+- 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: Follow the European example? (/showthread.php?tid=20712)
Pages: 1 2
Follow the European example? - StanTheMan - 30-05-2010 23:48
I have access to the fta hotbid channels and notice that from time to time one of the hardcore sub channels will go fta for a few hours. I presume this is done as an insentive for viewers to subscribe once it scrambles again. Could they get away with that here?
Now before anyone tells me that's a stupid idea and that we have different rules and regulations to our Euro neighbours, consider this. The hardcore Euro channels are subscription only - presumably because they too have rules about hardcore on fta - so how do they get away with it?
It's just a thought that occurred to me now that the sub liveshows look like they're making a return. Plus, back when there was an abundance of these sub channles, their freeviews were always stronger than the fta shows so there must be something in my theory. Take the other night's Porn Live freeview. Okay so the content wasn't any harder than the fta stuff, but when was the last time you saw a babe sucking a huge rubber dildo on one?
RE: Follow the European example? - Censorship :-( - 31-05-2010 00:15
(30-05-2010 23:48 )StanTheMan Wrote: I have access to the fta hotbid channels and notice that from time to time one of the hardcore sub channels will go fta for a few hours. I presume this is done as an insentive for viewers to subscribe once it scrambles again. Could they get away with that here?
SNIP
No, they couldn't get away with it in the UK; can you imagine the 'outrage' from the tabloids, in the face of which, Ofcon, and perhaps even the Westminster Government, would (over) react in typical kneejerk fashion, resulting in yet more bad law being made on the hoof, to placate the tabloid media, probably resulting in an even worse situation than currently exists.
You only need to think back to the ridiculous, artificial, media created furore about the Russell Brand show, to see what happens in the UK over trifling matters, when it's a slow newsday, and some paper decides to run with something it can sensationalise & moralise about, in order to sell a few ‘newspapers’.
Remember, mainland Europe is not obsessed with censorship, or by being offended by the slightest thing, or thinking that offence is some heinous crime to be punished to the full extent of the law.
Also, given that the UK's encrypted channels are softcore, why would they actually want to let a potential customer see the rubbish that they broadcast, before they hand over the cash? That would be the surest way of stopping people from subscribing, because it would expose the dubious claims they make for ‘XXX content’, or ’we get much harder after encryption’ etc.
RE: Follow the European example? - Scottishbloke - 31-05-2010 18:32
The european channels deliver exactly what they say they will, you're right if I had seen exactly what I would have been getting for my money I wouldn't have even bothered with subscription to any of these channels. If ofcom were actually doing there job properly they would instead be handing out fines to these channels for failing to deliver the product they promised as this falls under the subject of false advertising. This pin protection of the playboy channels is really beginning to piss me off too, I even tried to record a programme the other night and it wouldn't let me as it told me this wasn't available to order any more. What a fucking con and a shower of bastards this lot at Playboy tv are.
RE: Follow the European example? - blackjaques - 31-05-2010 20:36
(31-05-2010 18:32 )Scottishbloke Wrote: The european channels deliver exactly what they say they will, you're right if I had seen exactly what I would have been getting for my money I wouldn't have even bothered with subscription to any of these channels. If ofcom were actually doing there job properly they would instead be handing out fines to these channels for failing to deliver the product they promised as this falls under the subject of false advertising. This pin protection of the playboy channels is really beginning to piss me off too, I even tried to record a programme the other night and it wouldn't let me as it told me this wasn't available to order any more. What a fucking con and a shower of bastards this lot at Playboy tv are.
Playboy / The Adult Channel have lost it big time. Once at the forefront of UK erotic entertainment, now they are a shadow of their former selves. Their output is pathetic. Shows which are so heavily cut; older programmes which seem to have been cut and cut again.
Sad to see.
RE: Follow the European example? - aaron - 01-06-2010 11:37
(31-05-2010 00:15 )Censorship :-( Wrote: Also, given that the UK's encrypted channels are softcore, why would they actually want to let a potential customer see the rubbish that they broadcast, before they hand over the cash?
These channels do have trailers and have sometimes been in trouble with Ofcom for them too.
RE: Follow the European example? - eccles - 01-06-2010 22:20
(01-06-2010 11:37 )aaron Wrote:(31-05-2010 00:15 )Censorship :-( Wrote: Also, given that the UK's encrypted channels are softcore, why would they actually want to let a potential customer see the rubbish that they broadcast, before they hand over the cash?
These channels do have trailers and have sometimes been in trouble with Ofcom for them too.
True and UK trailers can be stronger than program content (they have context, ie advertising) but still can't be as strong as the encrypted shows. Back when I used to see watch Euro content occasionally the odd Euro free show was full strength.
In all other areas, at suitable times of day, the decision whether or not to encrypt is a commercial one, and not up to the regulator. Live boxing? Football match? Blockbuster film (over 6 months old)? Horror film? Deeply offensive comedy? Self-harm Jackass type stunts? All commercial decisions. Bit of body - regulator mandated encryption.
RE: Follow the European example? - HEX!T - 05-06-2010 17:52
what i find hilarious is that ofcom permit the showing of antichrist 24 hours a day on sky movies, the film is highly controversial for its explicit sex and sado/masochism. yet the moment a little bit of lip is shown on the 900 channels its threatened with closure.
hypocrisy at its best.
pin protection is good enough for R rated / 18 rated adult cinema and considered adequate protection to stop harm or offence to kids, but not for the 900 channels.
frankly id rather my 16 year old nephew watched elite tv or similar and see proper R rated sexual entertainment under a pin than a film like antichrist which is in no way sexual entertainment.
antichrist is a film most adults would not find titillating, but a 16 year old boy who doesn't fully understand the film or his sexuality, may find it so. to him it will just be a woman masturbating or fucking where to an adult who understands the horrific nature of the film would see it in its true context of needful humiliation, unrepentant anger, and self degradation.
really ofcom don't have a leg to stand on when they say the shows are in breach, when they will allow the most extreme of content on sky b4 the watershed just because its pin protected.
RE: Follow the European example? - Mister Gummidge - 06-06-2010 14:55
The biggest problem isn't prudery from the regulators, far from it considering the availability of films like the above mentioned Antichrist, as well as The Idiots, Baise Moi, 9 Songs, The Brown Bunny et all. It's intellectual snobbery that dictates all of the decisions made in regards to the interactive adult channels.
Explicit sexual content in a film perceived to be "art" is acceptable, because it allows the regulatory authorities (the BBFC for films, Ofcom when dealing with broadcast media) to congratulate themselves on how liberal and broad minded they are. When it comes to sexual content for its own sake, because the people who make the decisions are the kind of people for whom "pornography" is just another word for "artistically devoid of merit", they can make the decision to rule against it from a false intellectual standpoint, rather than a standpoint of legality or morality. The many thousands of complaints against Jerry Springer: The Opera weren't upheld because it was "art", the complaints against the various 900 channels are upheld because they're "entertainment".
It comes down to this. Imagine you're a regulator at a dinner party in Islington. Will you tell your acquaintances that you're an avid viewer of Babestation, Bang Babes and so on? Chances are, you won't as it would lose you some Chattering Intellectual credibility, even if you claim you watch them ironically. After all, only saddoes, perverts and uneducated people watch that kind of thing, don't they? Our kind of people are above mere visual stimulation. You would however admit to being a fan of Lars von Trier, because von Trier is considered "art" and saying you like his work makes you appear high brow, even though you only watch his films to tell other people you watch them, so you can then tell them what a difficult body of work it is to view. In the minds of this kind of person "art" is pure and should be allowed free rein, while "entertainment" is crass and vulgar, meaning the masses need to be protected from its pernicious and degrading influence.
Like every other decision government takes in this country regarding social issues, the eventual outcome is based on class judgement, rather than legal, moral or ethical judgement. What the middle and upper classes are willing to admit to liking, is considered "culture". Anything that is perceived to be enjoyed predominantly by the working classes is deemed to be "vulgar and potentially harmful" and needs carefully controlled.
[steps down from soapbox, adjusts clothing and walks away whistling nonchalantly, pretending not to have indulged in a rant against class-ism in modern Britain]
RE: Follow the European example? - eccles - 06-06-2010 22:28
Ironically in other countries a healthy adult male who admitted NOT watching some form of porn would be considered abnormal.
RE: Follow the European example? - Winston Wolfe - 08-06-2010 09:09
(06-06-2010 14:55 )Mister Gummidge Wrote: Like every other decision government takes in this country regarding social issues, the eventual outcome is based on class judgement, rather than legal, moral or ethical judgement. What the middle and upper classes are willing to admit to liking, is considered "culture". Anything that is perceived to be enjoyed predominantly by the working classes is deemed to be "vulgar and potentially harmful" and needs carefully controlled.
[steps down from soapbox, adjusts clothing and walks away whistling nonchalantly, pretending not to have indulged in a rant against class-ism in modern Britain]
The real irony is they're usually the ones with the most "skeletons in the closet"
