+- 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 - continental19 - 19-10-2011 20:17
(19-10-2011 19:47 )rockey Wrote: i watch press tv and i find what you have described as unrecognisable....i mean for one if there was holocaust denial on there under european law you would go to jail even if you had undeniable proof you would go to jail, anti semitism? ....i know what your trying to say anti israeli or anti jewish but if you look it up actually mean anti arab.....and come on what news channel worth its salt is not anti arab?.......what gets me is this crusade of american racism and greed is never investigated fox news and the lies to rally wars and false elections and hate speak that comes out of that tower of evil but i guess morality always has a price tag......bringing it back to ofcom and how its ok to watch tv if you pay 5 pound a night for it then its legally, morally ......quite ok.Yea good point, if you pay like you said £5 to watch Babestation on freeview C96 which you can watch full frontal nudity then according to Ofcom that's A OK in there eyes. So if I've got this right, if the free to air babe channels did not exist and you had to pay to watch full frontal nudity as you can on babestation for a fiver, then according to Ofcom that would be OK?
So to conclude, Ofcom are kicking up a storm over the free to air babe channels because they are free, so hence in there opinion you don't deserve to watch babes going full frontal nude, yet if you pay for the privilege, then that sits pretty with ofcom mmmh money money money springs to mind.
RE: Ofcom Discussion - Sootbag1 - 19-10-2011 20:59
(19-10-2011 19:47 )rockey Wrote: i watch press tv and i find what you have described as unrecognisable....i mean for one if there was holocaust denial on there under european law you would go to jail even if you had undeniable proof you would go to jail
Press TV happily published a story on its website by Nicolas Kollerstrom that said "the alleged massacre of Jewish people by gassing during World War II was scientifically impossible". Many more examples exist.
rockey Wrote:anti semitism? ....i know what your trying to say anti israeli or anti jewish but if you look it up actually mean anti arab.....and come on what news channel worth its salt is not anti arab?.......
I would say that probably every single Western news channel would be horrified at the thought of it being considered anti Arab.
rockey Wrote:what gets me is this crusade of american racism and greed is never investigated fox news and the lies to rally wars and false elections and hate speak that comes out of that tower of evil but i guess morality always has a price tag......
If you're saying what I think you're saying, I would suggest that you can't have been watching much TV if you think that the US-led military action of the last decade has not been debated and questioned endlessly on Western news channels for the entirety of those ten years.
RE: Ofcom Discussion - Sootbag1 - 19-10-2011 21:04
(19-10-2011 20:17 )continental19 Wrote: So to conclude, Ofcom are kicking up a storm over the free to air babe channels because they are free, so hence in there opinion you don't deserve to watch babes going full frontal nude, yet if you pay for the privilege, then that sits pretty with ofcom mmmh money money money springs to mind.
That's pretty much it, yeah. If you show semi-naked women on a free-to-air basis, encouraging viewers to phone in on premium rate telephone numbers, then you're gonna be restricted on what you can show. If you make it a pre-paid subscription channel, then the rules are more lax.
Nobody ever challenges this, because why would anybody? So long as they are all made to play by the same rules, they all agree to abide by the rules. Which is why as soon as one channel pushes the boundaries of what's acceptable, it's another channel that fires off a complaint to Ofcom.
RE: Ofcom Discussion - eccles - 19-10-2011 21:44
Holocust denial is only illegal in Germany and Austria, not the UK. What Press TV does it to use lots of money to slickly but subtly present stories in a way the Iranians like. You wont see a word of criticism about Hamas and their indiscriminate bombing of Israeli civilians. Instead Israel is always presented as the agressor and Palestinians as victims. The truth is more complex. Bias and viewpoint is one thing, but filming a prisoner who is facing a possible death sentence who has been dragged up from the cells reading a prepared speech in which he commits professional suicide goes beyond bias.[/serious]
RE: Ofcom Discussion - rockey - 19-10-2011 21:55
(19-10-2011 20:59 )Sootbag1 Wrote:(19-10-2011 19:47 )rockey Wrote: i watch press tv and i find what you have described as unrecognisable....i mean for one if there was holocaust denial on there under european law you would go to jail even if you had undeniable proof you would go to jail
Press TV happily published a story on its website by Nicolas Kollerstrom that said "the alleged massacre of Jewish people by gassing during World War II was scientifically impossible". Many more examples exist.
rockey Wrote:anti semitism? ....i know what your trying to say anti israeli or anti jewish but if you look it up actually mean anti arab.....and come on what news channel worth its salt is not anti arab?.......
I would say that probably every single Western news channel would be horrified at the thought of it being considered anti Arab.
rockey Wrote:what gets me is this crusade of american racism and greed is never investigated fox news and the lies to rally wars and false elections and hate speak that comes out of that tower of evil but i guess morality always has a price tag......
If you're saying what I think you're saying, I would suggest that you can't have been watching much TV if you think that the US-led military action of the last decade has not been debated and questioned endlessly on Western news channels for the entirety of those ten years.
well you know i like to think for myself and if someone wants to repeat the fact that zyklon b as a gas is heavier then air and can resonably prove that point i can see how that might upset a few people and if your interested i aint recommending conspirosy corner check out the british encyclopedia of chemistry... or if somebody claimed the offial census figures at the time dont add up with the history books......i think that should be investigated unlike sky tv who think the xfactor is news.............................ofcourse they would not admit that they foster racism as under there own rules they would have to close down and i am sure they would act all indignint and offended but reality is reality and the new scary people are the arabs......the russians stopped being useful after the fall of communism they need a new monster to scare the good folks and a new cold war that has no end has no winning or losing kind of like their war in iraq or there war on drugs meaningless bullshit unless ofcourse its your kids blown to bits by marines at a checkpoint.........and by the way lets have more debates about iraq lets have less who cares it was to give idiots who think they live in a democracy there little harmless illusions.....all the bloody debates in the world was not going to interfere with there plans and you know that.......i say again fox tv any interests owned by murdoch thats where the investigations should start and if they start there that will lead down a thousand new paths because that bastards fingers are in so many pies
RE: Ofcom Discussion - eccles - 19-10-2011 23:40
Im all in favour of channels being able to put unpopular points of view, even ones that challenge the government line and ones I disagree with. Id include revisionist historian David Irving in that - not sure of the outcome, but he was threatened with jail in Germany or Austria for denying the Holocaust. Let the facts speak for themselves. What I am against is abuse of power/money/market dominance, particularly to influence politicians, elections, churches, etc. Thats particularly important on major channels, but can also be important on small niche channels whose viewers dont get an alternative view. Its not a democracy if The Sun or Fox News controls things. Fortunately it seems they dont. It isnt necessary to ban content, simply broadcast both opposing view points. What should be banned is content that harms people. Content that incites violence or hatred. Details of how to make an A bomb with half a bottle of Fairy Liquid, some string and a paperclip - drat! Telling people to stop Aids medication. Falsely claiming someone is a rogue trader, child molester or spy.
RE: Ofcom Discussion - rockey - 20-10-2011 01:53
you cant watch the president of iran speak much on western tv but when he does its twisted and misrepresented he appeared on larry king a couple of years ago was asked about his desire to see the destruction of israel his answer was he bore no ill will towards the people of israel what he wanted to destroy was zionism .....a political ideolgy of racism and ethnic cleansing.....thats very different from whats being reported that he wants to get illegal nukes and destroy them........he was also asked about denying the holocaust his answer was how would he know? iran had nothing to do with the holocaust.......which makes perfect sence....you should be able to watch the interview on youtube......but anybody watching this closely the most conservative newspapers in america as of this week are not really reporting the iranian assasination attempts on the saudis in washington plot as even they think its laughable , the same papers that reported the lies for iraq non stop......but the war drums will continue to beat to make sure iran never gets nuclear power of any type .....even if that means israel using its illegal nukes on them.....the hypocrisy is unbelievable............and as far as i know irvine did go to jail and his books burnt the guy was seen as the leading historian in the world on ww2 untill he wrote that book now hes just that nazi lol mel gibson should have taken notes
RE: Ofcom Discussion - mrmann - 20-10-2011 02:49
Just something slightly off topic that I found funny:
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23924618-first-glimpse-inside-the-exclusive-sex-show-club-where-prince-harry-partied.do
Notice the breasts on the page, uncensored? Just another form a hypocrisy that I notice in the UK. Not really anything to do with Ofcom, as they don't have control over the papers, but still. Sounds like a crazy place. Might have a visit, and sit FAR away from the stage
RE: Ofcom Discussion - rockey - 20-10-2011 16:19
(20-10-2011 02:49 )mrmann Wrote: Just something slightly off topic that I found funny:
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23924618-first-glimpse-inside-the-exclusive-sex-show-club-where-prince-harry-partied.do
Notice the breasts on the page, uncensored? Just another form a hypocrisy that I notice in the UK. Not really anything to do with Ofcom, as they don't have control over the papers, but still. Sounds like a crazy place. Might have a visit, and sit FAR away from the stage
i dont get your point ,page 3 has been going years and why not..... hate to give a biology lesson but female breasts have nothing to do with human sexuality they are for feedind children...........the fact that big business have sexualised them to use them to sell things is a different matter but they are not sexual and they are not really intimate......so !
RE: Ofcom Discussion - eccles - 20-10-2011 21:47
Papers contain stuff that Ofcom would never allow. From time to time breasts and even non explicit nudes do feature in The Standard and other popular reputable papers, not just The Sun and Star. Of course there is always some pretence of justification, but really its there to give the reader a trouser tingle. If it was on TV Ofcom would ban the images before 9pm, but noone says a thing if its in a family paper.
Now TV cant even show clad lovlies before 9 if they are showing leg and what they are clad in is technically lingere. But Strictly Dancing can show clevage and leg.
The other day I wandered into a Marks and Spencer with newspapers by the door, the wind had blown the cover off The Sun. Quite nice she was too. The housewives and staff walking past didnt bat an eyelid.
So society has one standard for mass newspapers but a different one for TV.