+- 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 - matt38 - 01-06-2013 19:14
Just going to say this about internet and child porn, was the internet around for Jimmy Saville to get his kicks before he went and abused all his victims.
RE: Ofcom Discussion - continental19 - 01-06-2013 21:59
At the end of the day, Pornography has been going on for thousands of years, the Romans were at it hammer and tong, i mean whether you agree or disagree with homosexuality or lesbians, the fact is this has been going for many many yrs, its quite frankly nothing new at all.
Now i admit they never had tv and the internet in those days, however the fact remains that various sexual practices have been going on for yrs and yrs!!
I find it truly remarkable that in this modern 21st century we're living in that there is still so much needless fuss and bother to do with our babe channels, and the vagina, i can't really believe i'm even typing this!!
So much for our freedom of choice in the 21st century
RE: Ofcom Discussion - SCIROCCO - 02-06-2013 00:05
And another seriously poor night. Now 3 mins past midnight and only Lori on 906 has her knickers off. Are we anticipating a station getting fined or what?
RE: Ofcom Discussion - fedup1 - 02-06-2013 14:52
Found this info which i think is true,,I have put link for proof but just put the main paragraph i wanted to point out below it
http://www.computerweekly.com/blogs/when-it-meets-politics/2013/06/are-our-regulators-not-just-of.html
If the coalition government is serious about wanting to use investment in 21st century infrastructure to help pull through economic recovery, it has to return our regulatory structures to the objectives and principles behind their creation and followed by players like Sir Bryan Carsberg and Clare Spottiswoode.
The current cartel, of those sitting "cosy regulatory armchairs" negotiating deals with incumbent players which block innovation and choice, condemns the UK the same future of austerity and decline as the the rest of Europe - whether or not we leave.
RE: Ofcom Discussion - fedup1 - 02-06-2013 14:59
(01-06-2013 21:59 )continental19 Wrote: At the end of the day, Pornography has been going on for thousands of years, the Romans were at it hammer and tong, i mean whether you agree or disagree with homosexuality or lesbians, the fact is this has been going for many many yrs, its quite frankly nothing new at all.
Now i admit they never had tv and the internet in those days, however the fact remains that various sexual practices have been going on for yrs and yrs!!
I find it truly remarkable that in this modern 21st century we're living in that there is still so much needless fuss and bother to do with our babe channels, and the vagina, i can't really believe i'm even typing this!!
So much for our freedom of choice in the 21st century
I read back over posts and think I cant believe I am typing what I put either..Sexism is still around in 2013 even tho genitals we are born with since day one of man/woman on planet earth still discriminated against..We are not equal ,we are differently built but not equal according to oftwats discrmitary laws 2002,paragraph one..
I get some wrong results in google searches,i must remember to put Ofcom instead of oftwats/ofcunts.
RE: Ofcom Discussion - fedup1 - 04-06-2013 18:44
Channel4/5 broadcasting handbook states....
However, even the most explicit material on terrestrial channels like Channel 4 and Five will not be as graphic or explicit as that which can legitimately be seen on video (particularly material classified by the BBFC as ‘R18’), on specialist PIN-encrypted television channels and at
adult cinemas, because of the different make-up and expectations of their respective audiences.
Source;
http://assets.five.tv/fivetv/legal-and-compliance/FIV1_011_DT_Whole+IPHandbook(1).pdf
Erections are breach of Ofcom broadcasting code,yet one fanny slip results in 15,000 fine that is outright sexism against males,no arguments,period.This happened a few times this year and is hypocrital breach of Ofcom/channel4 and 5 broadcasting code..
Going to see if Graham Howell has lifted his bans on emails due to him not doing his job and many complaining.He is not fulfilling his duty so if he does not reply we are going to are MP,S. I am not sitting here while these idiots reprimand female nudity resulting in hefty fines and tellings off while male nudity breaches are NOT being investigated and fines issued..
RE: Ofcom Discussion - eccles - 05-06-2013 01:08
One big difference is that a channels own guidelines dont have the same status as the statutory regulators own rules. However if there were ever an in depth formal investigation, Ofcom might complain of lax compliance procedures in which case it would open to a channel to present its rulebook, training records and examples of discplining producers who went too far, and to claim a oneoff slipup. That line becomes harder to maintain if the broadcaster routinely flouts its own rules.
(Thats the line Ofcom take when babechannels claim oneoff slips and to have tightened compliance - Ofcom act as if they dont believe it when under similar circumstances they let repeat offender the BBC off).
Having said that mainstream broadcasters probably have a get out somewhere else in their rule book about being able to broadcast sexually explicit material when justified for documentary or educational purposes.
It will be a major landmark if shows that are undoubtedly entertainment - the equivalent of Game of Thrones say - show fanny or erections. Urination was permitted on The Counterfeiters, despite being banned in R18, but only to illustrate degredation of prisoners by Nazi guards. I doubt scenes like those in Black Angel (also a war film) or Frivolous Lola will be broadcast on TV soon.
Having said that complaining about mainstream channels broadcasting images of genitals, even the wrong sort, would have the wrong effect. If hey took notice it would be to stop broadcasting images that might offend someone, rather than broadcasting more and different ones.
Dont hold your breath waiting for sex on Five. It is owned by a well known producer of porn magazines and adult TV channels, who knows that if he steps out of line Ofcom, feminists and procensorship newspapers would have a field day.
RE: Ofcom Discussion - munch1917 - 05-06-2013 05:51
(05-06-2013 01:08 )eccles Wrote: ...
Having said that mainstream broadcasters probably have a get out somewhere else in their rule book about being able to broadcast sexually explicit material when justified for documentary or educational purposes.
...
From the document fedup1 posted (which was prepared by Ch4 and 5 in 2008, before Desmond took over 5) :
before the watershed :
Quote:Visual and verbal references to sex and matters related to sex should be editorially justified and appropriately limited and inexplicit.
Quote:Representations of sexual intercourse must not be shown unless there is "...a serious educational purpose".
Quote:The inclusion of nudity and all references to sexual acts, verbal and visual, must be justifiable by context.
and after the watershed :
Quote:The inclusion of nudity and all references to sexual acts, verbal and visual, must be justifiable by context.
Quote:After the watershed, it may be possible to justify the broadcast of explicit nudity and scenes of an explicit sexual nature,
So yes, there is a get out where harder, or explicit content can be shown in an educational way, or within context, hence the graphic stuff shown on the likes of Embarrassing Bodies pre-watershed.
Interesting that the document also talks about harder content being 'phased in' after the watershed, with really explicit material being left until later in the schedules. Ofcom has applied this to the babe shows as well.
Of course the thing to bear in mind once again is that the likes of Channels 4 and 5 are governed by slightly different rules to the babeshows because of their classification as 'shopping channels', so while it is interesting to read these rules, you can't make a direct comparison, and ultimately, these are just a guideline, and a guideline from 5 years ago, Ofcom can still move the goalposts whenever it chooses.
EDIT : One other thing about the watershed that is often overlooked, but gets explicit mention in the document, the birth of the +1 channels means that the watershed doesn't really end at 5.30 for those channels, it ends at 4.30 because the +1 channel will still be broadcasting after the watershed, so all content must be scaled back an hour earlier to account for that.
RE: Ofcom Discussion - fedup1 - 05-06-2013 18:36
So they can show female genitals they wont,right that's sexist,,
Desmond owns sex shops so might not show female genitals,thats sexist..
I am on about these continued shows of male genitals and erections,there is ample chance to include female genitals its just cut from film or docu so as not to appear in show,..I am still pissed of it constant male genitals and R18 material but no female genitals.
What about thi morning tv show ball check,,as he opened his gown his penis was visible and the doctor said grab hold of your penis..This was to get it out the way to do testicle check..How about a 150,000 fine then for a penis slip,it was fully justified to fine ITV it was a testicle check no penis should have been visble like the last one on This Morning that only showed testicles..How about a fine for that it was a slip...
.Argghh fuck it I will go mine own way again the way you lot talk its as if your all for this rule breaches and constant male genitals its fucking sexist and offensive ,they show male they show female no wonder rapes off the scale .
RE: Ofcom Discussion - mido - 05-06-2013 19:05
why are you so obsessed with wanting to see female genitals? there are plenty of pictures available online or in your local library, you dont need to sit watching mundane tv shows waiting for 2 second glimpses of pussy.
Your last comment about "no wonder rapes off the scale" is quite disturbing, are you suggesting people are out raping because they cant see someones clit for 2 seconds on This Morning??