+- 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 - shylok - 11-11-2011 07:32
Just to throw more fuel on the fire (like we needed to) take a look at how much some of these greedy bastards pay themselves!
http://www.ofcom.org.uk/files/2011/05/salary-disclosure-2011.pdf
BTW this is basic salary they get nice bonuses too no doubt!!! Snouts in the trough or what??? http://aarkangel.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/pig_trough.jpg
The best part is the YOU pay them these inflated salaries (check your next income tax bill). Lets get on the regulation gravy train guys while the county tightens its belt to unprecedented levels. OFCOM themselves need to be regulated a lot better!!! Fucking oppressive greedy scum. Disgusted.
RE: 110k Playboy Fine!!! - StanTheMan - 11-11-2011 15:54
(11-11-2011 06:12 )CumbrianTom Wrote: Finaly, can I ask my fellow posters here a question concerning the regulations. OFCOM can label the Babe Channels as advertising channels because the telephone number is on screen for more than twelve minutes every hour. Anybody know if this is correct?
If it is, why not just have the number on screen for say, twenty seconds a time, and for up to thirty six times per hour.
Do that and I've no doubt Ofcom would move the goalposts to cover it. That's how they work. If the Babe channels happen to discover little loopholes and avenues of freedom, Ofcom simply make up a new regulation to block it off.
RE: 110k Playboy Fine!!! - mikedafc - 11-11-2011 16:15
If more people complained about e.g The Sex Education Show then they would have to look into it and launch an investigation, only if people complain to Ofcom when they see these blatant double standards will anything be done about it.
RE: 110k Playboy Fine!!! - Roquentin - 11-11-2011 17:08
I can see the double standards as eccles points out between the advertisements for encrypted channels that go on for 10 minutes of the hour, which shows much harder content than the free to air channels are allowed. Thats a great point.
But the sex education show? Ofcom argue that the context is different. In the sex education show the primary aim is to educate about sex, in the babechannels the primary aim is to sell phone sex to you (for money that is, and as often as possible, just to state the obvious lol). Sorry but I think I see the difference in context there that they talk about. I just have a different attitude to selling phonesex. I also understand alot of people find that distasteful, its not that mainstream.
I'm not fully defending Ofcom here but I'm not interested in portraying their argument as bewildering nonsense when I am pretty sure it would play perfectly reasonably to plenty of folks beyond this forum. To underestimate their position is to attack a straw man.
(just putting another point of view here, not that far away really)
RE: 110k Playboy Fine!!! - Sootbag1 - 11-11-2011 22:57
I agree with Roquetin on this. Whether we like it or not, this is how Ofcom see it: the purpose of the babe channels is to advertise a telephone chat line. Therefore, the channels are 'advertising'. A sex education show is there to educate, so it's treated differently.
If the babe channels want to introduce stronger material, why don't they become PIN-protected? The answer is because they fear they'll lose the casual viewer who flicks between channels, but won't bother if they have to enter their PIN every time they change channel.
The babe channels can't have it both ways, but in fairness to them, why do we think that they want to show stronger content?
RE: 110k Playboy Fine!!! - continental19 - 12-11-2011 00:58
We have here quite a few differing opinions, however i firstly have to agree with Stan because if Ofcom starts to smell a loophole in the works then they will simply plug it and most likely inflict more needless regulations on the already regulated up to the back teeth babe channels.
However i also agree with sootbag, the babe channels can't have there cake and eat it, well especially in the current climate. They either keep pandering to Ofcom, or they simply become PIN protected kind of like when you watch a film on SKY say at 2.30 in the afternoon, and if it has sexual content in it, all you have to do is enter your PIN. I no the producers don't want to go that route, as Sootbag has mentioned they might lose the casual callers, however I guess it wouldn't be to much of a problem if the likes of REDLIGHT out of there 4 channels maybe could try a PIN protected channel maybe for 1 or 2 nights and simply promote a harder content which they could offer?
RE: 110k Playboy Fine!!! - StanTheMan - 12-11-2011 01:42
(12-11-2011 00:58 )continental19 Wrote: They either keep pandering to Ofcom, or they simply become PIN protected kind of like when you watch a film on SKY say at 2.30 in the afternoon, and if it has sexual content in it, all you have to do is enter your PIN.
What you're talking about here is soft encryption, i.e simply entering your PIN unscrambles the broadcast as opposed to full encryption that requires payment of some kind.
The former wouldn't give the babeshows any leeway, as Ofcom have already stated that soft encryption wouldn't be sufficient protection against children accessing the channels.
Ridiculous, I know, considering they're perfectly satisfied that soft encrypting Sky Movies is sufficient protection, but that's only to stop the kids from seeing mindless violence, so they're obviously not as concerned.
RE: 110k Playboy Fine!!! - continental19 - 12-11-2011 02:20
Well I guess as things stand at the moment Ofcom appear to be holding all the cards, and unless either the babe channels come together as a united front, or other standard channels join the fray, then Stan I think we're doomed.
I just hope some other regulator will either put in a bid for Ofcom, or the government will cut there budget. I no we must all keep the faith, but I'm finding it hard though
RE: 110k Playboy Fine!!! - eccles - 12-11-2011 02:35
(11-11-2011 03:40 )StanTheMan Wrote:(11-11-2011 01:32 )eccles Wrote: ... and Stans mom gives his dad (Randy) a blowjob in the car on the way home at about 9:40.
Do you mind! My dad's name is Kenneth, and beside, they're well past that kind of nonsense.
Should hope so too at their age.
![[Image: American-Gothic.jpg]](http://www.leftyparent.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/American-Gothic.jpg)
RE: 110k Playboy Fine!!! - eccles - 12-11-2011 02:57
Roquentin asked why the channels dont just limit the phone numbers to under 10 minutes. Trouble is its not that simple. For starters the channels themselves want the phone number up there all the time because thats where they make their money. And Ofcom reckon every time a babe waves a phone thats advertising. Worse, unless there is some sort of a show with a plot, there is no justification for nudity and sexual poses. Put on nude Shakespear or Chaucer and plenty of people would watch but few would phone in becuase the content would be not be related to chatting with the babes. If the babes are on screen chatting to callers either the phone number displayed only gets callers through to the on screen babe, or it is advertising.
The basic problem is that Ofcom wont allow sexual content for pleasure. Its like the Church in that respect, there has to be some higher motive like making babies.
Sootbag asks why we think that the channels want to show stronger content? Fact is some couldnt give a toss as long as call revenues keep rolling in. For others its a job but a job they enjoy and want to do well. If content is soft many people will not be interested. If its too hard viewers will get off without a phone call. But occasional flashes and hard stuff will keep viewers interested. When channels thought they were allowed they did show stronger content.