Post Reply 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 42 Vote(s) - 2.76 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Ofcom Discussion

Author Message
ShandyHand Offline
No Paywall Onlys - not babeshows
*****

Posts: 3,968
Joined: Mar 2009
Reputation: 65
Post: #3671
RE: Ofcom Discussion
^ This story about the cams has been doing the rounds since at least early August (at the time I saw it it was ascribed on the 66 chatbox to something Cara S had said). IIRC I posted about it in another thread at the time.

It's a possibilty that it has been a factor in the lessening of general obvious playing to the webcam during the day in the intervening period.

As for Ofcom's 'protection of the children' defence, I have said before that this is IMO something a lot of official bodies have picked up on as a way to help enforce their particular (religiously motivated?) moralistic stance on society - as it is very difficult to counter without looking like a heel! Of course I am not saying that every time we hear this argument we should be deeply suspicious of the motives behind it (sometimes the argument is a perfectly valid one) but merely that we should ask two things on each occasion:
1.Is the censorship being proclaimed porportional when measured against the harm ascribed to the thing being censored? (Is it a sledgehammer to crack a nut in other words.)
2. What is the imperical evidence that the harm being ascribed is an actual one (and how does the realistic possibilty of it occuring weigh-up)? The academic evidence in support of such things is often highly contested.

The idea that the babeshows "are not that deep" is driven by those that don't wish to acknowledge how much effective customer service and a consideration of psychology impacts users' future interactions.
19-01-2017 21:26
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ShandyHand Offline
No Paywall Onlys - not babeshows
*****

Posts: 3,968
Joined: Mar 2009
Reputation: 65
Post: #3672
RE: Ofcom Discussion
The Guardian seems to be hot on Ofcom's trail at the moment (we really need an applauding emoji on this board! Wink )

They have Bill Emmott advancing his claim for compensation (on being pushed out of Ofcom) to a judicial review: https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/j...er-sacking

(Baroness Sheila Noakes, mentioned at the bottom of the article, is Ofcom's deputy chair. Emmott is refering to her own impartiality scandal at the start of 2015; something that had Labour's Harriet Harmon calling her a "Tory stooge": https://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/j...iet-harman ... Noakes' four year term with Ofcom is due to end around the same time as Patricia Hogson's in June 2018.)

There's further juicy back-story on the Emmott saga here: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/01/20/...ng_payoff/
...including the gossipy bon mot of White critising the guy's appointment to his face!

(16-01-2017 21:34 )MR PERFECT Wrote:  ...
It wouldn't surprise me if ofcom and the channels are working together.

^ This is putting things a little strongly for me. Surely we have seen too many examples of Ofcom harassing the channels for this to be a truly representative statement in this case? However, you are not alone in alleging that Ofcom is capable of such a thing... This next piece from opendemocracy even has a name for it - "regulatory capture"!

OD are contending that Ofcom is colluding with the TV and radio industries to block the release of the more damaging diversity figures: https://www.opendemocracy.net/ourbeeb/si...v-industry

The idea that the babeshows "are not that deep" is driven by those that don't wish to acknowledge how much effective customer service and a consideration of psychology impacts users' future interactions.
20-01-2017 21:23
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
MR PERFECT Offline
Banned

Posts: 418
Joined: Jan 2017
Post: #3673
RE: Ofcom Discussion
(20-01-2017 21:23 )ShandyHand Wrote:  The Guardian seems to be hot on Ofcom's trail at the moment (we really need an applauding emoji on this board! Wink )

They have Bill Emmott advancing his claim for compensation (on being pushed out of Ofcom) to a judicial review: https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/j...er-sacking

(Baroness Sheila Noakes, mentioned at the bottom of the article, is Ofcom's deputy chair. Emmott is refering to her own impartiality scandal at the start of 2015; something that had Labour's Harriet Harmon calling her a "Tory stooge": https://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/j...iet-harman ... Noakes' four year term with Ofcom is due to end around the same time as Patricia Hogson's in June 2018.)

There's further juicy back-story on the Emmott saga here: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/01/20/...ng_payoff/
...including the gossipy bon mot of White critising the guy's appointment to his face!

(16-01-2017 21:34 )MR PERFECT Wrote:  ...
It wouldn't surprise me if ofcom and the channels are working together.

^ This is putting things a little strongly for me. Surely we have seen too many examples of Ofcom harassing the channels for this to be a truly representative statement in this case? However, you are not alone in alleging that Ofcom is capable of such a thing... This next piece from opendemocracy even has a name for it - "regulatory capture"!

OD are contending that Ofcom is colluding with the TV and radio industries to block the release of the more damaging diversity figures: https://www.opendemocracy.net/ourbeeb/si...v-industry

I stand over my assumption that ofcom and the channels are on the same team now. I agree this was not always the case but it is now.
20-01-2017 21:50
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Dave_A Offline
Senior Poster
***

Posts: 481
Joined: Sep 2015
Reputation: 19
Post: #3674
RE: Ofcom Discussion
Ofcom's latest broadcast bulletin came out yesterday, iv'e just had a quick browse through it and haven't yet gone through it all, so might have missed some stuff concerning the babe channels.

Anyway one thing i have noticed is that Ofcom have launched a new investigation into something that was broadcast on the Studio 66 morning show on the 14/11/2016 .
It was on one of the Television X channels, Ofcom have named Television X has the broadcaster .
https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/p...ue-321.pdf
(This post was last modified: 24-01-2017 17:35 by Dave_A.)
24-01-2017 16:51
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
MR PERFECT Offline
Banned

Posts: 418
Joined: Jan 2017
Post: #3675
RE: Ofcom Discussion
(24-01-2017 16:51 )Dave_A Wrote:  Ofcom's latest broadcast bulletin came out yesterday, iv'e just had a quick browse through it and haven't yet gone through it all, so might have missed some stuff concerning the babe channels.

Anyway one thing i have noticed is that Ofcom have launched a new investigation into something that was broadcast on the Studio 66 morning show on the 14/11/2016 .
It was on one of the Television X channels, Ofcom have named Television X has the broadcaster .
.https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0033/96873/Issue-321.pdf

S66 doing something interesting?
24-01-2017 17:24
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
HEX!T Away
Retired
*****

Posts: 6,298
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 143
Post: #3676
RE: Ofcom Discussion

Any Babe pics posted are my Take on existing photographs. credits for the original images stays with the copyright holder if any rights apply.

Today im wearing a gray hat. tomorrow it might be white or black, it depends on my mood
24-01-2017 17:35
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
donnafan913 Offline
Senior Poster
***

Posts: 129
Joined: Feb 2010
Reputation: 2
Post: #3677
RE: Ofcom Discussion
wonder who was on ?

(24-01-2017 17:24 )MR PERFECT Wrote:  
(24-01-2017 16:51 )Dave_A Wrote:  Ofcom's latest broadcast bulletin came out yesterday, iv'e just had a quick browse through it and haven't yet gone through it all, so might have missed some stuff concerning the babe channels.

Anyway one thing i have noticed is that Ofcom have launched a new investigation into something that was broadcast on the Studio 66 morning show on the 14/11/2016 .
It was on one of the Television X channels, Ofcom have named Television X has the broadcaster .
.https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0033/96873/Issue-321.pdf

S66 doing something interesting?
24-01-2017 19:09
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ShandyHand Offline
No Paywall Onlys - not babeshows
*****

Posts: 3,968
Joined: Mar 2009
Reputation: 65
Post: #3678
RE: Ofcom Discussion
(15-01-2017 19:06 )shankey! Wrote:  not often i post here but i cant see what difference ofcom decides to do with the babe channels on tv now that perv cam is here, even if censorship was blown out the window the likes of babestation would not show the goods without charging for it first Huh

Can of worms! Wink ... This goes directly to why I post in this section so you'll have to bear with me on this one... Smile

Of course; this^ argument has been made many times (perhaps most thoroughly here) but IMO, although well-observed, it only takes us so far with the issue. For me, it neglects to accomodate one very important influence on the shows: Competition... Competition in business is the often a major driving force for change.

Consider that the channels have found their way to their current state through this relatively bland vacuousness of the 900s - a situation created and maintained by Ofcom. Over time the regulator's rules and the remaining channels' ongoing tactics have limited the influence of competition in the Adult Section to what is currently a very closed cartel. It is the fewer operators the better as far as the survivors are concerned.

In other words, the channels don't exist in a vacuum and they have taken advantage of the vastly limited "adult" options on UK TV in order to do what they do.

So yes, like you, I believe that the resolute self-censorship of visuals that we see atm is a commercial decision founded in the on-going circumstances that I describe. For me though, this is response dictated by their situation not an absolute. Change the circumstances that surround the shows in the right way and a natural creep towards somewhat harder content would return. The end of Ofcom would be a particularly large change in circumstance for the channels.

If this meant a deregulation of the 900s (or whatever they became) the influence of competition would, I think, be particularly acute. Different, but similarly targeted, incoming business models (presumably various levels of porn programming with the larger brands offering fta channels promoting their paywalled content) would almost inevitably impact on the 900's status quo. Crucially these other options would only be a click or two away on your average punter's remote. The industry would have to respond to this in some way in order to not look out of place.

In addition, freed from the burden of existing overly censorious regulation, internal competition between the operators would also begin to exert it's own pull on visual content once more. The carefully contrived balance of appealing to various niche fetishes and playing on the edge of viewers' sexual frustrations would be upset. The industry game would have changed once again - just as it did with the arrival of Ofcom's teeth.

You see, as things stand Ofcom acts as the ultimate limiter for the shows. It is Ofcom that keeps the current detente, stopping any one operator from stepping away from the standard tactics adopted by the industry and looking to grab some perceived advantage over their competitors by doing so. Their regulation is an industry pacifier... As such, it's surely a very different matter for a channel to maintain a largely consistent internal visual compliance whilst there is such a firm regulatory backstop, than it would be for them to do so were there to be none at all (or far less of one)...

Now I'm not saying that any operator would attempt an all out free-for-all pussy show post-deregulation - that would, quite obviously, be counter-productive from the channel's pov. No doubt full-on pussy play would, like nowadays, be reserved for a paywall of some sort (the pervcams on a PPV 'red' button anyone?! Wink ). But, basically, it's a question of degrees with the visuals isn't it. I just think, a lot more would be up for grabs again without the absolute shackles placed on them by Ofcom.

Let's not forget that Ofcom block more than just body parts. The sort of stronger fta visuals that I'm imagining are actually more to do with performance, intensity, duration and/or positioning of camera angles than content per se. For me, this is the 'heat' that the removal of a stifling Ofcom would likely bring back to the shows (it is not all about pure skin is it).

I've already gone on far too long on this, so one simple example of where I going here will have to suffice:

Current regulatory rules forbid "intrusive and prolonged" crotch shots on the night shows right. They are reining in intensity here not just pure image. Now imagine a highly pressurised 900's with BS, to use your example, surrounded by semi-hardcore ad driven tease or some such (who knows what kind of alternative interactive competition might crop up for instance) featuring just this kind of imagery, and a re-stoked industry competition between the now unregulated shows bubbling in the background... Can you really envisage that BS would be able to stick to a non-prolonged crotch shots policy in their shows for any considerable period under such circumstances? No, I somehow don't see that as realistic; a different balance of visuals would need to be struck between the pay and fta platforms I feel.

I'm sure we could all come up with various similar examples of probable heat intensifiers too. Wink ...

When all is said and done, something of the sort has happened a couple of times before on the channels - during the shows' first decade on air (years of greater competition note). Look how the standard visuals fluxed during that period of uncertainty. Things might prove different this time around of course, as it may be that circumstances have changed for the operators in ways that we are not privy to but, aside from some seemingly unlikely radical rethink by Ofcom, it is sure as hell only via the regulator's demise that we will ever find out! Smile

So, fwiw, that's how I rationalise this thread... Ofcom limit what the channels can do; but just because the channels are most happy to play along with that doesn't make it inevitable that that's all there will ever be. It maybe a distant and theoretical prospect atm... but then the ITC probably thought they'd be around forever too! Tongue

The idea that the babeshows "are not that deep" is driven by those that don't wish to acknowledge how much effective customer service and a consideration of psychology impacts users' future interactions.
01-02-2017 09:41
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
munch1917 Offline
Silence is golden
*****

Posts: 2,156
Joined: Jun 2010
Reputation: 70
Post: #3679
RE: Ofcom Discussion
^^ I won't even attempt to respond to that Smile but I will just address the issue you quote from shankey! regarding pervcam.

This issue came about from the revelation that S66 had been slapped on the wrist for showing the cam on screen. What's interesting is why they were slapped on the wrist for this. There are plenty of regulations about what can and can't be shown, or said, or acted out on screen, and when these things are permitted and when they aren't etc, but I haven't seen any regulation that states things like web cams can't be shown on screen.

My only thought on this is that perhaps Ofcom are using the regulation about not advertising explicit websites. Are they suggesting that the web cam itself constitutes an advertisement because its presence on screen will lead the viewer to look for the website it is attached to. That seems quite a stretch even for Ofcom's famously vague and open-ended interpretations. Or are we perhaps being slightly misinformed, and is this slap more to do with pervcam being mentioned on screen rather than being visible?

Be interested to know if anyone has any further info on this.

"I'm a featherless bird ... in a sky so absurd"

Sophia - Becky - Mica - Camilla - Ella
01-02-2017 15:38
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
shankey! Online
Posting Machine
*****

Posts: 2,445
Joined: Feb 2011
Reputation: 27
Post: #3680
RE: Ofcom Discussion
i think ill keep my gob shut in future , whew !!! Surprised
01-02-2017 16:44
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply