+- 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: Mainstream TV nudity vs babeshow nudity (/showthread.php?tid=28022)
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
RE: Mainstream TV nudity vs babeshow nudity - blackjaques - 23-09-2011 19:22
(23-09-2011 18:09 )SCIROCCO Wrote: Channel 275 on Sky showed a 20th anniversary update of Lover's Guide last night, 1030pm, uncensored. Erections, cunnilingus, digital penetration and blow jobs......fta yet an adult channel can't show the same content without getting hammered to pieces by Ofcon...Discuss.
The Lovers Guide often featured on PPv adult channels.
It was classed as an educational programme so could therefore show all the naughty bits.
If you were a viewer you would have to tell your penis not to get an erection as Ofcon had classifiied this type of film as suitable for children.
RE: Mainstream TV nudity vs babeshow nudity - dix - 23-09-2011 19:38
(23-09-2011 19:14 )iamthatjack Wrote:(23-09-2011 18:09 )SCIROCCO Wrote: Channel 275 on Sky showed a 20th anniversary update of Lover's Guide last night, 1030pm, uncensored. Erections, cunnilingus, digital penetration and blow jobs......fta yet an adult channel can't show the same content without getting hammered to pieces by Ofcon...Discuss.
Can you warn us in advance of such a show, as I would like to see first hand () what is shown on this particular programme
Seriously, is it on again?
the lovers guide episode 2 is on saturday
episode 3 on tuesday
RE: Mainstream TV nudity vs babeshow nudity - rockey - 23-09-2011 21:07
look up a directive given to ofcom about economic responibilities in the media....i found it a couple of months ago looking for info on something totally unrelated.... in 2009 the pay per view adult market in the uk was worth 11 million a year... in 2010 it was 9 million...part of ofcoms remit is about protecting this revenue..... the babe channels were seen as partly to blame for the loss add in the fact most of the production companies involved in the babe channels also produce the pay per view channels and you do not need a degree to work out whats going on.....if they do frustrating shows keep the monoply in place that stops competion some will pay for package they want to sell......personally i think the missing piece is the net and currently forces are at work through corrupt elements of the government to try to censore any erotic content on the net......the latest thinking is to use credit card info to prove legal age....in other words if you pay for it .....its ok and legal but free is dangerous and should be illegal.........and if you buy that ,you deserve what they got planned
RE: Mainstream TV nudity vs babeshow nudity - blackjaques - 23-09-2011 22:14
(23-09-2011 21:07 )rockey Wrote: look up a directive given to ofcom about economic responibilities in the media....i found it a couple of months ago looking for info on something totally unrelated.... in 2009 the pay per view adult market in the uk was worth 11 million a year... in 2010 it was 9 million...part of ofcoms remit is about protecting this revenue..... the babe channels were seen as partly to blame for the loss add in the fact most of the production companies involved in the babe channels also produce the pay per view channels and you do not need a degree to work out whats going on.....if they do frustrating shows keep the monoply in place that stops competion some will pay for package they want to sell......personally i think the missing piece is the net and currently forces are at work through corrupt elements of the government to try to censore any erotic content on the net......the latest thinking is to use credit card info to prove legal age....in other words if you pay for it .....its ok and legal but free is dangerous and should be illegal.........and if you buy that ,you deserve what they got planned
There is a huge problem in certain sections of government and the civil service regarding erotic entertainment in the U K. Totally terrified of it, they are.
RE: Mainstream TV nudity vs babeshow nudity - eccles - 23-09-2011 22:42
(23-09-2011 19:22 )blackjaques Wrote:(23-09-2011 18:09 )SCIROCCO Wrote: Channel 275 on Sky showed a 20th anniversary update of Lover's Guide last night, 1030pm, uncensored. Erections, cunnilingus, digital penetration and blow jobs......fta yet an adult channel can't show the same content without getting hammered to pieces by Ofcon...Discuss.
The Lovers Guide often featured on PPv adult channels.
It was classed as an educational programme so could therefore show all the naughty bits.
If you were a viewer you would have to tell your penis not to get an erection as Ofcon had classifiied this type of film as suitable for children.
Channel 275 - the Yoga channel? No wonder not many people noticed. Its in the Arts package, though as blackjaques says it often features on PPV too. In this case its effectively free once you have paid your £1 a month to watch TCM.
Sat 11pm - episode 2 Arousal
Sun - well, it was listed at 10:30 but now its gone
Mon - no
Tues 10:30pm Foreplay
Weds - no
Thurs 10:30pm Fisting
Only kidding, it says Foreplay.
Basically watch that slot.
Notice the way its not tucked away in the wee hours, that way it can claim its not wonk material.
RE: Mainstream TV nudity vs babeshow nudity - Scottishbloke - 23-09-2011 23:22
Not to mention we also have Naked In Mexico by photographer Spencer Tunnick on tommorow morning at wait for it, 0810AM in the morning, perfect time for the kids to see it early on a Saturday morning whilst the grown up's are still sleeping on Sky Arts channel 243.
RE: Mainstream TV nudity vs babeshow nudity - continental19 - 23-09-2011 23:30
(23-09-2011 23:22 )Scottishbloke Wrote: Not to mention we also have Naked In Mexico by photographer Spencer Tunnick on tommorow morning at wait for it, 0810AM in the morning, perfect time for the kids to see it early on a Saturday morning whilst the grown up's are still sleeping on Sky Arts channel 243.Hey Scottishbloke it just goes to show want a bunch of hypercritical twats are running Ofcom 8.10am shit i can't believe it, and this is what they call Regulation? What f**king Bollocks.
RE: Mainstream TV nudity vs babeshow nudity - Scottishbloke - 23-09-2011 23:55
Ofcom should be the ones under investigation, I hope these bastards get what's coming to them. 0810 in the bastard morning, pussys, dicks and arseholes and that's not just Ofcom I'm talking about either.
RE: Mainstream TV nudity vs babeshow nudity - continental19 - 24-09-2011 00:46
(23-09-2011 23:55 )Scottishbloke Wrote: Ofcom should be the ones under investigation, I hope these bastards get what's coming to them. 0810 in the bastard morning, pussys, dicks and arseholes and that's not just Ofcom I'm talking about either.
F**king unbelievable
RE: Mainstream TV nudity vs babeshow nudity - eccles - 24-09-2011 02:15
I would be tempted to complain about Spencer Tundick, but that would only give Ofcom more ammunition, supporting their case that nudity cases harm and offence. No, dont complain, let the deafening silence speak for itself.
Good point about the Pay Per View market and Ofcom responsibility to protect revenue. Apart from occasional boxing matches and Sky box office I struggle to think of any PPV apart from adult content. The big argument against is that we are in a massive recession and revenue is down generally, BUT this is new techology, it should be growing. Thats grounds for complaint to the Dept Cult Media Sport also BIS.
Ofcom also has a pro-competition remit. It is suspected that channels that are subject to sustained complaints are targeted by competitors. It is not Ofcoms role to help companies gain market dominance, yet it seems to be a willing partner in this. Grounds for complaint to the BIS and the Media Select Committee.