+- 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 - munch1917 - 22-09-2013 10:13
Bear in mind as well that this move would do nothing whatsoever to protect Johnny and Jemima from all the porn that is available on free websites like the tube sites etc.
Once again perhaps this is an answer to the wrong question, perhaps we should really be asking where are the parents while the little ones are watching this porn!
RE: Ofcom Discussion - mr mystery - 23-09-2013 12:49
Ofcom's Latest broadcast bulletin came out today issue number 238 and dated 23/09/2013 .
I haven't gone through it all yet but one "in breach" ruling grabbed my attention, Playboy TV Chat have been found "in breach" for a incident that took place on the 29/05/2013 between the hours of 00:00 and 00:30 .
Iv'e just had a quick look through Ofcom's description of the incident and it looks like it was Dannii Harwoods behind the door routine .
Ofcom go into their usual ramblings about the content exceeding generally excepted standards and could cause wide spread offence and all that bollocks and found them in breach .
Playboy didn't get a fine but were summoned to Ofcom towers to discuses it's compliance arrangements, Playboy say they have sacked the producer in charge of the show .
Ofcom were made aware of the incident by a complaint not through routine monitoring by themselves, Ofcom don't say it was by a member of the public either, they just say they received a complaint .
RE: Ofcom Discussion - jimmyt73 - 23-09-2013 17:32
I must say im slightly surprised at the decision to find Playboy in breach of so-called generally accepted standards as this was not the first time she had been filmed from behind the door,just how offended can one person be is another question entirely bearing in mind the channel is part of an adult section of the epg,i mean its not as if the channels either side of it are for kids or 24 hour news is it,also i cant help but wonder if scene had been shown as part of a film or drama whether it would have been found in breach.
RE: Ofcom Discussion - Scottishbloke - 23-09-2013 18:11
Fucking depressing, ofcom have single handily wrecked the adult shows. The decline is just going to keep going. Also what a disgrace that Playboy TV felt the need to fire the producer in question, just what kind of message does this send out other than using him or her as a scapegoat rather than having the balls to argue their point across to ofcom.
This channel has now joined the hall of shame with its other competitors at Studio66. So much for adult entertainment, expect more of the same from the shit that was served up last night now all the life has more or less been sucked out of the shows too shit scared to tell ofcom where to go. So what are we left with now, overcautious producers. Great
RE: Ofcom Discussion - mr mystery - 23-09-2013 18:45
Iv'e just been having a further look at Ofcom's wording in Playboy TV Chats in breach ruling, there's to much to post in full, but this is a bit of what they say .
Ofcom say something about a presenter was shown at times with the top half of her body naked and the lower half hidden behind a door giving the impression that she was having sex with a unseen partner. Apparently it was something to do with simulating sex acts that broke the rules .
The licencee (Playboy) argued that "the level of nudity was very low and somewhat tamer than the standard miming of sex acts in adult chat broadcast advertising" . I think PB were talking about the sex acts shown in the free to air adverts for the encrypted channesl but not sure.
Anyway Ofcom say that "they noted the licencee's argument that the level of nudity was very low, However Ofcom say that in their view the intention of the producer and presenter was to give the impression to the viewers that the presenter was involved in real sex acts which was clearly at odds with the guidance" .
Ofcom go on to say (exact quote) " In Ofcom's view the broadcast of this material in adult chat advertising content was likely to cause serious widespread offence against generally accepted moral or cultural standards"
How the fuck do Ofcom come to the decision that what was shown by Playboy TV Chat after 12am in a specialist adult section clearly labelled and given a 18 cert in the EPG will cause serious widespread offence against generally accepted moral and cultural standards is beyond me, you can see far harder content on regular non adult channels, so how come Ofcom think people will be seriously offended if they see it broadcast on a adult channel but not on a regular channel ? .
RE: Ofcom Discussion - Nice Cannes - 23-09-2013 19:08
As Thatcher might have said, we have become a...fghanistan. It can only be a matter of time before the girls are required to wear niqabs.
(23-09-2013 12:49 )mr mystery Wrote: Ofcom were made aware of the incident by a complaint not through routine monitoring by themselves, Ofcom don't say it was by a member of the public either, they just say they received a complaint .
The indefinite article is instructive. Single-source evidence seems to be a feature of the state these days. Send in the libertarians pronto.
RE: Ofcom Discussion - hatessexistofcom - 24-09-2013 01:19
(23-09-2013 18:45 )mr mystery Wrote: Iv'e just been having a further look at Ofcom's wording in Playboy TV Chats in breach ruling, there's to much to post in full, but this is a bit of what they say .
Ofcom say something about a presenter was shown at times with the top half of her body naked and the lower half hidden behind a door giving the impression that she was having sex with a unseen partner. Apparently it was something to do with simulating sex acts that broke the rules .
The licencee (Playboy) argued that "the level of nudity was very low and somewhat tamer than the standard miming of sex acts in adult chat broadcast advertising" . I think PB were talking about the sex acts shown in the free to air adverts for the encrypted channesl but not sure.
Anyway Ofcom say that "they noted the licencee's argument that the level of nudity was very low, However Ofcom say that in their view the intention of the producer and presenter was to give the impression to the viewers that the presenter was involved in real sex acts which was clearly at odds with the guidance" .
Ofcom go on to say (exact quote) " In Ofcom's view the broadcast of this material in adult chat advertising content was likely to cause serious widespread offence against generally accepted moral or cultural standards"
How the fuck do Ofcom come to the decision that what was shown by Playboy TV Chat after 12am in a specialist adult section clearly labelled and given a 18 cert in the EPG will cause serious widespread offence against generally accepted moral and cultural standards is beyond me, you can see far harder content on regular non adult channels, so how come Ofcom think people will be seriously offended if they see it broadcast on a adult channel but not on a regular channel ? .
Got to reply as I so agree with your post,also Ofcom say they never watch programmes or anything beforehand SO WHAT ARE THEY DOING MONITORING THE BABE CHANNELS THEN,thats sinister and yet another bloody hyprocrital thing Ofcom do.
RE: Ofcom Discussion - eccles - 25-09-2013 01:15
(22-09-2013 10:13 )munch1917 Wrote: Bear in mind as well that this move would do nothing whatsoever to protect Johnny and Jemima from all the porn that is available on free websites like the tube sites etc.
Once again perhaps this is an answer to the wrong question, perhaps we should really be asking where are the parents while the little ones are watching this porn!
I really am coming round to the view that this is nothing to do with protecting kids. If it was Cameron would take the professional advice given and focus on sex education instead of taking a less effective approach and trying to ban things, which is widely said to be ineffective. Instead it seems to be a desperate act of an ex PR consultant trying to ensure his die core voters turn out in enough numbers at the next election to ensure he wins the election, or at least gets to lead another coalition.
What are the biggest risks for kids? Wanking - number dead NIL. Inner city gangs - weekly deaths. Drugs - deaths and debilitating mental illness. Loan sharks. Joy riding. Suicide from bullying. Under age drinking. Fundamentalist religion.
How many gang members, drug dealers and loan sharks have been banned from associating with kids, hanging out near schools, and been banned from the banking system regardless of whether they have actually been found guilty of a crime? ZERO
How many cars have been fitted with mandatory proof of age controls or finger print readers? ZERO
How many notorious bullying websites and phone companies that facilitate sexting have been fined or banned from the banking system? One?
How many off licences, pubs, supermarkets and brewers have been prosecuted for sales of super strength super cheap larger to teens? ZERO?
How many technically legal extremist religious figures have had their finances cut off? NIL
The other really odd thing is that David Cameron, who leads a party supposedly in favour of personal responsibility, freedom from state interference and privacy in ones own castle, is pushing for banks to block payment to sites with some free porn, despite also pushing for mandatory porn filters, and adult content already being blocked from mobile phones unless proof of age is given.
Is he saying his porn filters will not work, before they have even been put in place?
RE: Ofcom Discussion - eccles - 25-09-2013 01:29
Regarding the Playboy Ofcom finding, Ofcom are clearly illiterate and Playboy do not seem to have the balls to challenge them this time.
The guidance says "Advertisements must not cause serious or widespread offence against generally accepted moral, social or cultural standards."
Note the absence of phases like "potential to cause".
There is no evidence that serious offence has occurred, and no evidence that widespread offence occurred, so the rule has not been broken.
It is also bullshit to say the offence only occurred once, exactly the same scene was broadcast regularly and must have been prerecorded. It may have been done to allow the presenter to have a break. I am not sure, but the OSGs might even have changed to avoid saying that callers could chat live to the presenter on screen.
So either Ofcom are gullible twats (hmmm) or it is a cosy little compromise between the regulator and broadcaster.
As for it being strong material, it was tame suggestive material, nothing more. I have seen stronger in American TV series shown at 9 or 10pm like Banshee and Dexter. Game of Thrones and Spartacus might be similar strength. Though sadly Buffy never came near.
RE: Ofcom Discussion - eccles - 25-09-2013 02:04
One last one, honest.
"David Blunkett warns of dangers of online pornography" - its Labour Party conference time - "Former Home Secretary David Blunkett has called for internet providers to block pornography, warning against a descent into "Sodom and Gomorrah". ... Civilised society risked being undermined by "the most bestial activities", he warned." BBC
So says David Blunkett, former Home Secretary and the man who had a 3 year affair with a newly married woman and fathered a child while she was still married. Later he had the second child DNA tested (it was not his). Controversy around a number of matters arising from the affair, particularly concerns over the handling of the visa of Quinn's nanny, contributed to Blunkett's resignation in mid-December 2004. Wikipedia
This is the man giving out moral advice? No thanks.