+- 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 - eccles - 07-05-2013 01:08
Thoughtful response from Mido to my rushed and probably not very clear post but in the scale of things addiction to Babechannels are very low down the list of societies problems. The good that Babechannels do far outweighs the small number of abuses by the irresponsible.
There are a very small number of people who have a poor grip on reality and have a genuine addiction. If they were prevented from excessive use of babechannels they would spend their time and money on sex chat lines, other premium rate services, pole dancers, web chat, masseurs or even casino croupiers. In extreme cases they might even try and buy up every copy of "career damaging" porn mag or DVD.
The fundamental problem is not that there is a service taking money off them but that they are so disconnected from reality (and their own families) that they are willing to put in far more time and money than they can afford. They turn off their critical facilities and believe ridiculous stories because they want to.
Some people do all sorts of stupid things, falling for Nigerian email scams, email romance scams, gambling, erotic dancers, croupiers, scatchcard salesgirls, etc. The real problem is not what is being offered for sale but the person who turns off their mental antivirus system and do things even they must know are S-T-O-O-P-I-D.
As other people have said, a small number of people have problems with alcohol and gambling.
Industry specific systems that prevent people from running up huge bills ringing babe channels would not stop the exact same people going elsewhere. A more useful solution would be independent of any specific industry. The big problem is how to get the sufferer to refer themselves before running up huge debts.
At times I pass through areas with beggars. Some are obvious substance abusers but others have more plausible tales of woe. I would easily be drawn into shelling out £20 a day, and so could someone younger and more naive. No industry specific system is going to prevent that.
As for Scottishblokes point, surely the problem is that Babechannels almost deliver so we watch them all night hoping for a repeat of that finger touching clunge, waiting for a slightly different camera angle that never happens and hoping a bit slips out. If restraints were removed from Babechannels we could, um, achieve fulfilment and get to bed much earlier.
RE: Ofcom Discussion - continental19 - 07-05-2013 18:28
The common denominator is Ofcom, its that simple, as i mentioned in my previous post, they simply are holding to much power, which is extremely dangerous.
You get rid of Ofcom, the problem concerning the Adult channels will go away. Ofcom have this fixation of the female body, they class the female form as a source for great national concern, and if a female is caught flashing her vagina, then the majority of the UK population will be offended and severely mentally scared for life, it's the biggest load of utter shit i have heard!!
And this coming from our so called national regulator they're an absolute joke
RE: Ofcom Discussion - Scottishbloke - 07-05-2013 20:43
When I first joined this forum almost 3 and a half years ago now (fuck me I'm getting old now, a seasoned veteran these days)
Ofcom and this thread was really the only thing I ever discussed or debated. Talking about how good last nights show was or which model really did it for me never really interested me back in my early days. I was too busy moaning about ofcom and plotting their downfall 
Over time I've managed to lossen my grip. Ofcom is still an organisation I throughly hate but it doesn't occupy my sole reason for being on this forum anymore. Whatever happens with regard to the future regulation of the shows is really out of our hands. It's in the lap of the gods. I think I'll probably stop making any wild predictions because ultimately saying something along the lines of "One day they will relax the rules again" or words to that effect is really just something we hope for.
I made predictions in the past about future years only for it all to go the other way for me and many others who predicted similar things. Ultimately we all predict what we want to believe but unless any of us has any real inside knowledge then our predictions are paper thin. A pussy show would be great tonight but no point in holding out for it as it will just piss you off even more as Ofcom reign in the ropes even further.
Maybe it's time we just all accepted what wil be will be and what will not be will also be the case because for us not to accept this view we will continue to beat ourselves up even more when yet again the shows fail to meet out own personal expectations.
If anything new is brought to this discussion board then by all mean's it should be encouraged but at this moment in time we are just continuing to go around in circles. As for Mido's post I'm still trying to work out if it was for real or just merely attention seeking for the sake of getting a few of us hot under the collar. I'd be willing to bet that it had a bit of both in it and I'd suspect if he was being 100% honest with us all then he would come clean on this and admit it
At the present moment I've been very happy capping the shows. Jennifer Jade in particular springs to mind here
RE: Ofcom Discussion - eccles - 07-05-2013 23:41
Like Scottishbloke I am appalled when I look back at how long this has been going on. Trouble is disagreeing with Ofcom at the moment is like punching fog, there is nothing to get a grip on. No consultations, channels playing safe so no bizarre logic in decisions to disagree with and not a flicker of interest from the politicians.
Much to my surprise Ofcom has done some work in a week with a Bank Holiday in it and published a Broadcasting Bulletin. A quick look shows no adult content.
As usual the major offender is the BBC with about 66 complaints, closely followed by ITV and Channel 4, though most of those were probably about reporting Margaret Thatchers death from people who will never ever believe that she has gone, one about Rolf Harriss Dream (out of remit) and one about Not Going Out (not very funny since Tim Vine left, or before either).
What affects most people? Big mainstream channels that people watch at family time in the expectation of safe content.
What has the most potential for harm? Childrens broadcasting and quiz scams.
As Scottishbloke says we are going round in circles, I have a few avenues to explore but there is certainly less focus than when there were major consultations in progress, rule changes and national elections.
There does seem to have been an easing off since Ofcom took on Post regulation and cut 25% from their budget, they might have a more balanced outlook but while the Babechannels play safe it is hard to tell.
Meanwhile anyone wanting to access strong sexually explicit content uses totally unregulated offshore services some of which make no distinction between R18 type material and abusive content that most members here would run a mile from (rape, incest, under age, animals). Ofcoms stance encourages that.
Final thought - what is worse? An attractive willing woman playing with her genitals on TV or Facebook showing beheadings?
RE: Ofcom Discussion - Scottishbloke - 08-05-2013 15:56
I think we all know ofcom has been around long enough for us all to see what their real agenda is. Their agenda is anything that might cause arousal in the trouser department will be squashed.
We all know which is worse. I'd also like to look at this which is worse argument from a slightly different point of view for a moment here. I remember many years I was watching a movie with my Mother and here popped up a sex and nude scene which seemed to last for fucking ages to my knowledge. Here I had several options.
1 - Pretend I wasn't interested and pick up a newspaper and start to read it.
2 - Leave the room.
3 - Change the channel.
4 - Watch the scene.
All I can say is that I was fucking mortified, where was ofcom in my hour of need
Show me a beheading or the most violent scene you could think of over that any day of the week. Embarrassment wasn't the word 
This ofcourse was on one of the mainstream channels. No such thing as a babe channel existed back then. Baywatch and Home And Away was the closest thing you got to a babe channel in the 1990's
In many ways I can sort of understand why ofcom might choose to cut out a sex scene over a violent scene when you might just have an awkward moment to contend with.
One thing that annoys me intensively is when a sex scene pop's up in an action movie as it's the last thing you really expect. So in many ways cutting the sex scene out when it goes to broadcast is the right thing to do. This has got nothing to do with censorship but more to do with avoiding a similar scenaria as the one which I mentioned above occurring.
With regards to channels and movies that are clearly labelled as sexually explicit then to censor them is bloody madness. People who tune into them have done so on purpose. They haven't accidently stumbled across them. These types of movies and channels have a purpose and need no justification in order to show them in all their glory.
On my last post I made reference to us all going around in circles and I stand by my comments. I would however gladly welcome another petition. I will continue as always to keep my eyes peeled for any new developments at Ofcom HQ
RE: Ofcom Discussion - RUsure - 09-05-2013 14:14
(08-05-2013 15:56 )Scottishbloke Wrote: I think we all know ofcom has been around long enough for us all to see what their real agenda is. Their agenda is anything that might cause arousal in the trouser department will be squashed.
I agree 100% that this is Ofcom’s agenda in relation to the adult channels. So, thinking about this at its most fundamental level: why do they have such an agenda?
Is it really to do with the moral issue i.e., concern for the safeguarding of children and the protection of over-sensitive and prudish members of the public? That is really Ofcom’s remit and the only card that they have to play: they are, after all, the Nation’s moral guardians in matters of broadcasting… But censorship of a product that has been given license by the government should never be about the denial of that product.
Any reasonable and unbiased human being would undoubtedly accept logical and justifiable arguments that clearly refutes an opposing stance and position. Ofcom have been bombarded with these when it comes to adult entertainment being broadcast. Every reasonable suggestion as to how best to protect children and an unsuspecting audience from material that they may find offensive is categorically dismissed by them. Why?!!
Ofom insist that it is a matter of moral concern. Many members of the general public are very sensitive and shy regarding sexual matters. That is just the society and human condition in which we find ourselves. Ofcom can be guaranteed mass public support for any motion that purports to be concerned with the protection of children and the censorship of pornographic material. I do believe that many of Ofcom’s employees are sincere in their (misguided) zeal to oppose sexually explicit material from being broadcast… But, is there really anything more sinister than this (moral concern) going on? I am convinced that there is.
I am convinced that there is much latent misogyny and homosexual insecurity/jealousy of women that is cloaked under much political muscle. These wolves disguised as sheep are really the driving force behind the current stance of Ofcom. Reason will not penetrate their defences because their real objection is an emotional one; not a moral one (as is purported to be the case) at all.
RE: Ofcom Discussion - Scottishbloke - 09-05-2013 16:43
Good news on the easily offended brigade. It seems for the first time in a long time that people are generally less offended than in previous years gone by.
http://www.melonfarmers.co.uk/ow.htm
A couple of interesting reads here.
I'm not saying for one minute that it's good news for the babe channels but it does seem for as long as I can remember that Ofcom seems to be showing less and less interest. No channels are currently under investigation but as always it will still take time before they can all relax more. Who knows has somebody just hit Ed Richards on the head and knocked some sense into him. Let's hope so
I was quite surprised when I read the latest ofcom survey and don't forget this is what they base a lot of their censorship rules on. Life yet in the babe channels I think
RE: Ofcom Discussion - continental19 - 09-05-2013 18:39
I think we can all agree like SB has already posted that we've all but exhausted talking about Ofcom. Putting Ofcom to one side my shift moves to the producers!! We all no that the reason for the majority of the complaints filed against the Adult channels were that the other producers of other channels telling Ofcom what the other channels were doing, in otherwords it's like giving Ofcom an empty gun and the producers giving them the bullets to fire at will, how stupid is that
SB mentioned in his previous post that Ofcom haven't really bothered to investigate any of the channels for months, and i think some of the reason for this is that other producers from other channels have not been acting like stupid idiots and telling Ofcom what there competitors are upto.
I believe that the time is right for the producers of these shows to really push the rules to the ultimate limits eg. hand thong 241 action etc etc, and the reason i say this is, is if all the producers play there part and don't start telling Ofcom what the other channels are doing, and minding there own damn business, i do believe they could start to put out better shows at long last
However the key to all of this is everyone must play there part and keep there mouths shut, if all the producers can do this, then i feel stronger content is on the way!!
If Ofcom can't be beaten then you have to work " Smarter "
RE: Ofcom Discussion - eccles - 10-05-2013 01:56
Thanks to Scottishbloke for pointing out that another Media Tracker survey has been published, to zero publicity. Having glanced at the Ofcom site several times this week (to see if consultations were being sneaked out) I have to say this totally passed me by. Even drilling through the website and searching it hardly leaps out.
Here's how to navigate to it:
Ofcom > Stakeholders > Data and Research > Market Research Publications > UK audience attitudes to the broadcast media
Hardly leaps out, does it, even if you know it is there? Why no publicity for a major study on their landing page?
My perennial problem with these surveys is that they can be read different ways. Good research should not be ambiguous. Fewer people are worried about sex on TV. Does that mean society is becoming more liberal, or that people are happier because Ofcom are doing a good job preventing it?
Many of the trends can and will be interpreted by Ofcom as a pat on the back because Ofcom is doing a good job. The reality is that the wording leaves cause unclear.
Slide 24 is interesting. The question is "Do you think, in general, that there is too much, too little or about the right amount of each of the following on television: a) Sex? b) Violence? c) Swearing?"
3% think there is not enough sex on TV, compared to 24% who think there is too much.
Ofcom could use this as an excuse to clamp down, but does the data justify a clampdown on clearly labelled late night TV? There is a lack of context, so the 1,830 respondents could be referring to sexual references in childrens TV, Loose Women and the Alan Titchmarsh show. Given that most people will think about what they watch, and most people dont watch babeshows there is no justification to apply this to babeshows, but you can be sure it will be used out of context.
The ambiguity makes this a potential waste of money. Unfortunately the Audit Commission has just been abolished.
To put this in context, 24% say there is too much sex but 39% say there is too much violence and 39% say there is too much swearing. Logically Ofcom should clamp down on violence and swearing instead of sex, but logic is a stranger at Riverside House.
Slide 25 shows that the number saying there is too little sex has halved from 6% to 3% between 2001 and 2012, but the number saying there is too much has plummeted from nearly half (44%) to a quarter (24%) in the same period.
Slide 26 shows that the group most concerned about sex are 65 and over (40% say too much), while the age groups containing parents are least concerned (16-34:17%, 35-54:22%). Even narrowing it down to parents, only 22% say there is too much sex, while 6% of parents say there is too little.
Say that again: 6% of parents say there is too little sex on TV.
Continental19 makes a good point about complaints - most come from professional porn producers, rival stations that have hardcore sidelines. They cannot claim to be offended. Others do not ring true and may be fake "public" complaints from rivals. The idea that content should be banned or a station fined because it has caused offence is a nonsense. These are trade complaints about technical infringements, not genuine moral outrage.
So why is Ofcom about to get away with enforcement when they do? Several reasons. There are very few babe channel operators, and most are large operators. If these were supermarkets or banks the Monopolies Commission would be banning them from opening new channels and trying to open the market up to new business. Punative enforcement means if a new small operator manages to get a licence a few complaints can drive them out of business. The cosy setup where a handful of operators have the market to themselves suits them. They know they wont be allowed a bigger share of the market, but making life uncomfortable for newcomers ensures that share does not drop either.
In a proper free market there would be about 20 operators, some part time on shared channels, with varying strength and genuine competition of call revenue. At least one would drag Ofcom through the courts for their procedures and decisions. Instead there is a handful of operators with steady revenues who know they wont be allowed a larger market share and therefore have no reason to fight. Channels that step out of line get complaints as a warning shot across the bows. Ofcom might even smile favourably on channels that make complaints, softpeddling when they could investigate.
Basically its a cosy arrangement that suits the monopoly incumbents and the regulator.
RE: Ofcom Discussion - SCIROCCO - 10-05-2013 07:44
A pathetically tame night last night....
As an aside I have recently re-subscribed to PBTV/TAC. They offer discounts to ex customers. Utter drivel. Cut to shreds from last year, never mind when the producers had balls. If you want to see lots of shots of men's arses, no female pubic hair and clumsy editing go ahead. Otherwise save your cash.