+- 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: How complicit are the channels and Ofcom? (/showthread.php?tid=70340)
How complicit are the channels and Ofcom? - ShandyHand - 03-04-2017 21:34
(28-03-2017 14:30 )MR PERFECT Wrote: If the channels were receptive people it would be worthwhile. Sadly I believe the channels Believe in them and ofcom v the viewer. The viewer will always lose in this situation as he/she wants better but the channels and ofcom don't.
If the channels did not make money in the current situation they would be more open to the viewers. But they seem to see the viewer as trouble.
An indulgence: The above quote from Mr. Perfect is lifted from the main Babeshow's thread. He was responding to a 'call to action' against the channels. I am using it here as illustrative of the 'them against us' stance that seems to have come about as a result of the feeling that the channels are directly benefiting from, and complicit in, Ofcom's overly censorous reign over British television. They (Ofcom) are "our friends" as a BS boss said on this very board a couple of years back. In more recent times it feels like the relationship has moved on: The operators now stand accussed of getting down and dirty, and sleeping with the enemy. Taking it up the ass and liking it!
For what it's worth I believe that Mr Pefect is quite right: The so-called freeloading viewer is seen as trouble by those inside the channels - because they are assumed to be of the same mind as some here in that they want something the channels do not - a less censored Adult TV landscape. If you are not part of their solution, you're part of the problem to the channels.
The complaints of so minded indviduals are most likely seen as only a small irritant to the powerful operators - who, after all, have the control over the ear of their consumer base that one might expect from such an industry... But the complainers seem quite reluctant to go away no matter what.
Indeed, the freeloading babeshow viewer appears to be a quite persistent and hardy breed on the whole, perhaps invested with an idea of what the channels once were and holding out, against all resonable hope sometimes, for what they could be again. In this they stand rigidly opposed to the majority of current onscreen incumbents of the trade who have, quite evidently, no desire to see a return to the relative freedoms of visual expression seen in the recent past.
I'm reiterating all this on a new thread as opposed to on the Babeshow's one as the concept at play here goes beyond the immediate industry and crosses over into a recurring theme in the enactment of various acts of censorship in this country.
To evidence this, what I really wanted to highlight was this article (attached) - something I found online recently even though it's now nearly three years old. I dare anyone to read this insider's view of porn industry in this country, their reactions to the introduction of several regulatory restrictions, and not feel huge wave of resonance with the situation that we are seeing with the shows at the moment.
How deep the parallels go I, obviously, do not know. But the point is that this is the firm and lasting impression the industry is leaving on at least some of their more watchful viewers. Is it any wonder then that the channel's face feelings of resentment and bite back as a result? IMO it is one of their more severe image problems.
Is it one they even want to overcome though?
RE: How complicit are the channels and Ofcom? - MARCCE - 05-04-2017 12:25
The problem with this is that the people demanding the channels go further do so from a position where they themselves risk nothing. It isn't going to affect them financially if stronger shows see the channels whacked by Ofcom.
It's like most things in life. People coming at a subject from polar opposites tend to find a common ground somewhere in the middle of those points of view and go forward from there. It's all very well to urge the channels to continue to push as far as they can but on the flip side what if Ofcom does the same and goes back to pushing for the channels to be gone completely? Would people be happy with that?
What has actually happened here is that the channels have accepted Ofcom aren't budging from their stance of not allowing anything stronger than we currently have and are now working within those parameters.
Of course many people watching the shows would like to see them go further but quite frankly that is no longer the channel's fight. Over the past decade or so, they've done what they can to push various boundaries and it's led to the demise of some of them and heavy fines for most of the others. We, as viewers, simply cannot expect the channels to embark on crusades that could affect their staff's livelihoods when the negative consequences aren't affecting us.
Ofcom's position now is only going to be changed by a major change in public opinion, or maybe that should be perceived opinion, about what is acceptable during live broadcasts. Given that tv channels as a whole go into a state of full on panic mode just for an unexpected swear word being picked up during any live broadcast, I don't see that interpretation of perceived public opinion changing any time soon sadly.
RE: How complicit are the channels and Ofcom? - ShandyHand - 08-04-2017 12:04
^ I'm not sure how much of this is aimed at my posts and how much you are just speaking generally.
Your post may indicate that I was not clear enough about a few things in my OP though.Just to clarify, demanding anything is not my style and I certainly wouldn't feel it worth my while to do that these days as it'd be particulary unrealistic since the success of pervecam. It's also not really reflective of what the niche guys that drive the channel's TV coffers want from the shows right now. Personally, I would have no issue with the channels at all if they could summon up visuals of a level similiar to those of just three or four years ago for instance.
I also feel you have somewhat missed the point of this thread (as I say possibly my fault) and are, instead, replying to more familar complaints. The point of my OP was to consider why there seems to be an embryonic feeling that Ofcom are in league with the channels in recent times and if any parallels can be drawn from the UK porn operators' stance against some proposed restriction lifting in their industry. I was speculating on these parallels to underline certain commercial considerations being behind the channels' acquiescence with the status quo.
If you want my personal opinion on this so-called collusion: I find it unlikely as ever and feel that the operators are still just taking advantage of their circumstances.
My stance against Ofcom and censorship in general is on a very different level from my expectations and desire to see the babeshows push against their particular restrictions.
(05-04-2017 12:25 )MARCCE Wrote: It's like most things in life. People coming at a subject from polar opposites tend to find a common ground somewhere in the middle of those points of view and go forward from there...
Are you suggesting Ofcom has given ground in the past?! Huh?! A little recent daytime ass is maybe the extent of any concession I can conceive of.
...But, otherwise, we agree here. I've often said that some guys should be careful what they wish for. Also, that any overt campaign against the channels' timidness would be doomed to failure.
(05-04-2017 12:25 )MARCCE Wrote: What has actually happened here is that the channels have accepted Ofcom aren't budging from their stance...
...Over the past decade or so, they've done what they can to push various boundaries...
AFAIK any fight was over by 2013. I'd say that the channels have only rarely been caught out since (and not a one since summer 2014). The last couple of breaches felt like momentary recklessnesses.
For me, it was back then that the operators realised that Ofcom's rules could actually work in their favour in some regards. I think, by and large, they were in agreement with Ofcom after that and have had zero interest in them "budging" since. These days they are more than happy to play well within the rules because it suits them commercially. I feel they are glad of Ofcom now; it enables them to function in their own little marketplace that might otherwise by swamped by TV porn of all hues. The channels have since taken full advantage and their use of visuals became carefully crafted - about more than merely 'playing safe'.
This is indicative of a sea change in attitude IMO. I don't think you can really claim they consistently pushed boundaries at any point after that. Operators that have gone to the wall since seem to have done so for different reasons as far as I can see. It is irksome that we are still told all they are doing is working within Ofcom's rules when it is patently more than that.
For me, the key to the different slant we are putting on all this lies in the answer to this question: If the government said to the operators, "We are thinking of abolishing Ofcom; should we do that?" What fo you think would be their response?
But... we do concur on the current practicalities here; crusades lie elsewhere. I wouldn't wish or expect anyone to endanger their livelihoods on this one.
(05-04-2017 12:25 )MARCCE Wrote: Ofcom's position now is only going to be changed by a major change in public opinion, or maybe that should be perceived opinion, about what is acceptable during live broadcasts...
Misinterpreted perception of opinion is accurate I feel.
But yes, Ofcom are complicit of one thing - driving this agenda when they should be accurately reflective... Now I'm really struggling to keep this post to a reasonable length so any more is probably best left to their thread! 
RE: How complicit are the channels and Ofcom? - TIAF2 - 08-04-2017 14:49
The channels use ofcom as an excuse for not providing better shows and the fanboys on here help them - there are no 'filthy' shows you are embarrassing yourselves by using that word in relation to the pathetic crap that infests these channels every night and this forum is also complicit because it has banned a huge number of original members who had opinions which didn't meet the requirement of being 100% positive at all times and were sick of a daily diet of sugary posts by people who think they own this forum and no one has any right to criticise either the channels or the girls.
RE: How complicit are the channels and Ofcom? - Rake - 09-04-2017 14:44
(08-04-2017 14:49 )TIAF2 Wrote: The channels use ofcom as an excuse for not providing better shows and the fanboys on here help them - there are no 'filthy' shows you are embarrassing yourselves by using that word in relation to the pathetic crap that infests these channels every night and this forum is also complicit because it has banned a huge number of original members who had opinions which didn't meet the requirement of being 100% positive at all times and were sick of a daily diet of sugary posts by people who think they own this forum and no one has any right to criticise either the channels or the girls.
Good rant. I feel your pain, but I have been de-radicalised.
RE: How complicit are the channels and Ofcom? - ShandyHand - 09-04-2017 18:01
^ Lol. Exactly. There is no point wilfully ignoring that several things have changed since 2010. One demographic is no more entitled to 'it's' babeshows than another. The thing that bugs somewhat me is that the channels play off an ignorance of what they could be on some levels. Claiming to be hamstrung more than they are as an excuse for cold hard commercial exploitation.
But then there is just too much of a side-swiping corner of the mouth sneer about a lot of things they do these days.
When alls said and done though, there are worse things in life than a hot babe with her norks out for several hours each night.
So I watch and wait for a change of heart or circumstance.
RE: How complicit are the channels and Ofcom? - MARCCE - 10-04-2017 17:55
Are you suggesting Ofcom has given ground in the past?! Huh?! A little recent daytime ass is maybe the extent of any concession I can conceive of. Huh
Ofcom has given ground in the past because it's no secret they wanted the channels gone. Remember when the channels were having to make arguments like how important they were for disabled viewers and such other protestations in their attempts to survive at all? What we have now is basically some kind of middle ground from both sides starting points.
As far as channels not going out of business recently goes, when everything was tightened up as to what they could and couldn't do, that was always going to limit the potential of the channels to be individualistic and stand out from each other in the way Elite, in particular, did when it first came on the scene. The regulations have created a situation where the channels and what they do are much of a muchness these days which perhaps was always the intention for Ofcom. With that being the case, it was quite clear a couple of years back there were too many channels and that there was about to be a survival of the fittest style cull on the horizon. Indeed, I said that very thing on this forum at the time and within a few months a chunk of channels had gone.
On the main theme, I don't think the channels are at all glad of Ofcom. Clearly they would have greater earning potential if they were able to even go up to pervcam levels on the main shows. Whichever way you look at it, a free to air tv channel offering full frontal nudity and the chance to speak directly to the girl at the same time would be in a position to generate a lot of calls. However, if a channel is quite aware there is no way that's going to be allowed to happen then the instinct will always be to make the best of the hand they've been dealt and not to take too many risks when there's little reward to be had from doing so. Far from the channels feeling that the rules could work in their favour, I tend to think they came to understand, or maybe became resigned to, the fact that there was no point continually banging their heads against a brick wall when the chances of them "winning" were heavily stacked against them.
RE: How complicit are the channels and Ofcom? - derekdas - 12-04-2017 19:37
The problem is, they can do a lot better than they are at the moment without even coming close to breaking any Ofcom rules. I don't believe the goal posts have changed in any way dramatically since their inception. Shows that were being broadcast a year or two ago, were far superior than most of the crap the channels are churning out now. Some of those shows then had some really outrageous "rule breaking" performances and did they get punished, No!
A major problem in the distant past, when there was a few more channels than there are now, was the channels had spies out there, whose job it was to find evidence of the rules being transgressed by their competitors. Armed with some ammunition they would be straight on to Ofcom to dub them in. I believe most of the infringements then, resulting in heavy fines, were as a result of this. One channel against another!
I'm not aware this back stabbing goes on any more and any infringements mentioned in Ofcom reports now appear to be re advertising rule breaking or the use of the perv cam in day time shows etc. We haven't read, as far as I'm aware, of any complaints over the said couple of years where warnings were given out about a certain babe who spent most of the show with her pussy lips hanging out or rubbing her fanny in full view of the camera. But it has happened ! Right now, all we get is motionless bodies lying down, or dare be it a babe goes to move her hand towards her pussy or turn her bum to the camera full on ( it has to be sideways on ) up goes the camera to show just head and shoulders. I do believe they can do a great deal better than they are at present, without any fear of prosecution. Until the fan boys stop giving laughable reviews, parrot fashion, for a very ordinary, inept performance, tell the truth that is was crap and the dirty brown mac brigade stop ringing in, it's going to carry on.