+- 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 (/showthread.php?tid=2776)
RE: Ofcom - Dreamlander - 13-01-2009 20:50
BarrieBF Wrote:Dreamlander Wrote:I am not saying that this is the entire answer but if Sky suddenly got a moral conscience and PIN protected all 900 channels 24/7 then the adult channels would have a real problem on their hands and you would finally know who imposes the censorship.
The 900 channels are blocked already for anyone who chooses to do so.
Yeh I appreciate that,but if Sky wanted moral brownie points they could take away this option like they have for the movie channels. I suppose there would then be an assumption that the carrier is responsible for the output of all its broadcasters and I don't think Sky would want that.It's happy to take the 900+ channels money but doesn't want to be seen as the provider of pornographic entertainment. It's a tough one!
Dreamlander
RE: Ofcom - altoworks - 05-05-2009 23:08
People who send complaints to Ofcom are cunts. Ruining our fun. Get a fucking real hobby... like watching porn... like me.
RE: Ofcom - firekind - 05-05-2009 23:50
altoworks Wrote:People who send complaints to Ofcom are cunts. Ruining our fun. Get a fucking real hobby... like watching porn... like me.
i used to think like that till playboy started taking the piss. we all agree that offcon is a worthless entity. they actually get very few complaints normally.
my idea would be to start complaining about every slightest thing on telly. from adverts and the amount of boozing/violence in soaps to the babe channels. just pick a channel you dont like and say you saw a girls pussy and were shocked and disgusted. make it up and its their job to find this out. they will fine a channel that has done nothing wrong and that channel wont stand for it (i would hope). offcons whole existance would be questioned before too long.
RE: Ofcom - Mister Gummidge - 06-05-2009 00:55
I don't think the problem lies with Ofcom themselves, it lies with the people who appoint them. While the companies who broadcast on television do need regulated and brought into line when they behave out of turn, expecting people to make rulings based on entirely spurious notions of taste and decency is completely ludicrous. There are people in this world who think that Michaelangelo's David is unfit for public viewing, for crying out loud! One man's pornography is another man's art.
The ruling against Playboy One cited a "Lack of editorial content". While scripted programming, starring professional actors reciting written dialogue in a plot contextual manner can be said to be lacking in "editorial content" the problems will remain. This stems not from Ofcom themselves, who are merely the tools of the system that appoints them, but from politicians too busy grandstanding for the "moral majority" to take a look at how this country's long history of sexual repression is damaging the psyche of the collective conciousness. We have the least instructive sex education system in Europe, the most restrictive laws regarding the broadcasting and distribution of sexual entertainment and also, the highest rates of teenaged pregnancy and sexually transmitted disease. Surely these statistics are linked? However certain politicians are too busy gerrymandering votes from sexually repressed ninnies to address the real problem. It's far easier to attack the quiet pleasures of a silent group, than to attempt to fix the problems facing the millions growing up in the repressive system.
-EDIT- Blimey, that was serious! Sorry
RE: Ofcom - DOCTOR JOHN - 06-05-2009 03:31
Ofcom is your today's answer to Mrs Mary Whitehouse, I have never liked her for attacking fun TV shows.
RE: Ofcom - Matsui - 19-05-2009 21:49
I liked Charlie Brooker’s idea about having a counter complaint system so people can e-mail/ring in to support a show.
So for every person who was offended by a programme and complained you would get some one who was not offended and counter that complaint.
I can see it now, 10 miserable prudish gits ring in to complain to Ofcom about the boobies on Channel 33, then 110 people ring in to counter that and kill the argument right there. lol.
RE: Ofcom - DanVox - 19-05-2009 23:52
Back when it started, OfCom ran a biassed survey, just about swearing and sex. Despite the survey group finding some swearing very offensive, we still get to hear it late at night. The same survey group found sex on MAINSTREAM channels more offensive than on dediced sex channels, because they were more likely to see it, particularly by accident. And even then they found it LESS offensive than swearing.
So guess what we get on late night TV ?
RE: Ofcom - DOCTOR JOHN - 20-05-2009 00:10
This is bloody heaven compared to what we used to have in the eighties when we had only >four channels< practically there was bugger all on them until sky/BSB came along, then when channel 5 came along with it's late night erotica for those who do remember like me I got so pissed off when they pulled the plug on the softcore stuff Shannon tweed ect ect.
now we have the monopoly of what we can view or don't want to, just leave the babe channels on where they should be there's no harm in that.
RE: Ofcom - vostok 1 - 20-05-2009 01:17
Matsui Wrote:I liked Charlie Brooker’s idea about having a counter complaint system so people can e-mail/ring in to support a show.
Lets get TV bangin' and screw the OFCOM mud-the-far- cuss.
RE: Ofcom - Da Mastah - 20-05-2009 01:43
The Master Says This...
Say it like you mean it, bitches!