+- 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 - continental19 - 05-05-2014 02:29
(05-05-2014 01:46 )eccles Wrote: Ofcom have launched a consultation on whether they should extend coregulation of TV advertising for another 5 years. Under the proposals the ASA would handle most advertising complaints, apart from Participation TV and associated areas of gambling and message board teleshopping formats, political adverts, product placement, sponsorship credits and scheduling.
The consultation period runs from 1 to 30 May.
It's great to hear from you once again, and as always a very informative post!
What's the best and worst scenario in your opinion after the consolation concludes after the 30th May for the adult channels?
Thanks Eccles
RE: Ofcom Discussion - charles666 - 05-05-2014 14:07
Well give it a few years and we will reach the very reasonable state of Burqa's for everyone on telly, except for a 2 min ankle show at 10:58........................ If ya lucky
RE: Ofcom Discussion - lovebabes56 - 05-05-2014 14:16
Babes in Burka's......that'll never catch on would it as a late night show? Unless you live in Iraq I guess.
RE: Ofcom Discussion - RatedR - 09-05-2014 18:43
if someone wants to work on a way of proving that 100% of specific incident complaints are not genuine complaints, then I salute you. We all know that complaints of specific incidents are made by people that know the rules and are seeking out those occurrences in order to complain. And that the only genuine complaints ever made will read something like this "I was outraged to find my teen son watching 'insert channel' and I am disgusted that such material can be shown on television" to which the response should be "unfortunatly this is allowed and no specific rule has been broken and as your complaint is a general concern we cannot take action" from then on that parent may just leave it, or they may try to find a specific rule break to complain about, to feel vindicated. Or an ofcom minion themselves may decide to try and find a specific rule break on the channel concerned, so they feel like they are fighting the good fight. Either way it would be nifty if someone could pull back the veil and expose the real source of the very specific incident complaints like "at 2:02 specific babe a, did specific act b, on specific channel c. Nail them please" are Panorama free?
Summary, we all know complaints like this are fabricated on some level. Can we prove it? ...
RE: Ofcom Discussion - SCIROCCO - 10-05-2014 14:29
Those who complain are either malicious toads or do gooders. Dear Ofcom I spent 39 hours watching babe shows last week and was most offended by one of the girls using the word tits at 3.49am....etc etc
RE: Ofcom Discussion - Scottishbloke - 11-05-2014 20:41
I think its getting really sad when ofcom paranoia has taken such a grip which unfortunately has had an impact on this forum. First it was RLC, now it's Studio66. I think most people know that I'm referring to the new 8 week video rule.
I'm pretty sure that if ofcom want to go out gunning a channel down then all they need to do is request that the channel send them a copy of the latest shows. From what I've seen recently ofcom are winning. No channel is willing to challenge or question ofcoms censorship rules. All 2 for 1's have now been stopped on RLC and as for the rest of the 2 for 1's that are still currently going they are so lame that it makes for painful viewing.
Yes we've seen a change of chairman at ofcom but not a change in policy. So much emphasis these days is placed on making sure that the babes don't make even the slightest of slips which has been at the detriment of the entertainment value on show.
I don't know this for sure but I'd be willing to bet that the channels are no way near as profitable as they once used to be, when presented with so many do's and don't the motivation is no longer as big as it once used to be when considering whether or not to phone any of the babes onscreen. This probably explains why so many of the channels are doing happy hours or quick fire rounds as they seek to make up on lost ground.
Its been a very long time since we last had any new channels making an appearance on the SKY EPG and it doesn't look likely to happen in the foreseeable future for as long as ofcom remain around.
On a personal note welcome back eccles, good to see you back mate
RE: Ofcom Discussion - SCIROCCO - 12-05-2014 16:17
Last night was ultra tame across the board....
RE: Ofcom Discussion - Joey 27 - 12-05-2014 18:48
if you knocked on someone's door at 10pm trying to sell something they will probably be pissed off and say to you "do you know what time it is" but that same person will probably complain to ofcom if they see a naked model on the babeshows at 10pm and say to them "10pm is too early for this to be shown my children will be offended if they see this" when in reality the children are probably asleep and the 14 year old lad is probably wanking so they aren't offended are they
let's not just blame ofcom and the channels, this country has got way to soft and nanny state even in my lifetime
RE: Ofcom Discussion - Scottishbloke - 12-05-2014 20:26
I don't care what time somebody knocked on my door to sell me something I'd still tell them to fuck off
Oh and not to mention these fucking Jehovah Witness's. Mind you they normally only bother to do it on Christmas day which happened to me 20 years ago in which my mother politely told them also to get to fuck 
To be honest with you Joey, I don't think many people would bother to phone ofcom over a boob channel as it doesn't generally cause widespread offence, normal people just tend to either not watch the channel if they are offended by the material or block the channel, hence the reason SKY have that option as does every box.
With regards to this being a nanny state well that's the UK Government for you, unfortunately it only looks like its ever going to be the Tories or the Labour Party running the country and both have mere identical views when it comes to censorship. Ofcom were born out of New Labour and the Tories went back on their word over abolishing ofcom and treating adults like adults and not children, this was one of many blatant lies David Cameron told us in order to win power.
RE: Ofcom Discussion - eccles - 13-05-2014 00:32
GCSE Politics
Complete the sentence:
It would be considered odd if a teetotaller were put in charge of licensing pubs.
It would be considered odd if someone opposed to gambling were put in charge of the Gambling Commission.
It would be considered odd if someone opposed to art were put in charge of culture.
It would be considered odd if someone opposed to sexual arousal ...