+- 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 - ShandyHand - 19-01-2017 21:26
^ This story about the cams has been doing the rounds since at least early August (at the time I saw it it was ascribed on the 66 chatbox to something Cara S had said). IIRC I posted about it in another thread at the time.
It's a possibilty that it has been a factor in the lessening of general obvious playing to the webcam during the day in the intervening period.
As for Ofcom's 'protection of the children' defence, I have said before that this is IMO something a lot of official bodies have picked up on as a way to help enforce their particular (religiously motivated?) moralistic stance on society - as it is very difficult to counter without looking like a heel! Of course I am not saying that every time we hear this argument we should be deeply suspicious of the motives behind it (sometimes the argument is a perfectly valid one) but merely that we should ask two things on each occasion:
1.Is the censorship being proclaimed porportional when measured against the harm ascribed to the thing being censored? (Is it a sledgehammer to crack a nut in other words.)
2. What is the imperical evidence that the harm being ascribed is an actual one (and how does the realistic possibilty of it occuring weigh-up)? The academic evidence in support of such things is often highly contested.
RE: Ofcom Discussion - ShandyHand - 20-01-2017 21:23
The Guardian seems to be hot on Ofcom's trail at the moment (we really need an applauding emoji on this board!
)They have Bill Emmott advancing his claim for compensation (on being pushed out of Ofcom) to a judicial review: https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/jan/19/ex-ofcom-board-member-seeks-judicial-review-over-sacking
(Baroness Sheila Noakes, mentioned at the bottom of the article, is Ofcom's deputy chair. Emmott is refering to her own impartiality scandal at the start of 2015; something that had Labour's Harriet Harmon calling her a "Tory stooge": https://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/jan/28/ofcoms-deputy-chair-lady-noakes-bias-against-labour-harriet-harman ... Noakes' four year term with Ofcom is due to end around the same time as Patricia Hogson's in June 2018.)
There's further juicy back-story on the Emmott saga here: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/01/20/fired_ofcom_board_member_sues_government_for_refusing_payoff/
...including the gossipy bon mot of White critising the guy's appointment to his face!
(16-01-2017 21:34 )MR PERFECT Wrote: ...
It wouldn't surprise me if ofcom and the channels are working together.
^ This is putting things a little strongly for me. Surely we have seen too many examples of Ofcom harassing the channels for this to be a truly representative statement in this case? However, you are not alone in alleging that Ofcom is capable of such a thing... This next piece from opendemocracy even has a name for it - "regulatory capture"!
OD are contending that Ofcom is colluding with the TV and radio industries to block the release of the more damaging diversity figures: https://www.opendemocracy.net/ourbeeb/simon-albury/employment-diversity-has-ofcom-been-nobbled-by-tv-industry
RE: Ofcom Discussion - MR PERFECT - 20-01-2017 21:50
(20-01-2017 21:23 )ShandyHand Wrote: The Guardian seems to be hot on Ofcom's trail at the moment (we really need an applauding emoji on this board!
They have Bill Emmott advancing his claim for compensation (on being pushed out of Ofcom) to a judicial review: https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/jan/19/ex-ofcom-board-member-seeks-judicial-review-over-sacking
(Baroness Sheila Noakes, mentioned at the bottom of the article, is Ofcom's deputy chair. Emmott is refering to her own impartiality scandal at the start of 2015; something that had Labour's Harriet Harmon calling her a "Tory stooge": https://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/jan/28/ofcoms-deputy-chair-lady-noakes-bias-against-labour-harriet-harman ... Noakes' four year term with Ofcom is due to end around the same time as Patricia Hogson's in June 2018.)
There's further juicy back-story on the Emmott saga here: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/01/20/fired_ofcom_board_member_sues_government_for_refusing_payoff/
...including the gossipy bon mot of White critising the guy's appointment to his face!
(16-01-2017 21:34 )MR PERFECT Wrote: ...
It wouldn't surprise me if ofcom and the channels are working together.
^ This is putting things a little strongly for me. Surely we have seen too many examples of Ofcom harassing the channels for this to be a truly representative statement in this case? However, you are not alone in alleging that Ofcom is capable of such a thing... This next piece from opendemocracy even has a name for it - "regulatory capture"!
OD are contending that Ofcom is colluding with the TV and radio industries to block the release of the more damaging diversity figures: https://www.opendemocracy.net/ourbeeb/simon-albury/employment-diversity-has-ofcom-been-nobbled-by-tv-industry
I stand over my assumption that ofcom and the channels are on the same team now. I agree this was not always the case but it is now.
RE: Ofcom Discussion - Dave_A - 24-01-2017 16:51
Ofcom's latest broadcast bulletin came out yesterday, iv'e just had a quick browse through it and haven't yet gone through it all, so might have missed some stuff concerning the babe channels.
Anyway one thing i have noticed is that Ofcom have launched a new investigation into something that was broadcast on the Studio 66 morning show on the 14/11/2016 .
It was on one of the Television X channels, Ofcom have named Television X has the broadcaster .
https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0033/96873/Issue-321.pdf
RE: Ofcom Discussion - MR PERFECT - 24-01-2017 17:24
(24-01-2017 16:51 )Dave_A Wrote: Ofcom's latest broadcast bulletin came out yesterday, iv'e just had a quick browse through it and haven't yet gone through it all, so might have missed some stuff concerning the babe channels.
Anyway one thing i have noticed is that Ofcom have launched a new investigation into something that was broadcast on the Studio 66 morning show on the 14/11/2016 .
It was on one of the Television X channels, Ofcom have named Television X has the broadcaster .
.https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0033/96873/Issue-321.pdf
S66 doing something interesting?
RE: Ofcom Discussion - HEX!T - 24-01-2017 17:35
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/sex-phone-in-babestation-x-rated-phone-calls-in-tv-channel-westport-county-mayo-landline-republic-a7542821.html
oops lol...
RE: Ofcom Discussion - donnafan913 - 24-01-2017 19:09
wonder who was on ?
(24-01-2017 17:24 )MR PERFECT Wrote:(24-01-2017 16:51 )Dave_A Wrote: Ofcom's latest broadcast bulletin came out yesterday, iv'e just had a quick browse through it and haven't yet gone through it all, so might have missed some stuff concerning the babe channels.
Anyway one thing i have noticed is that Ofcom have launched a new investigation into something that was broadcast on the Studio 66 morning show on the 14/11/2016 .
It was on one of the Television X channels, Ofcom have named Television X has the broadcaster .
.https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0033/96873/Issue-321.pdf
S66 doing something interesting?
RE: Ofcom Discussion - ShandyHand - 01-02-2017 09:41
(15-01-2017 19:06 )shankey! Wrote: not often i post here but i cant see what difference ofcom decides to do with the babe channels on tv now that perv cam is here, even if censorship was blown out the window the likes of babestation would not show the goods without charging for it first
Can of worms!
... This goes directly to why I post in this section so you'll have to bear with me on this one... 
Of course; this^ argument has been made many times (perhaps most thoroughly here) but IMO, although well-observed, it only takes us so far with the issue. For me, it neglects to accomodate one very important influence on the shows: Competition... Competition in business is the often a major driving force for change.
Consider that the channels have found their way to their current state through this relatively bland vacuousness of the 900s - a situation created and maintained by Ofcom. Over time the regulator's rules and the remaining channels' ongoing tactics have limited the influence of competition in the Adult Section to what is currently a very closed cartel. It is the fewer operators the better as far as the survivors are concerned.
In other words, the channels don't exist in a vacuum and they have taken advantage of the vastly limited "adult" options on UK TV in order to do what they do.
So yes, like you, I believe that the resolute self-censorship of visuals that we see atm is a commercial decision founded in the on-going circumstances that I describe. For me though, this is response dictated by their situation not an absolute. Change the circumstances that surround the shows in the right way and a natural creep towards somewhat harder content would return. The end of Ofcom would be a particularly large change in circumstance for the channels.
If this meant a deregulation of the 900s (or whatever they became) the influence of competition would, I think, be particularly acute. Different, but similarly targeted, incoming business models (presumably various levels of porn programming with the larger brands offering fta channels promoting their paywalled content) would almost inevitably impact on the 900's status quo. Crucially these other options would only be a click or two away on your average punter's remote. The industry would have to respond to this in some way in order to not look out of place.
In addition, freed from the burden of existing overly censorious regulation, internal competition between the operators would also begin to exert it's own pull on visual content once more. The carefully contrived balance of appealing to various niche fetishes and playing on the edge of viewers' sexual frustrations would be upset. The industry game would have changed once again - just as it did with the arrival of Ofcom's teeth.
You see, as things stand Ofcom acts as the ultimate limiter for the shows. It is Ofcom that keeps the current detente, stopping any one operator from stepping away from the standard tactics adopted by the industry and looking to grab some perceived advantage over their competitors by doing so. Their regulation is an industry pacifier... As such, it's surely a very different matter for a channel to maintain a largely consistent internal visual compliance whilst there is such a firm regulatory backstop, than it would be for them to do so were there to be none at all (or far less of one)...
Now I'm not saying that any operator would attempt an all out free-for-all pussy show post-deregulation - that would, quite obviously, be counter-productive from the channel's pov. No doubt full-on pussy play would, like nowadays, be reserved for a paywall of some sort (the pervcams on a PPV 'red' button anyone?!
). But, basically, it's a question of degrees with the visuals isn't it. I just think, a lot more would be up for grabs again without the absolute shackles placed on them by Ofcom. Let's not forget that Ofcom block more than just body parts. The sort of stronger fta visuals that I'm imagining are actually more to do with performance, intensity, duration and/or positioning of camera angles than content per se. For me, this is the 'heat' that the removal of a stifling Ofcom would likely bring back to the shows (it is not all about pure skin is it).
I've already gone on far too long on this, so one simple example of where I going here will have to suffice:
Current regulatory rules forbid "intrusive and prolonged" crotch shots on the night shows right. They are reining in intensity here not just pure image. Now imagine a highly pressurised 900's with BS, to use your example, surrounded by semi-hardcore ad driven tease or some such (who knows what kind of alternative interactive competition might crop up for instance) featuring just this kind of imagery, and a re-stoked industry competition between the now unregulated shows bubbling in the background... Can you really envisage that BS would be able to stick to a non-prolonged crotch shots policy in their shows for any considerable period under such circumstances? No, I somehow don't see that as realistic; a different balance of visuals would need to be struck between the pay and fta platforms I feel.
I'm sure we could all come up with various similar examples of probable heat intensifiers too.
...When all is said and done, something of the sort has happened a couple of times before on the channels - during the shows' first decade on air (years of greater competition note). Look how the standard visuals fluxed during that period of uncertainty. Things might prove different this time around of course, as it may be that circumstances have changed for the operators in ways that we are not privy to but, aside from some seemingly unlikely radical rethink by Ofcom, it is sure as hell only via the regulator's demise that we will ever find out!
So, fwiw, that's how I rationalise this thread... Ofcom limit what the channels can do; but just because the channels are most happy to play along with that doesn't make it inevitable that that's all there will ever be. It maybe a distant and theoretical prospect atm... but then the ITC probably thought they'd be around forever too!
RE: Ofcom Discussion - munch1917 - 01-02-2017 15:38
^^ I won't even attempt to respond to that
but I will just address the issue you quote from shankey! regarding pervcam.This issue came about from the revelation that S66 had been slapped on the wrist for showing the cam on screen. What's interesting is why they were slapped on the wrist for this. There are plenty of regulations about what can and can't be shown, or said, or acted out on screen, and when these things are permitted and when they aren't etc, but I haven't seen any regulation that states things like web cams can't be shown on screen.
My only thought on this is that perhaps Ofcom are using the regulation about not advertising explicit websites. Are they suggesting that the web cam itself constitutes an advertisement because its presence on screen will lead the viewer to look for the website it is attached to. That seems quite a stretch even for Ofcom's famously vague and open-ended interpretations. Or are we perhaps being slightly misinformed, and is this slap more to do with pervcam being mentioned on screen rather than being visible?
Be interested to know if anyone has any further info on this.
RE: Ofcom Discussion - shankey! - 01-02-2017 16:44
i think ill keep my gob shut in future , whew !!!
