+- 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 - 01-06-2011 23:03
Bit grumpy today arent we? Sounds more like one of my rants, but with more facts.
Interesting to read the final paragraph of the Statutory Code of Practice for Regulators
Quote:9.7 Complaints procedures should include a final stage to an independent, external, person. Where there is a relevant Ombudsman or Tribunal with powers to decide on matters in this Code, the final stage should allow referral to that body. However, where no such person exists, a regulator should, in consultation with interested parties, provide for further complaint or appeal to another independent person, for example, an independent professional body.
By contrast the "Review of procedures for handling broadcasting complaints, cases and sanctions" published today says that Sanctions decisions relating to program content will normally be taken by "Ofcom’s Director of Standards and the Group Director of Ofcom’s Content, International and Regulatory Development Group ... together with a Non-Executive member of Ofcom’s Content Board" (2.90) and makes no mention of conflict of intenterst if they were involved at an earlier stage. This is apparently a "fair" process. Ofcom dismisses the suggestion that Sanctions should be "dealt with by a panel of at least three Ofcom officers who are different (and preferably more senior) to the Ofcom officer(s) who dealt with the original (breach) complaint (or investigation)." (2.92).
The word "efficient" is used quite a bit, "impartial" does not appear once despite being a legal requirement.
RE: Ofcom Discussion - StanTheMan - 03-06-2011 00:53
(30-05-2011 22:06 )tonkpils Wrote:(29-05-2011 23:16 )StanTheMan Wrote:(29-05-2011 21:44 )tonkpils Wrote: btw, the latest night show before midnight are as hot as evelyn's shows on the pad a year ago... almost...
I'm confused. Which Evelyn shows are you referring to, tonkpils. I don't recall anything on the pad ever being as explicit as the European babeshows.
http://www.babeshows.co.uk/showthread.php?tid=21230&page=11
the months of july and august were very nice for Evelyn's fans... she was doing her best on the pad.
if you see today, the girls before midnight are wearing what she was wearing during dayshows... and are barely showing nude...
Thanks, Tonkpils, but I understood the poster I quoted was referring to some overtly explicit nightshows I'd managed to miss. Didn't realise he meant the dayshows.
RE: What exactly are the ofcom rules and regs? - eccles - 03-06-2011 02:45
(01-06-2011 02:11 )HypnoToad Wrote: I only ask as there does seem to be quite a bit of hostility towards ofcom on here, so is there a place where I can check out what exactly the rules/guidelines that these channels have to stick to in order to see exactly what all the fuss is about?
Thanks.
I suppose you are right, every now and again a poster is a little negative about the regulator. Cant think why. Excellent reply from GPP by the way, particularly the staggeringly long list of guidance letters.
Trouble is the rules are so vague as to be incomprensible. Broadcasters must not breach generally accepted standards. Thats about it. But what are those standards? If you are Frankie Boyle or Charlie Booker you can be as offensive as you like at 10pm. Films can show decapitations, gouged eyeballs and genital torture, because that is drama. Boxing and wrestling can show real violence which occasionally results in death. Female boxing is allowed. Adolescent cartoon South Park can say "M**********r" at 9:01pm. But full frontal nudity, even for 2 seconds, or mining masturbation at 3am is apparently an offence against decency.
Ofcom has commissioned 2 Standards studies, both came back with vague information that does not provide hard and fast guidelines. Both measure opinions, but fail to define and acceptable standard.
Ofcom also singles out adult channels for special monitoring and will take them to full investigation while being lenient with other channels. Which is the most complained about channel? The BBC. Which channel broadcasts the F word during the day time to millions of viewers several times a year? The BBC. Which channel hardly ever proceeds to a full hearing, and often has cases against it "Resolved" despite technically breaking the rules? The BBC. Its dual standards and it didnt used to be like this.
RE: Ofcom Discussion - Scottishbloke - 03-06-2011 03:53
Without a doubt ofcom are failing miserably in their duties, on the bonus I am a massive fan of South Park but the bottom line is the UK or any other country for that matter doesn't need a regulator, just use plain bloody commonsense on anything that is aired, as far as the watershed goes, the babe channels should be immune to this because they can be blocked permanently 24 hours a day and as for the other channels goes anything that is broadcast before the watershed that is of adult material should be pin protected, it's as easy as that, ofcom have and allways will continue to look for problems when in reality their never has been, ofcom should be abolished, nothing but a complete and utter waste of fucking tax payers money, this country isn't a democracy for nothing, as far as the adult channels having any influence on any future demise of censorship and ofcom I think the challenge most likely will come from elsewhere, unfortunately a lot of people in this country still consider these channels as sleazy so the best we can hope for is for ofcom to be disbanded without the sole purpose of it being for hardcore porn to be shown, this unfortunately is the most likely scenario, if the babe channels were going to take a stand to them they would have by now, but I sense it's just going to be a waiting game for as far as the immediate future goes. The challenge will inevitably come from elsewhere.
RE: Ofcom Discussion - modster - 03-06-2011 05:46
Personally if I walked in to my 13 year old lad bashing his man meat to day babes, I'd say get in there son.... At least your not gay !
RE: What exactly are the ofcom rules and regs? - StanTheMan - 03-06-2011 17:56
(03-06-2011 02:45 )eccles Wrote:(01-06-2011 02:11 )HypnoToad Wrote: I only ask as there does seem to be quite a bit of hostility towards ofcom on here, so is there a place where I can check out what exactly the rules/guidelines that these channels have to stick to in order to see exactly what all the fuss is about?
Thanks.
I suppose you are right, every now and again a poster is a little negative about the regulator. Cant think why.
Whoever it was that said sarcasm is the 'lowest form of wit' obviously had no sense of humour!
RE: Ofcom Discussion - eccles - 03-06-2011 20:58
Finally, after 5 years Ive got it. The babes should get really close to naming people in super injunctions. Even better some of women involved (but not protected) should appear on screen and say how unfair it is that they have been shagged over and cant name their former boyfriend. Give it a few weeks and Lib Dem MPs will be standing up Parliament and condemming Ofcom. Pity I didnt think of this a month ago.
RE: Ofcom Discussion - eccles - 03-06-2011 21:13
Talk about coincidence. As I clicked Submit on the last post Ant (or Dec) mentioned Imogen Thomas. Just the name I was looking for. Among others.
Easily the most offensive thing I have seen in the past month was on Have I Got News For You at 9:27 this evening. In the caption section they flashed up a photograph of 3 flayed corpses sitting around a table, Gunter von Hagens crap. Fortunately noone else in the room realised what they were looking at. No warning. No context. Not late.
RE: Ofcom Discussion - davyboysmith - 04-06-2011 12:17
The Daily Mail slams into Ofcom in todays paper
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1394098/X-Factor-raunch-row-Report-demands-REAL-TV-watershed.html?ito=feeds-newsxml
theirs a report out on monday which will enforce the 9pm watershed
RE: Ofcom Discussion - schmoo - 04-06-2011 12:24
(04-06-2011 12:17 )davyboysmith Wrote: The Daily Mail slams into Ofcom in todays paper
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1394098/X-Factor-raunch-row-Report-demands-REAL-TV-watershed.html?ito=feeds-newsxml
theirs a report out on monday which will enforce the 9pm watershed
An interesting, if not wholly annoying, read.
But the sexualisation of children.. what the f*ck does that mean (to these people)? It’s not like they’re being treated, or indeed are, sex objects is it? Nor are they victims of paedophilia? Really.. what f*cking crusade are these tw*ts on? For f*ck’s sake.
And children growing up too fast? Maybe.. but that’s the way life is, and has been. Life moves on, things change, technologies etc, and therefore generations too. If children are blinkered to the things these bloody crusaders are intent on blocking them from seeing, this will stunt their growth and development. I know, it happened to me – hence why i’m a loner, a perv, a member of this forum and a sex pest to the babe channel girls! But seriously, there are serious undertones here.. hence so many people living alone, cannot interact, communicate etc and (too many) sex crimes.
Some comments already made after that piece suggest Ofcom are pointless, one to hit the nail right on the head, in saying that parents need to do “their” job. They’re the censors children need, and the only bloody ones too.
This country is becoming more and more like a bloody communist state. The mere name of the (majority) of the ruling government even suggests so.. “conservative”. And that’s exactly what we are forced to become.
What this country needs is to become more liberal, and fast. In respect of raunchiness and “sex” (actually, more than just this), just look at The Netherlands for example.. they don’t have such social problems anywhere near what we have.
These f*cking crusaders intent on restricting any of our pleasures are only going to do the complete opposite of what they claim they are doing. What do you think happens when more and more people get more and more frustrated? Social f*cking unrest, that’s what. What does this then lead to?
I don’t think i need to answer, we all know.