+- 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: 110k Playboy Fine!!! - mrmann - 12-11-2011 03:17
^ The last sentence is spot on!
RE: 110k Playboy Fine!!! - StanTheMan - 12-11-2011 03:53
(12-11-2011 02:57 )eccles Wrote: When channels thought they were allowed they did show stronger content.
I presume you're referring to the above, mrmann, and you're dead right. In fact, it's the best answer yet to all those on here who insist the girls don't actually want to give stronger performances.
RE: 110k Playboy Fine!!! - Addison - 12-11-2011 04:03
(12-11-2011 02:57 )eccles Wrote: If content is soft many people will not be interested
And many will be interested, and are interested. Providing good softcore/teasecore/mildcore is an art in itself, and many of the babes on these shows specialise in it. A skilful soft show doesn't equal babes/programme makers 'not giving a toss.' The babe channels are still some of the best providers of this sort of material anywhere. Babestar aside, it's what they've basically always provided (even Babestar was essentially serving up 'hard softcore,' when its picture was good enough and its camerawork stable enough to be able to tell).
Edit: It's excessive OSGs that I want to see us getting together to get reined in!
RE: 110k Playboy Fine!!! - StanTheMan - 12-11-2011 17:14
(12-11-2011 04:03 )Addison Wrote: Edit: It's excessive OSGs that I want to see us getting together to get reined in!
Great, then we can see even more of the girls lying there doing bugger all.
RE: 110k Playboy Fine!!! - continental19 - 12-11-2011 18:29
If Ofcom isn't stopped, not only will it destroy the babe channels, but it will destroy any other channel that it doesn't agree with in it's path. Ofcom is a DICTATORSHIP it's as simple as that, and like all Dictators they will eventually fall, the only problem is when? If Ofcom isn't stopped now, then it will have major repercussions accross the whole of Britsh Television.
RE: 110k Playboy Fine!!! - mr mystery - 12-11-2011 18:45
(12-11-2011 01:42 )StanTheMan Wrote:(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.
IF a channel used PIN protection (soft encryption not Subscription)for daytime shows would this then allow the shows to be a bit more raunchy ? , i'm not talking about any form of nudity or even topless girls being shown , i mean more or less what they were showing last year on daytime before the big crack down , i'm referring to girls wearing Bikini's or being scantily clad like what the girls from The Pad used to wear and do ? , surly the fact that the channel was clearly positioned in the adult section of Sky programing and was also PIN protected would allow the channel to have a bit more leeway to what it could show , after all it wouldn't be showing anything more than what can be seen on regular daytime tv but would be PIN protected and be in the adult section .
RE: 110k Playboy Fine!!! - continental19 - 12-11-2011 19:00
Hey Mystery, the babe channels can't have it both ways, they either go PIN protected which as you've mentioned should allow them to be as they used to a yr ago, however Ofcom can be unpredictable as we no, I guess if the channels went soft pin protection they might have some ammo to fight Ofcom but who no's, it's bit like playing Roulette none of us no where the ball is going to finish either on black or red. In otherwords Ofcom are an unknown quantity, and thinking you've managed to gain an advantage with these guys is a gamble in itself.
RE: 110k Playboy Fine!!! - Mr Injecy - 12-11-2011 20:35
(12-11-2011 18:29 )continental19 Wrote: Ofcom is a DICTATORSHIP it's as simple as that
I thought Sky were suing them. If so it can't be a dictatorship.
RE: 110k Playboy Fine!!! - continental19 - 12-11-2011 20:45
Hi Injecy, well if what you're saying is correct, then maybe this might be the initiative from a company as powerful as SKY to fight head on with Ofcom.
Injecy I need more info mate, if you can find out then please let me no? Cheers
RE: 110k Playboy Fine!!! - mikedafc - 12-11-2011 20:49
So it is ok to go graphically inside a womens private parts if it's educational but not if it's to get men off as part of a phone sex chat. The one rule for one programme and another for another needs to be tackled!!
(11-11-2011 17:08 )Roquentin Wrote: 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)