+- 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 - Scottishbloke - 09-07-2011 20:15
So what if we did do away with ofcom and we did indeed have every Tom, Dick and Harry applying for licences to show porn, that would be fucking fantastic, even more porn and live shows for us pervs to enjoy. The only thing that porn is bad for is apparently too much wanking makes you go blind
and guess who came up with that fact, yes you've fucking guessed it, none other that the CHURCH going fuckers.
RE: Ofcom Discussion - operoc25 - 09-07-2011 21:11
(09-07-2011 20:15 )Scottishbloke Wrote: The only thing that porn is bad for is apparently too much wanking makes you go blind
Well iam am not totally blind YET
but i need to go for an eye test next week because my eyes are not as they used to be, i blame the computer, xbox and watching the babechannels (elite tv). 
RE: Ofcom Discussion - mrmann - 09-07-2011 21:50
What's sad is that Ofcom acts as if we all want the craziest types of porn on our TV, when infact I think we'd all be more than happy with just full frontal for a change. That can't be too much to ask for, right? Where is the harm in that, when they already allow it on non adult channels, and not in an educational way like they claim.
RE: Ofcom Discussion - Renfrew169 - 09-07-2011 22:06
(09-07-2011 21:50 )mrmann Wrote: What's sad is that Ofcom acts as if we all want the craziest types of porn on our TV, when infact I think we'd all be more than happy with just full frontal for a change. That can't be too much to ask for, right? Where is the harm in that, when they already allow it on non adult channels, and not in an educational way like they claim.
I totally agree - I don't want full on porn - just allow the models to move around naturally and show full frontal during the shows.
RE: Ofcom Discussion - Scottishbloke - 09-07-2011 22:33
Yes I'll back that up too, if the babes were just allowed to show full frontal nakedness, nothing too naughty it would at least make the shows more watchable.
RE: Ofcom Discussion - Roquentin - 15-07-2011 19:42
I'm starting to read these threads and ofcom findings etc. But I'm wondering if I should just forget it all as I dont want to be enjoying someone's performance then suddenly worrying 'hmmm that might not be ofcom compliant, where is the floor manager responsible for regulation content!!!'. Would put me right off.
Anyone actually experience that? No dont answer!!!1 (maybe I dont need to know).
/starts to bury own head in sand
RE: Ofcom Discussion - Roquentin - 15-07-2011 19:55
...kidding of course. I cant stop myself.
Which is perhaps part of our problem generally (stopping ourselves going further). Its nice to hear some post recently what limits they would find satisfactory, and I think it is possible to work with them, or even roll them back a little. But clearly we want to push further. Can we live with less?
In reading the Ofcom bulletin 4th July (no independence here) here are some of their own backup quotes from guidance for Elitetv's two breaches discussed. (those two breaches discussed read like nice slightly raunchy sessions that we all hope to see each night, sad really
) “at no time broadcast invasive shots of presenters‟ bodies. Ofcom cautions against physically intrusive, intimate shots of any duration; and against less intrusive shots that may become unacceptable by virtue of their being prolonged”;
“at no time broadcast anal, labial or genital areas or broadcast images of presenters touching their genital or anal areas either with their hand or an object”; and
“at no time include shots of presenters spitting onto their or others‟ bodies, or include shots of presenters using other liquids, such as oil and lotions, on their genital or anal areas”.
Bit depressing, but I suppose it leaves some room to work with, and now I am more impressed with the extent to which Elite (and others I am sure) have worked within these and other guidelines. I'm not accepting the changes or anything, but commenting on how the channels have tried to adapt and how it still works to some extent.
Commenting on the first point, that prolonged less intrusive shots are also prohibited, isnt that too vague? Maybe they define what less intrusive shots they mean somewhere else, but still.
Sorry if this seems a little basic in what is a very well developed thread, just started reading through it. Thanks to many of you who have thought further about it.
RE: Ofcom Discussion - SYBORG666 - 15-07-2011 20:08
It all comes down to the fact that Ofcom will continue to make the guidelines as vague and confusing as possible, just so that they can continue to fine the babechannels for the slightest little thing.
RE: Ofcom Discussion - Roquentin - 15-07-2011 20:28
(15-07-2011 20:08 )SYBORG666 Wrote: It all comes down to the fact that Ofcom will continue to make the guidelines as vague and confusing as possible, just so that they can continue to fine the babechannels for the slightest little thing.
You may be right. Just to say the two actual Elitetv breaches they just finished processing, the first had oil applied "over her anal area (on top of her thong)" the second she had been standing over the camera with prolonged shots of her crotch area. (according to Ofcom, no idea of actual events, but sounds plausible nights viewing back in March/April) At least these two breaches correspond clearly enough, depressing as it is.
Also, its irritating that maybe these changes have been happening every so often, moving the goalposts etc.
RE: Ofcom Discussion - Renfrew169 - 15-07-2011 20:47
(15-07-2011 20:28 )Roquentin Wrote:(15-07-2011 20:08 )SYBORG666 Wrote: It all comes down to the fact that Ofcom will continue to make the guidelines as vague and confusing as possible, just so that they can continue to fine the babechannels for the slightest little thing.
You may be right. Just to say the two actual breaches they just finished processing, the first had oil applied "over her anal area (on top of her thong)" the second she had been standing over the camera with prolonged shots of her crotch area. (according to Ofcom, no idea of actual events, but sounds plausible nights viewing back in March/April) At least these two breaches correspond clearly enough, depressing as it is. Also, its irritating that maybe these changes have been happening every so often, changing the goalposts etc.
The real difficulty is that by keeping things vague such " breaches" as these, which are milder than can be seen on many mainstream channels, can be caught as breaking the code. I can't see how a shot of a babe wearing pants, of any size, can possibly breach the code. It's madness!