+- 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 - percpint - 12-11-2013 22:27
(12-11-2013 22:06 )Nice Cannes Wrote: Excellent analysis by Eccles. Ofcom are a cultural straight-jacket, imposed on us by a control-freak something-must-be-done State that panders to every militant offence-taker out there - each benefitting (and how) from the existence of other.
Fortunately though, the same-faces-different-hats brigade at Westminster have been put on notice, and, in mortal fear for their way of life, will have to offer up all sorts of blandishments at the next election.
I wonder, Ofcom, if one such could be you...?
No, I fear more promises of greater control will be given as a sop to mumsnet in order to gain their vote. Cracking down on perverting pornographers has a more moralizing ring to it. Remember its about politicians preaching do as we say not do as we do.
RE: Ofcom Discussion - Nice Cannes - 12-11-2013 23:15
I share that fear. I really hope though the new kid on the block can play up its libertarian credentials and win explicit public support for a smaller, more narrowly defined role for the State.
It would keep the Tories honest (no more "bonfires of the quangos" that weren't)... and Labour, quite possibly in power but emasculated to a degree it could never have been if the only opposition to its ambitions were Cameron-style Conservatism.
It won't be easy with that £3.6 billion gorilla in the room (the BBC) but they've had their troubles lately and may decide, through gritted teeth, to sit this one out.
RE: Ofcom Discussion - circles_o_o_o - 15-11-2013 01:07
Hi there. Since this is where the legal experts hang out, thought I would throw you a query about the use of oil on the BS channels.
From what I can work out, they don't like us to see the oil pouring out of the bottle because the camera always seems to zoom in too close when the girls apply it.
I guessed at first that they were hiding the hairy arm popping out of the side of the screen to deliver the bottle but there must be more to it than that. Can remember Lolly looking worried once, as if she'd showed too much on screen, and I don't get what the problem is.
The thing is, I remember Charlie C, Caty, etc pouring it out regularly and never trying to hide it.
Just what happened to the rules and WHY?
RE: Ofcom Discussion - eccles - 15-11-2013 01:33
Nope, cant help on that one. The only thing is Ofcom ban anything that looks like ejaculate. Their definition of what looks like ejaculate differs from yours and mine as it seems to include anything that remotely resembles splashes of a white/cream/translucent fluid as seem by someone with a severe visual defect who has never seen the real thing. They include medically impossible quantities and stuff that is too fluid that "might" or "could" be mistaken for it, in a bad light.
If anything seeing the bottle should be safer. Unless the sight of a hairy armed man interacting with a semi naked model from a distance "outrages public decency".
Ironically the justification is number of complaints, about mainstream TV channels, not babe ones, that were not upheld.
I would guess they might also ban someone pouring lemonade over models, though strangely they don't ban choking gestures. Typical Ofcom, given the choice between banning something associated with actual harm, or something harmless that they themselves have ruled fit for broadcast, they ban the harmless one.
RE: Ofcom Discussion - circles_o_o_o - 15-11-2013 16:38
(15-11-2013 01:33 )eccles Wrote: The only thing is Ofcom ban anything that looks like ejaculate.
Thought it might have something to do with that, but surely they used to spurt blobs of cream over themselves (There's probably caps of it to be found in here somewhere). Either it was okay and then it wasn't, or the channels were pushing their luck.
Why don't they just put the oil in a spray bottle and mist it over themselves. It looks quite ridiculous to act all furtive over such an innocuous activity and then simulate BJ's with the phone.
Having said that, I don't really care how it gets there. Great demonstration of oiliness last night by Tori.
RE: Ofcom Discussion - eccles - 15-11-2013 21:20
(15-11-2013 16:38 )circles_o_o_o Wrote:(15-11-2013 01:33 )eccles Wrote: The only thing is Ofcom ban anything that looks like ejaculate.
Thought it might have something to do with that, but surely they used to spurt blobs of cream over themselves (There's probably caps of it to be found in here somewhere). Either it was okay and then it wasn't, or the channels were pushing their luck.
It WAS OK. Then the sleeping panda that Ofcom is woke up, decided it did not like it and said some broadcasts had broken the "generally accepted standards" rule. When challenged on whether there was any proof that the public found it distasteful Ofcom manufactured an excuse, based on complaints that it had rejected.
It reality does not stand up to scrutiny.
(15-11-2013 16:38 )circles_o_o_o Wrote: Having said that, I don't really care how it gets there. Great demonstration of oiliness last night by Tori.
My preference would be for one babe to smother herself with oil and apply it to another by full body massage
RE: Ofcom Discussion - eccles - 15-11-2013 21:33
COMPLAINTS
From the Ofcom weekly list of shows with more than 10 complaints.
Tuesday 5 November 2013 to Monday 11 November 2013.
- Crimewatch, BBC1, 14 Octocber [sic] 2013 : 19
Tuesday, 29 October, 2013 to Monday, 4 November, 2013
- Pickpockets and Proud, Channel 5, 28 October 2013: 11
- The X Factor Results Show, ITV, 27 October 2013: 95
Tuesday, 15 October, 2013 to Monday, 21 October, 2013
- Emmerdale, ITV, 16 October, 2013: 28
- The X Factor, ITV, 19 October, 2013: 58
- The X Factor Results Show, 20 October, 2013: 119
That's over 200 complaints against ITV in 2 weeks. No doubt Ofcom will take the view that the acid test of offence is that the audience are actually offended and complain, launch an investigation, find ITV guilty, fine it and warn it that as a repeat offender repeat breaches might result in its licence being revoked.
OK, I forgot.
The big 5 broadcasters are almost never found guilty of anything, despite a larger audience that all other channels combined and higher audience expectations. Ofcom even have a special "resolved" category that they only use for those channels, when they cant find them not guilty.
RE: Ofcom Discussion - eccles - 15-11-2013 21:36
Ofcom Up For Sale
Your chance to own a specialist UK regulator!
Quote:Agents instructed to market £120m Thames-side Ofcom (HQ)
13 November 2013 | By Nick Johnstone
IVG ImmobilienFonds, the fund management arm of German property company IVG, is putting up for sale South Bank landmark Riverside House, the headquarters of communications watchdog Ofcom.
Ah, its just the building
Property Week
RE: Ofcom Discussion - circles_o_o_o - 15-11-2013 21:46
(15-11-2013 21:33 )eccles Wrote: COMPLAINTS
From the Ofcom weekly list of shows with more than 10 complaints.
- The X Factor Results Show, ITV, 27 October 2013: 95
- The X Factor, ITV, 19 October, 2013: 58
- The X Factor Results Show, 20 October, 2013: 119
Let's see if they can set a new record this weekend, with Miley Cyrus due for an appearance.
RE: Ofcom Discussion - RCTV - 16-11-2013 21:49
(10-11-2013 21:46 )Digital Dave Wrote: Ofcom have nothing to do with the allocation of channel numbers on the Sky EPG. It's a commercial decision taken by Sky.
May well be commercial decision by sky, but who influenced it could well be another matter.
ofcom and sky are very cosey to say the least.