-02-2013 17:00
What's wrong?
Embarrassed that you're the only one that thanked almost every post he/she made?
RE: Ofcom Discussion - munch1917 - 23-02-2013 18:15
(23-02-2013 15:54 )MONEY BANG Wrote:(23-02-2013 08:01 )munch1917 Wrote: Therein lies the issue here. [snip]
You have changed your tune since the last time a liar and a fantasist was exposed:
http://www.babeshows.co.uk/showthread.php?tid=52247&pid=1187011#pid1187011
What happened to "getting on with their own life" and "digging for information on fantasist forum members to expose their lies is far more sinister than creating a false persona"?
Let me quote exactly what I said then so there is no mistake :
Quote:Another thing to consider, not only did 'Gaz' go to great lengths to create a fake identity for himself, but presumably, someone else then went to great lengths to trawl the web and dig through his personal details to uncover the evidence to unmask him.
Why would someone (presumably related to this forum) take the time and trouble to do that, and are they actually going to similar lengths to track down personal details on other forum members to see if they can dig any dirt on them. That is almost as creepy as building a fake id (supposedly) based on the people you know and work with!
So firstly I didn't say the things you said.
Secondly, I haven't done any digging whatsoever to expose this person, all I have done is read the posts as they have been made in these threads the last week or so, and I have drawn my conclusions from that. No detective work, no late nights pouring over google, simply reading what gets posted and applying a little common sense.