+- 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 - eccles - 16-05-2014 22:39
One challenge Murdoch faces is that he would be in charge of both TV and newspaper companies, giving media dominance, despite having split News International into two companies.
Separate country cards might be the way forward, but it will not be possible to ban sales of cards for one country in another - several court rulings already prevent bans on cross border sales.
Murdoch is supposed to be happy to be persona non grata, regarding himself as an anti establishment outsider who took on prejudice against brash outsiders from backward colonies. He does have a track record of succeeding.
While not blatantly into promoting porn, one reason for viewers not leaving Sky and going to Virgin, BT or Freeview has to be the reduced number of adult channels on other platforms, as well as sport. Remove the advantages, viewer churn will increase as will cost pressure.
RE: Ofcom Discussion - Scottishbloke - 16-05-2014 22:43
Yes although like you say Murdoch does not publicly promote porn on SKY he is probably more than aware of the likes of Babestation and co broadcasting onto his SKY Platform.
Virgin media and BT take a very different approach to this hence the reason SKY has all the channels
RE: Ofcom Discussion - continental19 - 18-05-2014 15:25
Once again we find ourselves only 1 yr away from another general election, and since the Tories and the Lib Dems have got in we've seen even more of the adult channels disappear. Now whether a change of government will want to see the end of ofcom or have there powers reduced is a question that non of us can really answer. We all no that when Cameron came into power he said that he would deal with ofcom, and as we all no he's done absolutely nothing.
In my opinion the 9pm watershed is an absolute joke, ofcom will not allow boobs to be shown after 10pm then they are allowed to go nude after 11pm, yet we've clearly seen full nudity regarding other programmes when the clock strikes 9pm. I still find it hard to believe that ofcom went to all this trouble making sure that the adult channels come under the same umbrella as shopping channels? Lol does that mean bid tv can have there broadcasters naked after 11pm while there're trying to sell you a steam mop
In my opinion there shouldn't be any difference from adult channels or general channels, 9pm should mean 9pm after that time nudity should be allowed period!
At the end of the day ofcom have been in power for far to long and must be dealt with, they can't go on and on forever, let's hope whoever gets into government next year will have the guts to deal with ofcom once and for all!
RE: Ofcom Discussion - RatedR - 18-05-2014 16:02
what would happen if a channel, or all the channels, wrote a letter to Ofcom anonymously asking whether "after the new gay marriage laws do they still find males kissing males and females kissing females on T.V [not specifically babeshows] 'damaging and offensive'"and when the reply comes back that they 'do not regard same sex kissing to be offensive or damaging' the channel can then use that as evidence and reason to reintroduce such acts. Maybe have it published in a newspaper if Ofcom try to find them in breach. And watch them squirm trying to justify their findings without eventually seeming homophobic. Even if they bring love, lust and advertising into it, it can never be classed as offensive or damaging by them, because they can't risk sounding homophobic, and most importantly because... IT ISN'T OFFENSIVE
RE: Ofcom Discussion - lovebabes56 - 18-05-2014 17:52
I could see that being challenged in the high court by some far flung anti gay/lesbian group!! But the trouble with OFCOM is that they have been able to do what they have done because: - A) Dave and his cronies have ben tackling the deficit, Afghanistan etc and completely left Ofcom alone. B) I doubt if he even remembers making the pledge to deal with OFCOM now!! C) Probably would make the pledge again as he probably would think it wouldn't be a vote winner!!
RE: Ofcom Discussion - eccles - 20-05-2014 01:51
The prohibition on female presenters kissing or fondling each other has been a blatant piece of gender bias since it was introduced, and quite possibly illegal from Day 1.
Sadly militant lesbians are unlikely to take up cudgels, about this at least, for the same reason that Ofcom would cite in its defence, that it is fake lesbianism for male sexual arousal. Whether that would stand up in court is another matter.
Its interesting the way Ofcom just makes stuff up. The Guidelines are just that, guidelines, not legally binding rules, but you wouldn't know it. Legally all that matters is the law that Parliament passed, independent research based on public acceptability, and Rules based on the first two. And The Public said quite clearly that decisions about offence should be gender neutral, treat BG GG and BB the same, which is why Eastenders is allowed gay kissing scenes during prime time viewing.
It gets even more insane. Adverts for encrypted channels routinely show things that free to air channels cannot, such as women sucking nippes before 10pm, dildo sucking and offscreen forking. Thats allowed because being adverts for sex channels gives them context. But babe channels are not allowed to show the same because - they are advertising channels and lack context.
RE: Ofcom Discussion - eccles - 20-05-2014 01:57
(18-05-2014 15:25 )continental19 Wrote: ... In my opinion the 9pm watershed is an absolute joke, ofcom will not allow boobs to be shown after 10pm then they are allowed to go nude after 11pm, yet we've clearly seen full nudity regarding other programmes when the clock strikes 9pm.
ITV2 was showing SAW2 at 10:45 last night. What should the vicar be more concerned about? Every 15 year old in the country having unrestricted access to graphic torture porn - noone is going to block ITV2 - or a bit of nudity on a niche channel that can be blocked?
What are the stats on 15 year olds participating in torture, and real sex respectively? I suspect the latter is widespread and has been for generations (not that I condone it), the former is only ever a rare aberration.
RE: Ofcom Discussion - RatedR - 20-05-2014 11:10
It can be touted as 'fake lesbianism for male arousal' if it's marketed as a limited time deal. If the girls were just allowed to be more relaxed and natural, then it would not be an obvious marketing scheme. Even if it was, they are advertising as Ofcom make quite clear anyway, so why should they not be allowed to market Bi-sexual girls
Ofcom's main problem will always be that people are making money from premium phone lines and they want to regulate them to 'save' people from the babeshows. An agenda which they should not be allowed to work to, as their is no law against making money from televised phone ins. It's how Ant and Dec survive after all! It's definitely no surprise that ofcom targets babeshows, reality voting shows and talent shows, is it? Protecting the youth...
£££
RE: Ofcom Discussion - admiral decker - 20-05-2014 11:44
(18-05-2014 15:25 )continental19 Wrote: We all no that when Cameron came into power he said that he would deal with ofcom, and as we all no he's done absolutely nothing.
This is the government's proposed legislation regarding Ofcom. It's a draft only and needs to be approved by parliament before it can become law.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukdsi/2013/9780111101919
RE: Ofcom Discussion - eccles - 20-05-2014 21:43
(20-05-2014 11:44 )admiral decker Wrote:(18-05-2014 15:25 )continental19 Wrote: We all no that when Cameron came into power he said that he would deal with ofcom, and as we all no he's done absolutely nothing.
This is the government's proposed legislation regarding Ofcom. It's a draft only and needs to be approved by parliament before it can become law.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukdsi/2013/9780111101919
If I read this correctly it waters down Ofcoms requirement to monitor public service broadcasters, extending the timescale to 5 yearly and changing reviewing ITV from "must carry out a review" to the optional "The Secretary of State may require OFCOM to carry out a review”. Oh, and the requirement to have a committee for the Elderly and Disabled would be abolished and replaced with an optional power to set up subcommittees as Ofcom sees fit.
By replacing mandatory fixed reviews with optional ones at the discretion of a politician this opens the door to accusations that the government of the day is going easy on favourites or coming down hard on a broadcaster that has upset it.
This also raises the fear factor.
Imagine a broadcaster had started the expenses scandal investigation, instead of The Telegraph. Or if there was another Death On The Rock documentary (alleging the SAS shot to kill IRA bombers in Gibraltar. Entirely unconnected, but Thames lost its licence.*) Rather than broadcast, senior executives might chose to self censor.
* "Two years after the report, Thames lost its franchise and the IBA was abolished." - Wikipedia