+- 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 - Rake - 24-01-2016 14:09
^ I agree Block.
The new regime at Ofcom have been far less persecutory as you say. I think there has been some evidence of the channels loosening up the reigns a little on the day shows - at least the outfits are better than the knitting circle gear the babes wore at the height of Ofcom's oppression . There has been a welcome return of the nislip to these shores too - once thought to be extinct, or at least moribund and on the verge of extinction, returning in small numbers. Observers hope that they breed successfully!
However, these are small rays of light in the gloom. Nightshows remain utterly insipid, emasculated affairs that are unwatchable.
RE: Ofcom Discussion - ShandyHand - 03-02-2016 19:06
Ofcom released their latest research on online VoD services yesterday.
This was based on a a survey "conducted via a face-to-face omnibus among 2,121 adults aged 16+. Respondents were screened to ensure that they viewed at least one of the range of relevant on-demand and online content types. The sample size of on-demand and online users was 1,453."
In addition an "online survey of 500 interviews was carried out among 12-15 year olds."
Those surveyed were asked to comment on all VoD material they'd seen online (both regulated and unregulated) because "Ofcom has a duty to advise Government on the need for protection of consumers and citizens in their consumption of audio-visual services, and in particular the need to protect children. Therefore, Ofcom seeks to understand people’s use of, and concerns towards, notified ODPS [on-demand programme services] in the broader context of all on-demand and online audio-visual services in the UK, and has carried out quantitative consumer research for this purpose."
Stats revealed that are relevant to this board:
- "The proportion of UK adults claiming to have seen something of concern on an online or on-demand service remains stable at just over one in ten (12%)"
Ofcom adds that, "there are higher levels of concern among the younger age groups. The level of concern among all adults is relatively low." They continue, "a quarter of teens (28%) have been concerned by content they have seen on demand or online. This represents a significant increase since 2014, when the level of concern was 16%." (The 'concern amongst adults' figure for 2015 is not specified exactly as a whole, as far as I can see, but looks around 11% from other figures given.)
- This year's top concerns among adults are given as "violence (50%), welfare of children/young people (32%), bullying/victimising (31%), racism (30%), discrimination (29%), bad language (28%), and pornography (24%).
Yes, Pornography and "sexually explicit content" are somewhat confusingly listed separately in the VoD "concerned" rankings. The former's figures are conversely up (22% to 26% amongst parents and 14% to 22% amongst non-parents).
- Amongst parents the overall top rankers are: "violence (54%), the welfare of children/young people (36%) and bullying/victimisation (37%)
Ofcom highlight that "These concerns largely reflect the same concerns people have regarding broadcast content: bad language (44%), exposure to violent content (41%), sexually explicit material (41%), and discrimination (23%). However, bullying is a specific online concern that appears to be on the increase." (Although they later specify that VoD "concerns among parents regarding sexually explicit content have fallen from 33% in 2014 to 19% in 2015." So that would seem outside of their "largely" comment then!)
- "Things of a sexual nature" scored 19% amongst those teens that expressed concern about VoD content they had seen online. "Seeing things that are too old for me" scored 18% from the same group. (These two things concerned this group roughly as much as "Trolling" [19%]. By comparison "Bullying/victimising" was top with 42%.)
Of course the helpuly vague concerns about "welfare of children/young people" have already been selected for quoting to the press by Ofcom's spokesperson. This, as ever, will be their hat to hang any number of things on no doubt.
RE: Ofcom Discussion - IvIaxed Stats 76 - 14-02-2016 18:17
R country is so boring
Perfectly replicated by our BABE channels
*****
I blame all the rules under the current regime
We had the pad house babe office babe ect
I know who I'll be still voting for next time again and it ain't the ones now ?
But for now to be honest these shows are poor at best with a very rare exception
All work an no play ....
RE: Ofcom Discussion - derekdas - 16-02-2016 19:19
On BBC breakfast news this morning there was a woman representative from a government quango saying they were continuing to explore ways to make it more difficult for under aged teenagers to enter porn sites. Mainly by having to have credit card details to do so, ( already talked about in the past ). As pointed out to her by the interviewer, these sites operate all over the world and the majority of them will not conform and how will they then be able to stop them looking at them. Only getting a few sites to sign up ( probably close to our shores ) would not solve the problem. As the majority of porn watched by the under aged I believe to be on a phone or tablet,make the provider tell the parents it's their responsibility to make sure their child does not enter such sites by way of them signing an agreement as such.
Which leads me to the question of the similar problem, supposedly, on tv, with our babe shows being highly censored, because an underage person could enter the programs accidentally or on purpose, as is in most cases. Why doesn't the parent put the child lock on and install a pin number for access if they are all afraid their little Johnie might see something naughty and let us hot bloodied, overage persons look at something worthwhile for a change Without these draconian rules set by Ofcom.
RE: Ofcom Discussion - mrmann - 16-02-2016 21:33
^ This is so funny to me, because there's so much online that you don't need a credit card for lol. Just type pussy ass tit fuck etc into Google, and click images and presto
RE: Ofcom Discussion - hatessexistofcon - 16-02-2016 23:42
(16-02-2016 21:33 )mrmann Wrote: ^ This is so funny to me, because there's so much online that you don't need a credit card for lol. Just type pussy ass tit fuck etc into Google, and click images and presto
I know what you mean but for me I have been fighting for female genitals to be shown on tv like males are since 1996. Its about pushing ofcom etc into answers about uk censorship and their problem with female nudity.
Yes we can get this online now but back then it was very serious sexist problem and then ofcom strolled in and allowed erections on tv but STILL female labia/clits still blurred out in the same programme prolonged close male genitals shown.
Any fanny slip on babestation out come 250,000 quid fines yet all the channels rule break and just get a telling off,,so are ofcom there purely to punish babestation?
RE: Ofcom Discussion - mrmann - 16-02-2016 23:45
^ I agree entirely!
It's ridiculous that the women have to be overly censored as they are.
RE: Ofcom Discussion - ShandyHand - 20-02-2016 20:05
^ The babe show operators might not be unhappy enough with Ofcom's decisions to take them to court but plenty of others do:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/02/12/ofcom_10m_defending_against_legal_threats/
£5 mil a year on lawyer fees! Good to know where our taxes go I always think.
RE: Ofcom Discussion - IvIaxed Stats 76 - 27-02-2016 06:28
To be honest I read a few above posts
How can seeing the babes on TV setting cameras for online visuals be allowed
I personally think it's disgusting
A.the people making the show clearly have no respect for their staff for getting them to do it but also them doing it knowing how bad the shows r for the TV audience either not being seen covered in on-screen graphics telephone numbers or just completely covered with the big controller full screen graphics when it's suppose to be a TV show not internet porn
B.absolutely pointless having shows with babes who aren't allowed to show more than a shin on television
RE: Ofcom Discussion - ShandyHand - 29-02-2016 18:30
^ Another name from the past moves on from Ofcom:
http://radiotoday.co.uk/2016/02/radio-group-chair-peter-davies-exits-ofcom/
Davies had many jobs at the regulator being promoted by them every couple of years or so. (He's been Head of Market Intelligence; Head of Radio Review Board; Director of Radio and Multimedia; Director of Radio Content and Broadcast Licensing; and finally Director of Content Policy, which includes overseeing TV content, from ca.2011).
His time at Ofcom was not without controversy. For instance in 2007 his impartiality was called into question for being 'wined and dined' by a commercial broadcaster the month before the broadcaster was awarded a licence by Ofcom. (The regulator conducted a "discreet internal investigation" and took Davis word that his attendance at the diner in question was an "honest mistake" and "had not affected the subsequent award process": http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/migrationtemp/2806674/Ofcom-execs-wined-and-dined.html.)
As far the here and now, if the consensus view is that the White regime at Ofcom represents a somewhat less censorial view of the babe channels than the previous one, the continued erasure of remnants of the Ed Richards era can only be a good thing surely.
---
A more minor point this one:
A good while ago I remember having a little discussion, shall we say, on this forum... I had made a half-serious comment that, on occasion, an operator might think it best to, erm, "not find" (
) their regulatory recording of a particular event for presentation to Ofcom in the case of an investigation. This would not happen I was told as it would not work out beneficial to the operator... Well, I think, this story is perhaps indicative of how Ofcom can sometimes treat this type of breach:http://www.media247.co.uk/bizasia/1-ummah-fm-lands-in-trouble-with-ofcom-2016
Now of course I'm sure Ofcom treat all breaches of their rules on a case by case basis but the above does show that Ofcom gave the operator in question a second chance to find a recording (from a different date) before declaring that they were "considering these breaches for the imposition of a statutory sanction."