+- 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 - schmoo - 27-02-2013 19:20
(27-02-2013 18:44 )RCTV Wrote: Scottishbloke, families are main viewing audience for TV in general, although that is changing.
If ofcom did some geodemographic analysis of the UK and looked at what age ranges watched what sectors of television.
Sector classifications for research that have been proven as good are (which I would like to see)
General Entertainment
Lifestyle and Culture
Movies
Music
Sport
News and Documentaries
Religious
Children
Shopping
Adult
International
Gaming and Dating
Think they'd get a different view and a more informed view to allow them to do their job properly.
Ofcom need to go to the channels and see they're complaints and what they'd expect as appropriate reactions to complaints that have been.
Also they need to go out to viewers and see what they think, obviously adult TV lovers have quite strong views.
For fks sake!
I said previously that i don't know what to make of you/this RCTV member and this latest post is another example of why. Another inconsistent post of his/hers where it begs questions of the following nature.. "which side of the fence are you (actually) on?", "what are you actual points/reasoning for posting". I'm f*cked if i know and this is the major frustration when i read the majority of your posts in this thread. And also why i came to my own conclusion i stated some pages back*.
It's fkn obvious what Ofcom need to/should do in terms of "doing their jobs" properly re the adult channels.
This is not the point.
The point being made (negatively) against Ofcom is that they are clearly biased and are doing everything they possibly can to get rid of all the babe channels, hiding behind riciculous guidelines/rules, such open ambiguity and using the "harm to children" excuse ("cooking the books" so to speak with regard to supposed public consultations to justify that stance) to continue doing so. They do not want them on our TV's.
It's comical to read your suggestions that they may tolerate them and in turn leading (some) members on here to believe, that through your own (supposed) work with them, they are "open" to suggestions as to how this could happen. Comical, ludicrous.
* It's still my opinion that you're full of sh*t and posting on here for f*ck knows what reason.
RE: Ofcom Discussion - RCTV - 27-02-2013 20:10
If ofcom didn't want adult tv broadcasting, they'd of revoked all the licences years ago.
You really have nothing that prove ofcom don't want them on our tv's.
your views are pretty ill-informed on ofcom.
RE: Ofcom Discussion - schmoo - 27-02-2013 20:41
How the fk can Ofcom (legally) just revoke licences just like that? They can’t. Hence all the lengths and rigmarole (i referred to above, and previously) that they have been going through over the years to “disguise” this is their intention. And it’s all working. Slowly, but working nonetheless.
My “views” are in no way ill-informed - any intelligent person reading between the lines of all Ofcom publicly posted media in relation to the babe channels, taken against anything else re other channels/mediums could work this out. You are either one, or all, of being blinkered, stupid, stubborn or just posting for the sake of causing ructions – or, as someone has previously suggested, for an attention need.
Aside from any legitimate Ofcom employee stating they don't want them on TV, it’s evident in all their bulletins, rules, guidelines etc etc fkn etc. And in all that has been discussed/exposed in many Ofcom related threads, including this one.
This is far more “proof” than anything you have ever posted to “prove” to the contrary.
But more importantly, my “views”, posts, have credibility – yours, without any reasoning (which i’ve yet to see) don’t.
No wonder you/certain members feel RCTV is being “picked on” – you bring it all upon yourself.
I’ve wasted far too much energy on an idiot like you and fk me! I’ve now wasted even more (note to self - i will try to do so no more and have nothing more to do with you).
RE: Ofcom Discussion - Scottishbloke - 27-02-2013 20:46
Now I mentioned this in a previous post but what is fact is that Ofcom although we all hate the organisation with a passion did indeed grant all the babe channels a licence in order for them to be able to broadcast.
What has annoyed us then is if they have allowed the channels the right to broadcast then why have they put so many ludicrus rules and regulations in place which are completely unrealistic in which ofcom know are near impossible not to break.
One conclusion from me springs to mind because as we all know Ofcom are a corrupt bunch of bastards and it is a fact that they don't like the adult channels, nevermind understand them. So here it goes.
Ofcom grant the likes of RLC and Studio66 a licence and then every so often when the money is drying up in the coffers they then go. "Do you know what let's ransack that particular channel" In essence it's a bit like a sophicated way of committing a robbery.
Now I have an interesting question for you here RCTV what with your insider knowledge on all things ofcom. So I think we'd all like to know on this forum what Ofcom actually does with all the money they've stolen from the babe channels throughout the year's. Doe it go back into the public sector or as we all suspect or does it merely go into the back pockets in order to boost this pack of joker's bank balance
PS - It wouldn't surprise me in the least if this bunch of corrupt bastards spent all the money on prostitutes and cocaine whilst they laugh all the way to the bank with yet another daylight robbery under their belt.
RE: Ofcom Discussion - RCTV - 27-02-2013 20:59
(27-02-2013 20:41 )schmoo Wrote: How the fk can Ofcom (legally) just revoke licences just like that? They can’t. Hence all the lengths and rigmarole (i referred to above, and previously) that they have been going through over the years to “disguise” this is their intention. And it’s all working. Slowly, but working nonetheless.
My “views” are in no way ill-informed - any intelligent person reading between the lines of all Ofcom publicly posted media in relation to the babe channels, taken against anything else re other channels/mediums could work this out. You are either one, or all, of being blinkered, stupid, stubborn or just posting for the sake of causing ructions – or, as someone has previously suggested, for an attention need.
Aside from any legitimate Ofcom employee stating they don't want them on TV, it’s evident in all their bulletins, rules, guidelines etc etc fkn etc. And in all that has been discussed/exposed in many Ofcom related threads, including this one.
This is far more “proof” than anything you have ever posted to “prove” to the contrary.
But more importantly, my “views”, posts, have credibility – yours, without any reasoning (which i’ve yet to see) don’t.
No wonder you/certain members feel RCTV is being “picked on” – you bring it all upon yourself.
I’ve wasted far too much energy on an idiot like you and fk me! I’ve now wasted even more (note to self - i will try to do so no more and have nothing more to do with you).
look at scottishblokes response.
Would also say that ofcom get a lot of licences, well compared to the number they actually grant broadcasting. They also deal with international channels who wish to broadcast in the UK, in terms of allowing them to run under their rules. They grant all channels apart from BBC I think.
I WORKED for ofcom I haven't worked for ofcom for about 5 years.
RE: Ofcom Discussion - schmoo - 27-02-2013 20:59
Ofcom had/have to supply licences where the application conforms to the rules/regulations set down (where there are no grey areas). There is no legal reason why they couldn't/shouldn't - they cannot pick and choose.
But what they can do, and evidently have been doing over the years (more rigorously last few years), is to impose such an unworkable working environment, that it's the pressure on them so much, they hope the channels will give in and fk off themselves - being even more pressured to do so by imposing (exorbitant) fines for example. Here, there are masses amounts of grey areas where Ofcom can manouevre to suit their own agendas.
A good analogy is that of an employer/company wanting to get rid of an employee - making their working environment untenable etc. The employer acts in a way that is within the law, but in way that is completely morally unfair.
RE: Ofcom Discussion - MONEY BANG - 27-02-2013 21:48
(27-02-2013 20:46 )Scottishbloke Wrote: So I think we'd all like to know on this forum what Ofcom actually does with all the money they've stolen from the babe channels throughout the year's. Doe it go back into the public sector or as we all suspect or does it merely go into the back pockets in order to boost this pack of joker's bank balance
PS - It wouldn't surprise me in the least if this bunch of corrupt bastards spent all the money on prostitutes and medicine whilst they laugh all the way to the bank with yet another daylight robbery under their belt.
Sanctions/Fines are not paid to Ofcom, they are made payable to "HM Treasury".
RE: Ofcom Discussion - RCTV - 27-02-2013 22:02
(27-02-2013 20:59 )schmoo Wrote: Ofcom had/have to supply licences where the application conforms to the rules/regulations set down (where there are no grey areas). There is no legal reason why they couldn't/shouldn't - they cannot pick and choose.
But what they can do, and evidently have been doing over the years (more rigorously last few years), is to impose such an unworkable working environment, that it's the pressure on them so much, they hope the channels will give in and fk off themselves - being even more pressured to do so by imposing (exorbitant) fines for example. Here, there are masses amounts of grey areas where Ofcom can manouevre to suit their own agendas.
A good analogy is that of an employer/company wanting to get rid of an employee - making their working environment untenable etc. The employer acts in a way that is within the law, but in way that is completely morally unfair.
they need to show there is a need for a new channel. It's not as simple it fits these rules therefore it's a channel that's needed. there would then be thousands of channels.
I'm not sure on the current things, but know that you had to state exactly what you channel was going to do and what sector it was going to broadcast in, show that there was a need for this channel and that you, and that you didn't have anything stopping you being able to broadcast, ofcom also look at funds so that they don't approve channels that financially won't work.
Some do get through and don't survive long after airing or don't air anything, but that's expected.
I would say for working practices, that some are extreme, but you have to work around them, and they are workable, and if producers have imagination they can still make programmes good quality. Wouldn't say they are unworkable, they just need a different approach from the channels. I don't agree with some of them, but can see why they are there and wouldn't say they are unworkable.
RE: Ofcom Discussion - eccles - 27-02-2013 22:03
(27-02-2013 20:46 )Scottishbloke Wrote: What has annoyed us then is if they have allowed the channels the right to broadcast then why have they put so many ludicrus rules and regulations in place which are completely unrealistic in which ofcom know are near impossible not to break.
Good point raised by several people. Why would Ofcom issue licences if they wanted to ban babe channels?
Because they have to.
It is the reason sex shops got licences in the 1980s despite the Thatcher Government being completely against them. Even then legal advice was that a blanket ban on sex shops would be wide open to challenge under the European Convention on Human Rights. Paradoxically sex shop licencing was introduced so the number of sex shops in an area could be kept low, high licencing fees and restrictive rules. A blanket ban would be against the free speech provisions, tight control would not be.
RE: Ofcom Discussion - RCTV - 27-02-2013 22:57
Agree Eccles, but they also have the power to say no to channels, and there a fair amount of babe channels if you compare it to other sectors, so there must be some support, even if it's small, and/or the babe channels are able to show variety in the channels.
They can say no to channels if there are too many similar channels.