+- 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 - StanTheMan - 21-07-2011 12:00
(21-07-2011 02:34 )eccles Wrote: For me a webstream is simply not the same as a TV channel. Connecting it to the TV would help, but I like the thought that its live and on TV. And financially it would fail, at least any time in the next 3 years. The big strength of being onSky is that channels are in the EPG and anyone with a Sky box can access them without tech skills or rewiring. The web has literally hundreds of sites, another porn site would get lost in the crowd.
Id also like to see some sex in normal TV. It used to happen. Comedy, satire, cabaret shows used to feature the odd risque sketch. These days you have to have a certificate stating that any sex/nudity is dramatically justified and we have segregation. Mainstream TV = pretent adults have no interest in sex.
A man after my own heart.
RE: Ofcom Discussion - Addison - 21-07-2011 17:54
(21-07-2011 12:00 )StanTheMan Wrote: A man after my own heart
Except that eccles probably doesn't need to feel that there's some frowning, head-shaking watchdog element - be it Ofcom or any other - tutting away somewhere in the background to properly enjoy it ("Sir! Sir! Rules are being broken! Look! Check out the disapprovers! Their almost palpable outrage is giving me a stiffy!"
).
RE: Ofcom Discussion - Digital Dave - 21-07-2011 18:45
(21-07-2011 17:54 )Addison Wrote:(21-07-2011 12:00 )StanTheMan Wrote: A man after my own heart
Except that eccles probably doesn't need to feel that there's some frowning, head-shaking watchdog element - be it Ofcom or any other - tutting away somewhere in the background to properly enjoy it ("Sir! Sir! Rules are being broken! Look! Check out the disapprovers! Their almost palpable outrage is giving me a stiffy!"
As I said before, it's a psychological condition
I wonder what it's called in shrink terms?The thing is Stan, without Ofcom you'd derive no enjoyment at all from these channels. If Ofcom said tomorrow that open leg pussy shots were allowed then you'd go off in a huff, or moan that the channels were boring because all you could see was wall to wall pussy.
Your 'specialist' taste does rather negate your constant moaning about Ofcom, because in fact they're integral to you getting your rocks off!
Interesting though
RE: Ofcom Discussion - skateguy - 21-07-2011 19:52
(21-07-2011 18:45 )Digital Dave Wrote: Your 'specialist' taste does rather negate your constant moaning about Ofcom, because in fact they're integral to you getting your rocks off!
I recollect mentioning a similar thing a few months ago. http://www.babeshows.co.uk/showthread.php?tid=28171&pid=722591#pid722591
RE: Ofcom Discussion - Digital Dave - 21-07-2011 20:28
So you did Skate! Spot on.
RE: Ofcom Discussion - eccles - 21-07-2011 21:44
So should we all tell Stan that hes banned, so he enjoys sneaking back when noones looking?
How many people have erased those useless ofcom mandated bookends - mr anonymous - 21-07-2011 22:50
How many people have erased those useless ofcom mandated bookends. You know the ones that advertise the adult channels as been 18+
I still don't think this is an effective way of managing people accidentally going on the adult services on freeview so genuine question.
I personally think the channels should be pin protected on freeview in the way xtreame is but codes provided for free or the channel moved right down the bottom of the EPG.
This would prevent people from accidentally viewing them and maybe ofcom wont give the channels a hard time.
So how many people have erased those useless ofcom mandated bookends
RE: So how many people have erased those useless ofcom mandated bookends - StanTheMan - 21-07-2011 23:11
(21-07-2011 22:50 )mr anonymous Wrote: This would prevent people from accidentally viewing them and maybe ofcom wont give the channels a hard time.
Or maybe Ofcom don't give a flying fuck how many precautionary measures are in place and will continue to hound them regardless.
RE: Ofcom Discussion - StanTheMan - 21-07-2011 23:21
(21-07-2011 18:45 )Digital Dave Wrote: Your 'specialist' taste does rather negate your constant moaning about Ofcom, because in fact they're integral to you getting your rocks off!
But it doesn't, does it? And they're not.
Ofcom rule with a rod of iron. There's no gray areas with them. In their twisted view, the channel is either breaking the regs or it's not. Sometimes they decide they are (breaking the regs) even when they're not.
What's needed is a regulator with some common sense. A regulator that will accept and recognise that these are adult channels and that, in all honesty, they can turn a blind eye to them.
I've tried to explain how it's the channels that push bounderies and take liberties with the guidlines that 'float my boat', but few seem to understand my thinking
RE: So how many people have erased those useless ofcom mandated bookends - eccles - 21-07-2011 23:37
Talking of which, time and again Ofcom argues that people can see the channels by accident, and some parents dont know the channels exist so they cant exercise parental control.
Does anyone think babe channels should be opt in? Meaning they should be pin protected or hidden in brand new boxes, but can be unprotected as a block or unhidden?
A woman I know recently expressed surprise that adult channels were on her Sky box. Shes pretty niave to be honest, but even so I though she at least knew what was on her EPG. Ive also heard of people mixing up the channel numbers, 190 Sony TV+1 and 910 Babestation Xtra, 590 Gospel Channel and 950 Asian Babes, that sort of thing, 980 BBC1 E Mids and 908 Babeworld.
I have also heard tales of woe from people with who delete channels on Freeview boxes in kids bedrooms, rescan and dont realise the channels have come back. Some boxes even automatically rescan, so they might not know its happened. There are 2 Sky boxes and 3 Freeview where I live and I certainly dont want to be running round setting them all up every few weeks.
What I am not suggesting is having to enter a PIN each time you change channel, just a oneoff opt in when the box is first used.