+- 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 - gunnar - 20-11-2014 21:57
Back to standard programming after the twilight zone.
Ofcom what a bunch of bar stewards
RE: Ofcom Discussion - M-L-L - 20-11-2014 22:18
Post#3328.
I'm guessing the poster is alluding to some kind of irony at David Cameron being happy to be photographed shaking the hands of billionaire Mr Desmond publisher of various porn mags (& I think also owner of Television X ?) and and worst of all .......
owner of Channel 5 ! (until he sold it just very recently)
Mr C is therefore knowingly hobnobbing with Britain's leading purveyor of filth ?
RE: Ofcom Discussion - eccles - 21-11-2014 00:14
(20-11-2014 04:00 )Scottishbloke Wrote: Eccles I'm somewhat confused here, maybe it's me that's missing something here but just what exactly does 2 story's declaring that Britain is back from 2 leading newspapers got to do with ofcom
OK, I didnt spell it out. The event was a big charity do at Grovesnor House, hosted by "the owner of Express Newspapers, Mr Desmond, who is also president of Norwood". Richard Desmond introduced the PM to the stage.
Could you imagine Maggie Thatcher or any other prime minister even being seen in the same room as a well known pornographer, let alone posing for pictures with them and publically praising them? John Major and Paul Raymond? Tony Blair or a minister as David Blunkett or Jack Straw having dinner with David Sullivan? No. Bill Clinton and Larry Flint? No. They would take the view that no amount of charity work would make someone who made their fortune from 20 years of selling hard core porn would be unacceptable to their supporters, no matter how much charity work they did.
Cameron might have chosen his words carefully, calling Desmond "remarkable", whatever that means, but its not impossible that there is a communication channel about porn laws.
But surely Ofcom clamps down on anything arousing, and that's against Desmonds business interests?
It was pointed out in another thread that a law has just been passed making it mandatory for internet porn to have age verification. It only applies to the UK but the clear implication is that foreign based sites will be blocked sooner or later unless they sign up to a UK age verification payment scheme.
All this because some parents kids are out of control.
What that does is to drastically reduce the competition to online UK porn providers and sex shop owners. Yes, Ofcom clampdowns hurt babeshows, but they also raise the bar, making it harder for small independent operators to open new channels, or for other broadcasters to switch over to babeshows, naked news or naked quizzes late at night, and protect the market for other business lines such as online sales and sexshops.
That is of course just speculation and might be totally wrong.
I also have a theory that Desmond is working towards a peerage.
RE: Ofcom Discussion - MARCCE - 22-11-2014 19:50
People can get excited about changes in the head of Ofcom as much as they like but it's stuff like this that's dictating the way Ofcom deal with sexual content.
The various groups who see stuff like that as being "harmful" to kids and "objectifying" women are proving to be very vocal and sadly quite effective it seems.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-30157742
RE: Ofcom Discussion - Lotuseater - 22-11-2014 23:13
We are developing a bizarre, left wing, secular prudery that harks back to the more conservative, religion-inspired prudery of old. Seems the liberal 60s and 70s were an all-too-short golden era.
RE: Ofcom Discussion - eccles - 23-11-2014 03:57
(22-11-2014 19:50 )MARCCE Wrote: People can get excited about changes in the head of Ofcom as much as they like but it's stuff like this that's dictating the way Ofcom deal with sexual content.
The various groups who see stuff like that as being "harmful" to kids and "objectifying" women are proving to be very vocal and sadly quite effective it seems.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-30157742
Supermarkets to hide tabloid front pages because of sexual content concerns
Newspaper front pages have never bothered me, and if these censorious idiots get there way children will reach the age of 18 without having any concept of sex, relationships or the problems that can arise - then get into deep shit.
Children need to know that rapists exist (recent headlines about a )footballer).
Children need to know that child abusers and kidnappers exist (recent high profile headlines about "the Portuguese case" - I doubt the parents would welcome search engines linking to here so I wont mention the name), and alleged murder by 1970s gangs allegedly linked to powerful people).
Children also need to be educated about the other nasty things out there such as religious extremism, racism, Middle East violence, etc, because those can affect them.
Although most newspaper sales are automatic, some are impulse buys, and the habit of buying a newspaper can start out with occasional impulse buys, so this will hit newspaper sales short and long term.
Meanwhile magazines will not be covered up, allowing tinies to see those awful womens mags full of Big Brother trash, celeb boob jobs and breakups, National Enquirer, Tattoo Monthly, Biker News and Fantasy Art.
Not only that, but if they wander down the pharmacy aisle they will see condoms, lube ("whats that for Mum?") and a small selection of vibrators and cock rings.
RE: Ofcom Discussion - gunnar - 23-11-2014 20:20
Supermarkets to hide tabloid front pages because of sexual content concerns
Newspaper front pages have never bothered me, and if these censorious idiots get there way children will reach the age of 18 without having any concept of sex, relationships or the problems that can arise - then get into deep shit.
^^^In the olden days publications displaying adult content would be stored under a shop counter away from 'innocent' eyes and the person wanting to access such content, would have it handed to them by a shopkeeper under cover of what I believe was a brown paper bag. If the sexual puritans have their way this could be future for our humble British tabloids If we're not careful.
RE: Ofcom Discussion - eccles - 24-11-2014 21:33
The Thoughts of Chairman Ed
Regulator has to be involved in politics to function
It would be “delusional” to think the regulator is not involved in political circles
In his dealings with six or seven culture secretaries over the past decade, "not a single one of those ministers has sought to overstep the mark in a way that has troubled me"
Ofcom has a “uniquely low” threshold for review and that “every day of every week” the regulator is defending between three and 10 of its decisions in court
Guardian 19 Nov 2014
Good to know that the Chief Executive of Ofcom does not think the 6 or 7 current and previous Culture Secretaries have not overstepped the mark. Couldnt have them annoying him.
RE: Ofcom Discussion - eccles - 29-11-2014 02:04
Ofcom Dragged Through Courts
Quote:Ofcom taken to court over complaint handling process
Ofcom may be forced to alter its TV complaint handling process after being accused of treating broadcasters more favourably than the public.
The media regulator will be subject of a judicial review at the High Court on 28 November after the way it dealt with complaints around Channel 4 programme Big Fat Gypsy Wedding was criticised.
The Traveller Movement, which is bringing the case on behalf of the traveller and gypsy communities, has accused Ofcom of favouring broadcasters, highlighting its decision to send draft “harm and offence” complaint reports to them, but withholding the documents from the people complaining.
A statement put together by the Movement suggested that this allows the broadcaster to “consider it, comment on it, and potentially change it”. C4 will support Ofcom in the case and will be represented by a Queen’s Counsel.
If the challenge is successful Ofcom may have to change its complaint handling procedure, although the watchdog “stands by its decisions and procedures”.
The Traveller Movement said a victory will put “ordinary people on a level playing field with powerful media broadcasters”.
The case revolves around complaints made by the Traveller Movement concerning C4’s airing of Big Fat Gypsy Weddings and Thelma’s Gypsy Girls. According to the Movement the shows breached the Broadcast Code for “depicting children in a sexualised manner and depicting violent sexual assault of girls and young women as normal” in traveller communities.
Although complaints we “supported by expert evidence of the harm that programmes caused to children”, Ofcom rejected the complaints in November 2013.
“Ordinary people look to Ofcom to protect them and their children from harmful and offensive broadcast,” said David Enright, partner at solicitors Howe & Co, representing the Traveller Movement.
“The case has exposed a very worrying practice whereby Ofcom appears to treat the broadcasters more favourably than the ordinary members of the public that Ofcom is supposed to protect.”
An Ofcom spokesman said: “The case relates to our decision not to find Channel 4 in breach of the Broadcasting Code for the TV series Big Fat Gypsy Weddings and Thelma’s Gypsy Girls. We stand by our decision and procedures and will be defending them in court this week.”
Broadcast Now
RE: Ofcom Discussion - Digital Dave - 29-11-2014 04:50
^^^ Interesting. Although I'm all in favour of Ofcom being hauled through the courts, it seems that the above scenario is the mirror image of what happens with the babe shows. There the broadcasters are totally ignored in favour of the complainant, even though the complaints are usually vexatious and spurious.