+- 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 - 03-12-2014 00:54
The Daily Telegraph had a similar article. I wont bore you by cutting and pasting it here as Dave has provided a good summary, but it is interesting that they found it newsworthy. Reported in a very balanced nonjudgemental way, but that's not surprising for a quality paper. Link here Telegraph
If the writeup is correct the list is not written into law. Instead video on demand must comply with BBFC R18 rules, and the BBFC can change those, depending on its interpretation of the Obscene Publications Act - and any landmark legal cases it loses.
Interesting thought right at the end
Quote:DCMS also noted that small businesses might be particularly hard hit by the new rules.
"There are a number of small and medium sized firms among the UK-based suppliers of R18 content which may be affected by this measure," noted a report.
Perhaps far more important is the justification given, though that could just be the Telegraphs interpretation:
Quote:The new rules were brought in after the Department for Culture, Media and Sport decided that the laws relating to DVDs and online paid-for video porn were inconsistent.
DVDs are regulated by the BBFC, while online porn is regulated by the Authority for Television On Demand (ATVOD) and Ofcom.
With the rise of VOD, the DCMS concluded that under 18s would be able to access R18 content.
All of a sudden consistency is important. Hmm.
RE: Ofcom Discussion - gunnar - 03-12-2014 01:11
(02-12-2014 22:05 )Lotuseater Wrote: This is a very sinister development in my view, and the thin end of a wedge. We are sleepwalking into a secular sexual repression. Where is the cherished freedom that adults once had to enjoy sexual proclivities without fear of the State intervening and criminalising us?
I am fast wishing to live in another country, but where?
If allowed to get away with it, i'm afraid this will only be the start. This sort of censorship will extend into other areas.
The double standards of these fuckers is breathtaking, it will be an example of do as I say not as I do.
Will London have it's name changed to something befitting an era of close mindedness, something like ' New Victoria' maybe.
RE: Ofcom Discussion - eccles - 03-12-2014 01:14
While on the subject, interesting comment from former Labour Home Secretary Jacqui Smith (the one who accidentally claimed Parliamentary expenses for 2 porn films her husband watched on subscription tv):
"does porn damage those who watch it? People use porn because it's enjoyable. Couples sometimes use it together. Men aren't turned into monsters by watching a bit of pay TV!"
It is in an article in the Independent dated 2 March 2011 where she describes her experiences of attending the Erotica Fair at Olympia in Nov 2010 for a radio documentary. She isnt totally uncritical, and discusses the risks of over use (same as alcohol, gambling, chocolate, cigarettes or coffee perhaps?) but it is a million miles away from the sort of hard hitting no nonsense condemnation that you might expect from a former Home Secretary, and a woman too.
Perhaps being a woman she feels safe to make vaguely favourable comments without being labelled a perv and becoming unemployable.
RE: Ofcom Discussion - munch1917 - 03-12-2014 05:50
(03-12-2014 00:54 )eccles Wrote: ...
Perhaps far more important is the justification given, though that could just be the Telegraphs interpretation:
Quote:The new rules were brought in after the Department for Culture, Media and Sport decided that the laws relating to DVDs and online paid-for video porn were inconsistent.
DVDs are regulated by the BBFC, while online porn is regulated by the Authority for Television On Demand (ATVOD) and Ofcom.
With the rise of VOD, the DCMS concluded that under 18s would be able to access R18 content.
All of a sudden consistency is important. Hmm.
Interesting thought, and I guess there's a certain logic in that, although of course these rules only apply to UK content, and only that small proportion that is ATVOD regulated.
For fear of becoming overly political about this, I can't help wondering if this is the tip of a sinister iceberg.
The UK is already a world leader in censoring the net by blocking websites at ISP level. This has thus far concentrated mainly on sites pirating content such as music and video. Just last week another long list of such sites were ordered to be blocked. This has become so routine that the isp's no longer even contest these rulings.
So isp-level site blocking has become accepted as the norm, whats the next easy target? How about so called 'extreme' porn. No-one in their right mind will go out on a limb to defend the right of access to such stuff surely, so it can easily be attacked with minimal protest.
Once that is done, what next? How about bemoaning the fact that such material is still readily available from foreign sites which are beyond UK control. How to get around that? How about applying the same pirate blocking techniques to those sites hosting content that wouldn't be allowed in the UK.
A few steps further down the line, and such blocking can be applied to all manner of sites that our authorities deem 'unsuitable' for us poor folk to see, and its too late for us to do much about it. Before we know it, we could be worse off than the likes of China.
That may be far-fetched, but who knows! The powers that be have already tried to use the excesses of the media in the phone hacking scandals etc to try to 'control' media output and limit the freedom of the press (a few rogue journos bugged some peoples phones, whilst GCHQ, according to the Snowden leaks has been bugging pretty much EVERYONE), obviously the internet is an even more open, and therefore more threatening outlet.
RE: Ofcom Discussion - SCIROCCO - 03-12-2014 07:50
OFCON are seemingly trying to prevent people watching what they choose to watch....blatant state censorship. Porn has been around for thousands of years...cave painting, Roman, Greek and Japanese art particularly vases and plates showing all sorts of sexual actions..only yesterday my female colleague was talking openly about what she watches to turn her and her husband (who is a staunch Catholic and Police Sergeant..) on before they have sex. They are a happily married couple with 2 children...not the stereotypical dirty mac "ooohhh matron some tits" brigade. When will OFCON realise people watch porn because they enjoy it?
RE: Ofcom Discussion - Scottishbloke - 03-12-2014 19:37
I thought I'd just mention that Ofcom have appointed Steve Unger to take over as Interim Chief Executive when ED leaves at the end of the year until a permanent replacement is made. If nobody knows just who the fuck he is then this is what he looks like.
![[Image: ofcom.jpg]](http://s19.postimg.cc/w6ucbhaqb/ofcom.jpg)
Lets hope he likes Babestation
Full article - http://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/nov/19/ofcom-appoints-steve-unger-interim-chief-executive
RE: Ofcom Discussion - Snooks - 03-12-2014 22:34
(03-12-2014 19:37 )Scottishbloke Wrote: Lets hope he likes Babestation
Especially BS1
.And hopefully he is an old friend of cwpussylover
RE: Ofcom Discussion - continental19 - 04-12-2014 21:11
Well folks the end is nigh for one of the most hated men in the UK yep it's are arched nemesis Ed Richards
and while he's starting to clear out his office, we wonder what the interim appointed executive Steve Unger will be bring to the party! I haven't a clue who this guy is or what he's like,lets just hope he has an open mind towards our babe channels.In my opinion i reckon if we are going to see any changes i think we will notice them either january of febuary next yr, in other words i think it'll be pretty quick.
Let's give the new recruit the benefit of the doubt, time inevitably will tell how the babe channels will go, lets hope for the better and not the worse!
So its so long farewell to a man who had a major problem with the naked female form, Ed you won't be missed!
RE: Ofcom Discussion - gunnar - 04-12-2014 22:49
^'Mister Ed', the fucktard who is leaving Ofcom, could give Oliver Cromwell a run for his money with his puritanical viewpoints. Good riddance I say, to bad rubbish.
RE: Ofcom Discussion - Snooks - 05-12-2014 17:49
Lets hope Steve has an Unger for naked ladies doing hand thong
.*snookered retires to the corner to rebuke himself
.