+- 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 - Jay39 - 07-01-2014 09:50
What I'd like to know is why it takes the stupid waste of tax payers money six months to publish the breach in code! Does it really take 6 months to look at a program to decide if it is in breach or not, what a set of useless muppets we pay for, or was the cock wipe that was investigating the show too busy wanking over it then decided that it's too strong for tv. I agree with other comments, it's in the FUCKING ADULT SECTION and after the watershed.
If the channels keep saying "Yes Sir, three bags full Sir" then the outlook is grim for these channels, they will slither away as none adult entertainment. 2014 doesn't look good, the channels need to step up and question Oftwats findings.
RE: Ofcom Discussion - continental19 - 07-01-2014 18:39
In my opinion the answer is very simple, the Adult channels all have to come together and fight ofcom in the courts. Is it a risk? Of course it is, however it's better to go down with a fight, than to see your company wither away and die. I agree with a previous post, which mentioned that the adult channels have put there heads in there hands for far to long!
It's time for the Adult channels to FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT remember the best form of defence is ATTACK!! The time has come for them to consult there solicitors, to build a strong case and take on ofcom, there is no other alternative!!
RE: Ofcom Discussion - SCIROCCO - 07-01-2014 21:08
Problem is the channels are very good at sniping away at each other instead of offering quality product. In the second decade of this century you can show two men beating the living crap out of each other on MMA on mainstream TV 1 minute after 9pm but whoah a flash of vadge and there'll be civil unrest. What makes me laugh is so many of these do gooders will happily head off to France or Spain on holiday and make no comment about topless sunbathers with a thread of a G string at lunchtime...
As I have always said and will continue to say is censorship is beatable. I don't expect Max Hardcore on CBBC but if a 4 digit pin is good enough to protect my Barclaycard then it is good enough to control ADULT viewing on television.
RE: Ofcom Discussion - continental19 - 07-01-2014 21:58
I agree with you, if your 4 digit pin is good enough for your credit cards, then it should be more than adequate for the Adult channels.
RE: Ofcom Discussion - JuanKerr - 08-01-2014 10:03
(07-01-2014 21:08 )SCIROCCO Wrote: In the second decade of this century you can show two men beating the living crap out of each other on MMA on mainstream TV 1 minute after 9pm but whoah a flash of vadge and there'll be civil unrest.
This attitude towards what MAY constitute harmful viewing makes my blood boil!
Take the Horror Channel. 11pm - some naked bird strapped to a chair begging for her life; perfectly acceptable as far as Ofcom are concerned. 3am - some pleasant, smiling lady flashing her vadge; an outrage
RE: Ofcom Discussion - mark_suff - 08-01-2014 17:45
As others have said how shocking an adult show having the presenters touching each other, and why is this covered by "Advertising regulations" the mind boggles.
Reading further down that pdf a bit off topic but someone complained about National Lottery Live for a Gender discrimination/offence,
???? what the hell does that mean on a lottery show? Seems to me some people must spend their entire sad lives looking at tv programmes just to see if their's anything that offends their tiny minds.
RE: Ofcom Discussion - circles_o_o_o - 08-01-2014 17:58
(08-01-2014 17:45 )mark_suff Wrote: and why is this covered by "Advertising regulations" the mind boggles.
The whole of the babe channel shows are an advertisement, as it says in the scrolling small-print at the bottom of the screen. That may get them round some rules on one hand but also paint themselves into a corner in other ways.
RE: Ofcom Discussion - mr mystery - 08-01-2014 18:43
The babe channels didn't used to be classed as advertising and come under advertising regulations, Ofcom decided to re categorise them in 2010 and brought out new rules for the babe channels .
Below is eccles original post on the matter .
.
(31-08-2010 13:22 )eccles Wrote: From midnight tonight the new Ofcom Teleshopping rules come into force. No longer will channels have to argue about whether a smiling babe is providing "editorial" content, or simply pushing a premium phone line. Provided the channels have re-registered, from midnight the babes will be officially allowed to advertise premium services.
This will be subnect to Section 22 of Advertising Code "rules governing the promotion of live PRS services, and rule 6.1 under which advertisements must not cause serious or widespread offence against generally accepted moral, social or cultural standards, or offend against public feeling."
Ofcom also says "The Advertising Code guidance draws attention to generally accepted standards for sex, nudity and offensive language. Ofcom has previously issued specific guidance to Adult Chat PTV broadcasters under the Broadcasting Code. Similar specific guidance for Adult Chat PTV may be appropriate under the Advertising Code." so they still have the Generally Accepted Standards (GAS) stick to beat channels with.
Also they warn that "Following introduction, the arrangements will be monitored carefully to ensure they provide the protection envisaged by Ofcom. Stakeholders should be aware that if they do not, or rules are not adhered to, then the rules may be subject to review and/or stricter conditions."
It is implied but not stated that adverts on encrypted channels can be stronger, or for stronger material, than on unencrypted channels, so an encrypted channel might be able to advertise sex shops, R18 DVDs and hardcore webstreams (but not actually show R18 content). In the past most channels have been caught out just for showing links to their own websites.
RE: Ofcom Discussion - marky95 - 09-01-2014 09:11
The rules are what they are and I don't think they are going to change anytime soon.
One way the channels could avoid being in these ofcom bulletins is to actually stick to the rules and not draw this kind of negative attention to themselves. No rules will ever be relaxed while they keep breaking the existing ones!
In this instance the channel in question openly admits that the material was against the code! So they should do something about that in terms of disciplinary action against the presenters and producers who were on when it happened.
RE: Ofcom Discussion - JuanKerr - 09-01-2014 18:25
(09-01-2014 09:11 )marky95 Wrote: One way the channels could avoid being in these ofcom bulletins is to actually stick to the rules and not draw this kind of negative attention to themselves.
Yeah, that's just what we want - even tamer shows
I'd rather see the channels break the rules even more. If they go under because of it, then so be it.
I watch these channels for one reason and one reason only; to knock one off, and quite frankly if you watch them for any other reason then I think you need to take a long hard look at yourself.
Of course all of that is bollocks, because while we have these fanboys around, who call up their favourite girls and spend hours chatting about the weather and where they went on their holidays, while all the time believing they have some kind of meaningful relationship going on with these girls, the producers are happy to keep vomiting the same old shit.