+- 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 - More Babes in Breach (/showthread.php?tid=15950)
RE: Ofcom - More Babes in Breach - Big Stu - 15-02-2010 19:20
Excellent idea!! QVC would be ideal... MILF central
(11-02-2010 15:58 )CaptainVimes Wrote: Sorry if I've posted inappropriately but first time.
I have been reading this thread with great interest and it heartens me that there are still people concerned with our individual rights and liberties.
Surely the answers for the 900's is to go down the teleshopping route advertising adult products as per the DIY Shopping Channels. The presenter, at her discretion of course, could demonstrate the uses of said adult products whilst explaining to the customer on the phone the pros and cons of the intem in question. Fully in context.
Of course, certain items may require the presenting skills of more than one presenter.[/font]
RE: Ofcom - More Babes in Breach - Carl-Gen X - 15-02-2010 21:12
Dear Ofcom
This is the 21st century..will you kindly piss off. We dont want or need any of your nannying.
Sincerely yours
Ofcom hater.
RE: Ofcom - More Babes in Breach - MARCCE - 15-02-2010 21:31
The general absurdity of the situation was never better summed up than last night. At 10 pm, just at the time the babe channels feel safe enough to start showing some tits, Apocalypto started on BBC2. An 18+ movie, which depicts scenes of human hearts being cut out and human heads being cut off was broadcast on a terrestrial channel, freely available to anyone under the age of 18. Indeed, you could have finished watching Dancing on Ice, a nice primetime family show, flicked around to see what was on elsewhere and launched straight into the film. Of course, half term started for most kids today meaning there was even more chance of under age viewers of it.
If I was a parent, given a choice between some nudity on a babe channel and the kind of scenes on Apocalypto, I know which of the 2 I'd be most concerned about having a disturbing effect on my kids.
I'm not advocating films like Apocalpto being banned from our screens altogether. Indeed, I applaud the fact that the general public are given the opportunity to make up their own minds and more to the point, the onus is put on them to make sure they adopt responsible parenting to their kids. However, it just makes Ofcom's attitude that kids have to be protected from naked bodies and that their parents can't be trusted to do that protecting, look even more ridiculous really.
RE: Ofcom - More Babes in Breach - RavenMater - 16-02-2010 09:33
Quote:Ofcom therefore concluded that this content
was not justified by the context and was therefore in breach of Rules 2.1 and 2.3 of
the Code
In what context are these people watching these channels?
Daytime girls keep getting into trouble for nip-slips, yet anyone can walk into a newsagent and buy a newspaper showing the very same!
What is the difference between a channel showing simulated sex scenes, full fronted nudity etc because it fits with the storyline, a medical program showing close-ups of both male and female genitalia, or ADULT chat channels?
FFS
, Channel 5 even got away with a program about sex showing full penetration and ejaculation because they used micro cameras inserted into the vagina, or glued to a man's penis.When is this country going to lighten up, I really do think it is about time we followed the lead of some of our european cousins and allowed a little bit more.
Rant over, I think I'd better go for a lie down...
RE: Ofcom - More Babes in Breach - StanTheMan - 16-02-2010 15:46
Quote:Ofcom viewed the material and noted that the presenter, wearing a gold lam swimsuit on several occasions pulled her underwear aside and exposed her genital area.
The above is from the latest Ofcom bulletin and relates to an incident on Elite, 2 Oct 2009 at 22:00. I'm guessing this is Danica, but when has she ever given full-on blatant pussy flashes as described here?
Or are Ofcom, God forbid, making a mountain out of a mole hill?
RE: Ofcom - More Babes in Breach - kimosabi - 16-02-2010 16:50
all of their (ofcom's) arguments are full of shit to be honest.
we cannot see anything that may arouse a viewer, as it is not contextually acceptable or whatever, yet it was ok for channel 5 to air a program about plastic surgery (which went into full detail, showing most of the procedures, in rather horrific detail) at 8pm, when i was trying to have some food. the 'art' related program on channel 4 called life had full frontal male & female nudity at feckin lunch time (i only caught a bit of a show with a bloke on it though)
i think we need a lot more clarity, and for them to stop allowing one thing, but saying something that is in it's own adult section, away from where children should be looking is not allowed
if i can be sitting down to eat, and put on my tv, only to see some ugly fucks cock on tv, why cant i change the channel and see a beautiful girl nekkid
and after 10pm there are far more explicit things in music videos on tv than we could ever hope for on babe channels
to be honest is stinks, i bet all ofcom workers are either gay or paedophiles, and i also would like to know, if ofgen, and ofwat have no official powers, then why the fuck does ofcom?
RE: Ofcom - More Babes in Breach - StanTheMan - 17-02-2010 00:34
I’m bored shitless of the babeshows right now, so I suppose you could say my interest in Ofcom’s treatment of these channels isn’t what it might be, but the way I see it Ofcom are going to win everytime because no one (with a few exceptions) is prepared to do anything constructive.
You could argue that this is just sour grapes, but hardly anyone has shown any interest in the blog I recently set up. I started a thread asking for ideas, opinions and contributions, and so far the thread has had a mere four posts, and two of them are mine. What makes this worse is the obvious interest so many of you have on the subject, indicated by the constant activity in this very thread. Would it have hurt that much if a few of these thoughts and opinions (stressed so beutifully by many of you) had come to me for the blog instead?
Fair enough, initially the blog would have done little more that reflect what gets said here, but eventually – with all intense and purpose - it would have been a central hub around which Ofcom’s dealing with the babeshows would be debated and dealt with. I’d already arranged to have the blog linked by some fairly high profile, sympathetic-to-our-plight, websites, and over time, once established, we could have been doing all sorts; petitions, letters of complaint (against Ofcom), support from bigger organisations, etc, etc – who knows what it might have led to?
We can whinge and pull apart Ofcom’s logic till the cows come home, but if that’s all we do, nothing is going to change.
RE: Ofcom - More Babes in Breach - Cobblers - 17-02-2010 19:02
Not related to the Babe channels, but here's an interesting thing recently unearthed regarding Ofcom:
http://www.bectu.org.uk/news/593
Gist of it is, the union BECTU asked them a few years back for data on the racial profile of employees of broadcasting licence holders. The recording of this information is a duty of Ofcom and a mandatory requirement of the licences they award. Ofcom refused to pass this information over. BECTU took them to the Information Commissioner, who took Ofcom's side. BECTU then went to the Information Tribunal, who found in BECTU's favour. During this last ruling, Ofcom were forced to reveal why they weren't so keen on releasing the information:
Quote:They told the court that in 2005 they had decided that the measures they had for enforcing companies’ compliance with their obligatory licence conditions on diversity – fining them or revoking their licence – were “draconian” and “resource intensive given the number of cases”.
So making sure licence holders don't have racist employment practices is considered a waste of resources by Ofcom, despite it being part of their mandate, and they themselves believe their own powers in this field to be draconian. Yet if one person complains about a nipple on a daytime Babe show, or about the miming of a sexual act by a girl in their underwear at 1am on a clearly flagged adult show, then they seem to find endless resources to request recordings, view hours of footage, consider how offended the average viewer would be and write up a report on it all...
RE: Ofcom - More Babes in Breach - milfspotter - 17-02-2010 21:33
"The material shown was so strongly sexual that it would have exceeded the likely expectation of the vast majority of the audience"
They're having a laugh right? I think I speak for everyone else on here when I say that we're DELIGHTED when we catch sight of a pussy flash.
The only way our expectations are exceeded are because of ofcom's rules and regulations these days we expect to see nothing stronger than we would on page 3.
RE: Ofcom - More Babes in Breach - mikedafc - 17-02-2010 22:32
Have to say I am amazed what the girls are allowed to wear and do on some of the daytime channels!!