+- 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 - Tonywauk - 28-01-2011 09:53
(28-01-2011 01:28 )Scottishbloke Wrote: Let me rephrase this what I meant was that if the government had to make extra cuts wouldn't it be fantastic to see an end to ofcom.
As far as we are concerned yes. But apart from its over-zealous censorship, Ofcom does have a function in its regulation of media ownership and related matters as can be seen currently with the Rupert Murdoch affair. That's a job which has to be done by someone.
RE: Ofcom Discussion - nailpouchofmine - 28-01-2011 11:08
(28-01-2011 09:53 )Tonywauk Wrote:Yes agreed with that,but that is exactly what a quango such as this was supposed to be all about.(28-01-2011 01:28 )Scottishbloke Wrote: Let me rephrase this what I meant was that if the government had to make extra cuts wouldn't it be fantastic to see an end to ofcom.
As far as we are concerned yes. But apart from its over-zealous censorship, Ofcom does have a function in its regulation of media ownership and related matters as can be seen currently with the Rupert Murdoch affair. That's a job which has to be done by someone.
It was not to give a few people the right to take their moralistic veiws and shove them down the rest of the nations throats,hiding behind a cloak of weird rules[probably made by themselves]which make them inaproachable by anyone,and sitting on a high chair that says ,they are always right.
Hows that for democracy
RE: Ofcom Discussion - phil33 - 28-01-2011 11:20
(28-01-2011 07:41 )gazfc Wrote: Just out of curiosity, who used to govern tv etc before ofcom, because the thing I remember about tv when I was growing up was how much stuff was cut out of films.
The ITC (Independent Television Comission) for commercial stations and before that the IBA (Independent Broadcast Authority). The BBC I believe was self-regulating.
At one stage they had the power to pre-censor TV and were capable of stopping programmes being broadcast or censoring them but that was given up to become the 'light touch regulators' they are now.
RE: Ofcom Discussion - Milo - 28-01-2011 12:51
I find it funny that I was flicking through the babe channels the other day and it seemed fairly tame as it has been the last few weeks, I then flicked through the normal TV channels and turned it on CH4 in the middle of something called 'the joy of teen sex' to see some girl flicking through pictures of naked vaginas full on screen.
Why clamp so hard on channels that are unabashedly 'sexy' channels hidden in the 900's but allow shows that pretend to be educational and show far more flesh. Maybe if the babe shows played a boring lecture over the top instead of the music they could claim educational merit and whip it all off.
RE: Ofcom Discussion - killyourself - 29-01-2011 00:43
Apparantly this type of outfit is unacceptable to be broadcast on TV during the daytime.
![[Image: 0emma0210a_(19).jpg]](http://www.imagechunk.com/viewer.php?file=0emma0210a_(19).jpg)
Yet it's OK for TV Chef Gino D'Acampo to cook naked and constantly turn round and show his bare arse on a show broacast between 10am and midday.
![[Image: th_61678_Gino_123_879lo.JPG]](http://img215.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=61678_Gino_123_879lo.JPG)
Funny how anything aimed at men is coruptable material yet when it's aimed at women it's all a bit of harmless fun.
RE: Ofcom Discussion - Scottishbloke - 29-01-2011 00:52
Yes blatant double standards if you ask me but ofcom will not even bater an eyelid with this one despite the fact and real possibility that kids could have sorry did I say could have I meant to say 100% sure of WOULD HAVE been been watching this.
RE: Ofcom Discussion - mrmann - 29-01-2011 01:50
Exactly! Blatant double standards, and the possibility that most of the ofcon members who make these decisions are gay. That might be one reason why they find vaginas to be dangerous well after the watershed, yet penises can be shown on other channels.
This caption is very typical of them. How in any way is a bare ass of a man educational on a morning show?????
I think from now on, the babe channels should show EVERYTHING, and pretend that they are educating us doing it in a humorous way. If they do so, then ofcon does not have a case against them. I also hope that our evidence of double standards is brought to attention, when other babe channels are fined or investigated. They should bring these examples to the table.
RE: Ofcom Discussion - eccles - 29-01-2011 03:18
From what I heard dear sweet Holly didnt know where to look. Im told he took the pinny off and turned round occasionally - the counter hid his manhood from viewers, but could people in the audience see?
Holly and any other female staff would have a cast iron case for sexual harassment, particularly as this was pre-planned and she is only 16
. Beats a non-threatening deorgatory comment about the offside rule, and a throwaway line to someone the other side of the studio that clearly was not going to translate into reality, into a hat.Ofcom have made it clear that nudity for sexual stimulation is not acceptable before 11pm, and then only of clearly labelled adult channels. Dont kid yourself, some women and gays will have derived sexual pleasure from the display, it was sustained (not a flash), long enough to reach a happy ending, and pre-announced.
Lets complain.
Back to cuts. I think Ofcom do have a regulatory role to play, protecting against market abuse and clearly unsuitable content. But if we can see eyeballs being gouged out on unencrypted channels (Horror Channel), why not a harmless normal human activity like looking at naked women, provided its late at night?
Fact is Ofcom are like kids in a sweetshop, engaging in overblown and pointless investigations, consultations, and regulation, while failing in many important areas. Advertising is through the roof. American content is through the roof while UK and EU content is non-existent outside BBC/ITV/C4/Five and Dave. Childrens content is dropping. Regional content is dropping. News, documentaries, educational content, investigative journalism, political content, original drama and humour (apart from low budget panel shows) is decreasing rapidly even on te quality channels.
Looking though Ofcoms Annual Report (sad, I know) there were many areas that should be cut by 25-75%. They even made a fanfare about blocking mention of 2 websites with XXX content: Have they seen the internet? Talk about futility. And lots of international jollies to China, India, Japan and Australia. Ultimately paid for by you, the viewer.
RE: Ofcom Discussion - Tonywauk - 29-01-2011 12:36
Ofcom have made it clear that nudity for sexual stimulation is not acceptable before 11pm, and then only of clearly labelled adult channels.
Let's face it Ofcom are not going to ease up on the Babe shows at all while they are FTA - and I can't in all honesty say that I disagree with their stance. What really annoys me is that adults are not allowed to view more sexually explicit content on encrypted, subscription channels despite that sort of material being perfectly legal on DVD.
If anyone from Ofcom actually deigns to read this humble group then I don't honestly think the bulk of posters, in the threads covering broadcast regulations do our cause any good whatsoever. Eccles is a shining exception, but so many come across as incoherent and inarticulate. Does anyone seriously imagine that a comment such as 'Fuck Off Ofcom' is a debating point likely to impress anyone with half-a-brain? I'm afraid we do ourselves no favours with this sort of idiocy.
RE: Ofcom Discussion - Gold Plated Pension - 29-01-2011 23:37
Article 10: Right to freedom of expression
Article 10 protects your right to freedom of expression. This includes the right to hold and express opinions yourself as well as to receive and impart information and ideas to others.
'Fuck off Ofc@m' could be a good debating topic for the University's of Cambridge or Oxford.
I will say no more and i hope this forum respects everyones opinion.