+- 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 stuff - Scottishbloke - 14-11-2010 03:42
Furthermore to my last point Jada is onscreen doing her usual naked stints and I don't see her show being subject to censoring. Its very easy to blame ofcom for Paiges censored stint but on this occasion its blatantly obvious for all to see that its not ofcom for as much as I hate the fuckers but it's babestation you should hold accountable for this one and not ofcom.
[split] Serious Ofcom warning for Bang Media - bigguy01 - 20-11-2010 16:42
so people can swear and insult eachother, poke fun at eachother but cannot be topless or "naked".
RE: Serious Ofcom warning for Bang Media - mrmann - 20-11-2010 16:46
(20-11-2010 16:22 )stoly Wrote: We noted Bang Channels‟ assertion that Ofcom had said in other previous cases that where parental controls are in place to block channels material is appropriately scheduled. While Ofcom recognises that satellite set top boxes do have voluntary parental controls, Ofcom research shows that only “one in three households with multichannel television has set up access controls (32%)"2. Ofcom therefore does not consider that the existence of parental controls on set top boxes offers enough protection to under-eighteens from viewing unsuitable material of this nature. In any event, under the Code broadcasters are required to observe the watershed.
As a result of the serious and repeated nature of the breaches recorded in these current findings, and those recorded against Bang Media and Bang Channels Limited.
Something has to be done about Ofcom, it's not Bangmedia or any of the other stations duty, to ensure set-top box parental controls are set up to deter under 18s from viewing the 900 channels, thats up to the individual who owns the box, as for the person who keeps writing in to complain, he/she can set their own set-top box to restrict these channels from causing continuing offence.
We need a petition from this forum along with a charming letter, with all 43000 members signatures sent to the minister in charge of media, to get this crap sorted out once and for all.
I agree. Also, I doubt anyone is actually complaining, other than discreet Offcom people pretending that complaints have been made. However, complaints shouldn't matter anyway! It's up to the parents to have their kids in bed at the right time, to monitor what their kids do, and to put blocks on channels. Like you said, it's NOT the responsibility of the channels! I'd love to hear from Offcom what exactly is suitable. It seems like the images of genitals are the only thing they don't want, which is sad, as we all have genitals and know what they look like! There are other channels that show genitals from time to time, so what's offcom going to do, shut all of the channels down? That's so immature. Where are the fake complaints about Sexcetera or Euro Trash or The Naked Office or Sexarama or Saw 4????? Oh that's right, that stuff is acceptable
If the Bang Babes channels aren't back tonight, then I think it's safe to say that Offcom has screwed over Bang Media 
Let's hope that isn't the case.
RE: Serious Ofcom warning for Bang Media - Chilly - 20-11-2010 16:51
Erm, get the channels to stop stitching each other up would be a start. Oh shit, I forgot common sense doesn't apply these days.
RE: Serious Ofcom warning for Bang Media - Krill Liberator - 20-11-2010 16:55
(20-11-2010 16:22 )stoly Wrote: ...as for the person who keeps writing in to complain, he/she can set their own set-top box to restrict these channels from causing continuing offence.Methinks the majority of these persons are merely serial complainers with a moral axe to grind. I would be unsurprised to find out that they make pains-in-the-arse of themselves on numerous other forums and issues.
RE: Serious Ofcom warning for Bang Media - eccles - 21-11-2010 00:31
(20-11-2010 16:55 )Krill Liberator Wrote:(20-11-2010 16:22 )stoly Wrote: ...as for the person who keeps writing in to complain, he/she can set their own set-top box to restrict these channels from causing continuing offence.Methinks the majority of these persons are merely serial complainers with a moral axe to grind. I would be unsurprised to find out that they make pains-in-the-arse of themselves on numerous other forums and issues.
I used to work somewhere where there was a well connected serial complainer.
RE: Ofcom stuff - Krill Liberator - 21-11-2010 00:56
I'm with you.
Most worryingly, the gripes of such unreasonable & demanding individuals are invariably treated as though they really do matter, leading to a culture of "Yes Sir, certainly Sir, I'm ever so sorry about the trivial matter that was none of my problem but, now that you've mentioned it, has become my problem and I will certainly waste my time/resources in trying to deal with it (which I guarantee will disadvantage everybody else - thanks a lot)". Popper's 'World Three' gone mad? Why don't idiots keep their flappy mouths shut?
I think it may be borne of fear - fear that if the troglodytes' unrealistic expectations are not met forthwith, and to their unique level of satisfaction, then one of the many referral procedures that appear to be embedded throughout modern society will be activated. And then somebody will get sued. And then corrective procedures will need to be implemented.
Before we know what's what, our entire society would drown in litigation as it sued itself bankrupt(er). Thanks, 'moral guardians'.
In consequence, we have a culture of 'taking it up the arse' in far too many places and organisations. Because the pleb is always right.
RE: Ofcom stuff - mrmann - 25-11-2010 00:51
Anyone else notice that while Bang Babes is tame tonight, that four other channels have disappeared as well?
Offcom is taking no prisoners tonight.
Looks like they truly want these channels to fail.
RE: Ofcom stuff - IanG - 25-11-2010 05:38
Quote:Ofcom research shows that only “one in three households with multichannel television has set up access controls (32%)". Ofcom therefore does not consider that the existence of parental controls on set top boxes offers enough protection to under-eighteens from viewing unsuitable material of this nature.
Perhaps it has escaped OFCOM's almighty powers of reasoning that only 1 in 3 households use parental controls BECAUSE only 1 in 3 households contains children under 18?
And WHO says (i.e. has PROOF) that any "material of this nature" is in fact "unsuitable" for persons under eighteen? If persons of 16 and over can legally suck and fuck and thereby obviously create and see "material of this nature" live and in colour, WHY can't persons of 16 and 17 watch the same on TV? After all, its quite OK according to OFCOM's 'rules' for persons well under 18 to watch folks being bumped-off, raped and beaten-up in any primetime soap opera yet, no one seems remotely concerned this will somehow pollute the morals of younger teens. Last time I checked, sex was still a socially acceptable pastime according to many people whereas murder, rape and robbery are still deemed socially unsuitable pastimes by the vast majority.
If OFCOM's attitude toward porn has any real foundation then they SHOULD be able to provide some proof to back it up. However, as I pointed out about a year ago, OFCOM themselves stated quite clearly in 2005 they have no evidence, and thus no reason, to assume sexually explicit material is in anyway a danger, and thus unsuitable material, for anyone of any age to view. Indeed, the High Court ruled against the BBFC's same unsubstantiated prejudice and unproven fearmongering and, hence, their illegal restriction, of everyone's right to watch totally harmless (i.e. child-safe) sexually explicit material.
OFCOM's ban on legally available and completely child-safe material is clearly an unfounded restriction upon everyone's right to freedom of expression. OFCOM cannot be balancing our rights against any need to protect anyone from that which has legally been deemed harmless based on the evidence and testimony of child wellfare experts. Indeed, they can only be violating our rights without rhyme, reason and required proof of necessity. OFCOM are in fact violating our rights on the basis of prejudice and bigotry masquerading under the guise of supposed 'offence' which could easily be prevented IF people engaged the parental controls fitted to every piece of televisual equipment sold in the UK. OFCOM have thus FAILED in their legal duty to adequately protect members of the public by ensuring they know how to protect themselves (and their children under 18) from inadvertent exposure to their own definition of 'unsuitable material' (which of course varies wildly across every demographic of sex, age, upbringing, education and religion).
OFCOM are a living travesty and a menace to freedom and democracy. Indeed, the quote above proves OFCOM are a bunch of ignorant, fact-twisting, morally repugnant, fascist dictators.
Its good to talk (waves to OFCOM) - mikeboob - 25-11-2010 19:55
Its good to talk (waves to OFCOM)
Hi there employees of OFCOM, we know what we like (when the various arguments about channels/babes are over!) and we know you must be reading these threads to keep abreast (geddit?) of whats on screen without having to do too much work (we really are too helpful in that respect).
From the colour of knickers to the angle of arse and the use of sticky props OFCOM seems to have an opinion on just about everything that passes before us on screen. There are 40,000+ registered users of this site so a conversation with a large and probably representative chunk the user base seems quite right by this point.
How about it?
We don't bite and most of us appear to be quite reasonable in the face of reason.
Yours, a viewer and a customer.