The UK Babe Channels Forum

Generation Sex is back on its a series at 11.35pm Thursday channel 30 5* on freeview..This was the show that sparked complaints,,it showed men stood there with genitals hanging out very close up,,when it came to womens turn NOTHING was shown..Channel 5 sort of apologised but absolutly blamed Ofcom else they would have balanced the sex show by showing female genitals.

EDIT,,i expect some backlash but you are never going to get any further with pussy flashes when at the heart of the problem female genitals are banned on UK TV unless medical,penises can be shown anytime with foreskin pulled back which is still sexually explicit.

Not sure about the personal attacks on people there might be more to it.
Ofcom is a government body and giving the current financial situation in the UK might be tightening the rules to get more revenue in fines.
When back in the day we were affluent and the channels were making money maybe the rules were lighter and the fines less heavy, I really don't know so please correct me if I get anything wrong here.
It could explain why the channels are least than eager to let the models lets say express themselves in the way that we want/expect from them.
Obviously the channels are feeling the pinch so where in the past they might allow certain models to push/go beyond the boundaries because they could afford the fines nowadays when everyone is feeling the pinch they just can not afford that sort of expenditure.
Hey just thought I'll put this out there its my thoughts its what this forum is all about pls respond ( talking to u ScottishBloke hope this piques you interest) cheers guys and gals enough luv here for u all

Please, no one post anything that looks like a threat of physical violence against anyone, even Ed 'My wife was a Labour Welsh Assembly member and assistant to Gordon Brown, and I was a senior policy advisor to Tony Blair' Richards, even as a joke.

The authorities are getting a bit po faced about the internet and tracking down people who make unpleasant comments that could be taken the wrong way. One troll tweeted "I hope [name] gets cancer again and dies" about a referee. Its a vile and unpleasant tweet but not a threat, yet the police are involved.

Lets not give the authorities an excuse to make life difficult.

Heres a reminder of how popular the great man is:
One MP on the public accounts] committee said yesterday: ‘He [Ed Richards] treated the committee with absolute disdain and clearly felt he was above parliamentary scrutiny. He was the most arrogant witness in a long time. He didn’t want to answer questions, and became more and more aggressive.' (Daily Mail 6 June 2012)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...ocrat.html

Strangely he is 8 years younger than his wife. Not that it matters.

I have it on good knowledge from at least one of the channel reps via the PM system that they have absolutely no intention of ever challenging ofcom. Also Babestation have stated the same thing in another source by saying that they will simply do as they are told by the regulators.

The PM sent to me said one of the main reason why ofcom will not be challenged is down to the fact that Sportxxx did it last year by shelling out 100k only for them to be defeated.

I'm sure there must be less costly measures of such a pursuit but in the current climate, nobody is willing to put in anymore challenges. We are now left with the like it or lump it option.

That's the harsh reality of the situation, also the reps don't even read this thread anyway, they are not daft either, they are still in profit so see no need to rock the boat.

If ofcom lighten the rules in the future, then brilliant. Now that the XFactor has started our hopes rest firmly in the big organisations who have the might and power and so much more money than the babe channels do to mount a serious challenge.

I fully expect to see something raunchy that is going to rock the media regulator and then hopefully piss ITV right off which realisitically is our best hope of anybody showing ofcom up to the fascist and toothless organisation which they have been for so many years.

The ofcom question has to stretch further than just adult type entertainment.

Well this is very sad news indeed however not unexpected. SB you've said this many times in the past, it just goes to show the type of people we're dealing with at Ofcom HQ. it's a sad state of affairs when you think we have to hope that maybe a mainstream tv channel such as ITV or the BBC for example might take on Ofcom if they feel they're getting to much hassle from them and in doing so possibly take them on in the courts. However if this doesn't happen then it'll be the same old same old lame material we've been getting over the past few yrs!!
I agree though, why should the producers and owners of these shows rock the boat when people keep calling all the time? If the channels are making money under these restrictions, then why spend £1000's of worth of legal litigation to show more in the risk of being crushed in the courts? I can see the channels points of view to!!
I guess all we can do is sit and wait it out, there's very little any of us can do! and like SB has mentioned, in his previous post, that if the owners don't want to get into a legal fight with Ofcom then I guess it's put up with the material on show, that's pretty much it.
We must hope one day that either Ofcom's leadership either changes for a more open minded chief executive, or the current government deregulate Ofcom somehow, however the likelihood of the latter happening is very slim indeed!! Lets hope 2013 will be a happier and a more positive year for all of us!!

Thats sad news, its a pity the channels keep it more or less secret. Channels might not want to publically say they they arent going to challenge Ofcom because that will damage their reputations, but they could put up an industry spokesman or a rep for an unnamed channel to get their side out.

It would also be interesting to know more about the Sport case, particularly bearing in mind that it was Sport who forced through R18 DVDs by taking on the BBFC. Was this a High Court appeal against an Ofcom decision? Just a guess.

Ofcom operate a quasijudicial system, their Sanction decisions are Court rulings in all but name, and most of the UK Court system operates on open principles. Not Ofcom. Parties to a complaint cannot breath a word about it until it has been concluded. This might be why channels are reluctant to say they are challenging Ofcom while a case is being disputed, and they may be a bit shy of then saying they have lost.

The link below is for a barrister who represented SEL "in administrative proceedings before Ofcom’s Broadcasting Sanctions Committee" in 2011. My reading is that refers to a Sanction hearing, not a judicial review by a Court but I could be wrong.
http://www.blackstonechambers.com/people...jones.html

Apart from that I can find no reference to an actual court case, rather than Ofcoms own kangeroo court.

Slightly worryingly, Blackstones legal textbooks are writing up Sanction decisions under their Case Law heading, ie precedent.
http://www.oup.com/uk/orc/bin/statutes/b...9/?view=za
A regulator should be consistent, but when pressed Ofcom says each decision is taken on its own merit. Legally the rule used to be that no court below the High Court could set precedent. Certainly not a penny ante Tribunal where decisions were not made by people with years of legal training.

Ofcom appear to have provided evidence to the Leveson Inquiry into phone hacking and press regulation, putting themselves forward as an example of how regulation could work.
https://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-con...chards.pdf
Some examples of Sanctions are given in child friendly simple diagrams with big writing and primary colours, for example fining Bang Media £157,250 (slide 18).
Slide 24 mentions "Independent governance and decision making" characterised by "Decision making consistent with principles of good corporate governance; independent chairman and at minimum a majority of independent NEDs. No scope for inappropriate influence by regulated bodies in decision making."
and "Clear public accountability" described as "Appropriate oversight of regulatory activitythrough both annual reporting processes and potentially parliamentary oversight through Select Committees etc."

Dear old Ed Richards gave "evidence" mostly consisting of extracts from legislation and rules. From page 12 on he describes Ofcoms relationship to the Advertising Standards Authority, and chilling it is too. Ofcom can direct the ASA to change advertising rules. They did this when the ASA expert body could not agree rules for snacks high in fat or salt (para 14.3, page 13). "accordingly. The reason for this was that the ASA body responsible for making code changes (the Broadcast Committee of Advertising Practice, drawn from industry members) was unable to agree the changes that Ofcom considered necessary". Is that staggering arrogance or what?
Remember, this is Ed Richards own example for his work.
http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-cont...chards.pdf

What they fail to mention is that after 3 rounds of consulation the it was proposed and agreed that Psychic channels would only be broadcast in specialist sections of the EPG. The ASA implemented this rule. The channels told Ofcom this would be unduly restrictive and Ofcom promptly lifted the restriction. Today Ofcom and ASA rules say different things. In other words "accountable" Ofcom will ride roughshod over partners and consultation results if it wants.

The whole lot is one BIG scam,its all about money for the channels and as long as they make enough they couldn't give a flying fuck how tame ofcoms rulles are.

Im pretty sure BS wouldnt make the same amount of money from say a camilla bsx naked show if she was flashing her pussy on tv for free like a few years back!

Meanwhile ofcom (whos main gimmick is saving the kids from fanny) allow some GREAT pussy shots on E4

This was just on tv..... http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xicj7m_...sports_fun

Now since ofcom are all about the kids....whats a child who woke up in the middle of the night more likely to watch....E4 or a 900 channel

SCAMMING OFCOM CUNTS!!!!

So this was allowed to be shown on E4??? Wow!

Ofcom seems to not want the adult channels to show full frontal nudity, yet they are obviously in favor of showcasing women who enjoy getting naked in public, which is usually an arrestable offense. She showed no regard to anyone around her, especially considering she wasn't at a nudist beach or sauna where this is acceptable. The nude body is natural and we shouldn't be ashamed of it, but that doesn't make it OK for people to be walking around in public nude. Most people will be taken out of their comfort zone when this happens!

So Ofcom of all people, don't have an issue with finding public nudity to be fun and humorous, meaning it's OK with them for people to be nude around others, even perhaps children if they are nearby.

If they don't feel this way, they would fine E4 twice for allowing a show like this to be broadcast, once for the full frontal nudity, and once for suggesting that being naked in public is fun and OK.

It doesn't help that the audience is encouraging this behavior by clapping for the nudist.

Now what has the potential to cause more harm? Full frontal nudity on the easy to block adult channels after the watershed, or a fully nude person right infront of you in public during the day? This was just a TV show about a particular nudist, but to me allowing it to be aired is the equivalent of Ofcom being in support of public nudity, and I find it more possible of causing harm, because a child might interpret public nudity as being OK after watching this, which is the last thing children should be thinking!

Ofcom is made up of some confused individuals.

By allowing this to be shown on a non adult channel, to me it basically gives the adult channels carte blance to do as they like!

The thing to bear in mind is that Ofcom places great emphasis on context, so nudity is not the issue in itself, it's more nudity within a sexual context. That nude girl clip is not really sexual in any sense, so it is OK by Ofcom, whereas the babe channels are clearly sexual, that is their point, so nudity is more controlled there.

(06-10-2012 03:47 )mrmann Wrote: [ -> ]...
I find it more possible of causing harm, because a child might interpret public nudity as being OK after watching this, which is the last thing children should be thinking!
...

Not sure I really agree with that. One of the reasons we are so screwed up about things sexual is because we are brought up to view sex and nudity as something dirty and private and only to be allowed within your own home, in the bedroom, with the lights off etc etc. In other countries, where nudity especially is more common and open, I don't see any great harm being caused to the children exposed to it. Nudity and the naked body is not something to be ashamed of, or something that should be considered offensive, and perhaps if we brought children up in an environment where nudity was more acceptable, and where nudity was seen as something separate from sex, maybe we wouldn't be quite so fixated on body image, and quite so screwed up about sex itself.

(06-10-2012 09:45 )munch1917 Wrote: [ -> ]The thing to bear in mind is that Ofcom places great emphasis on context, so nudity is not the issue in itself, it's more nudity within a sexual context. That nude girl clip is not really sexual in any sense, so it is OK by Ofcom, whereas the babe channels are clearly sexual, that is their point, so nudity is more controlled there.

(06-10-2012 03:47 )mrmann Wrote: [ -> ]...
I find it more possible of causing harm, because a child might interpret public nudity as being OK after watching this, which is the last thing children should be thinking!
...

Not sure I really agree with that. One of the reasons we are so screwed up about things sexual is because we are brought up to view sex and nudity as something dirty and private and only to be allowed within your own home, in the bedroom, with the lights off etc etc. In other countries, where nudity especially is more common and open, I don't see any great harm being caused to the children exposed to it. Nudity and the naked body is not something to be ashamed of, or something that should be considered offensive, and perhaps if we brought children up in an environment where nudity was more acceptable, and where nudity was seen as something separate from sex, maybe we wouldn't be quite so fixated on body image, and quite so screwed up about sex itself.

Of course you make some good points, and I agree that nudity at a beach, especially in Europe where it's less frowned upon, or nude beach or sauna is perfectly fine, because it's not something to be ashamed of or looked at as something disgusting. However, nudity in everday public locations is another matter.

Do you want to be sitting at a restaurant, only for a nude person to sit next to you? That would take me out of my comfort zone, and while I'd laugh at it, I'd rather not eat my entire meal next to someone nude, male or female, attractive or ugly.

Also, I don't want to be aroused in public, and if I'm surrounded by nude women, that would be akward for me, as it's not the norm for a public place, and not how the majority of us are raised. We aren't told that nudity is OK in public, we are taught the opposite, and there are legal reasons why this is not the norm as well. Sexual harrassment, STDs you can get just by skin to skin contact (People bump into each other all the time, especially in cities), comfort zone issues.

Also, it's damn distracting which could cause people to not pay attention while driving, if they happen to be looking at a nude person. You'll also be close to the center of attention, since everyone will be staring at said nude person.

A bit extreme what I'm suggesting perhaps, but only because public nudity is NOT the norm, whereas wearing clothes is. It's a bit late to expect us to just be OK with public nudity all of a suddden, just because the nude body is natural and normal.

Now there can be humor sometimes if you have a relaxed attitude, but that still doesn't mean relaxed individuals want to see nude people in public, especially not for prolonged amounts of time.

If I sat next to you munch in a public place, and I was nude, you'd probably leave immediately, call the police, or tell me off and then leave, but I doubt you'd continue to be near me.

I don't think it's possible to seperate sex from nudity, especially not in most places. I started thinking about sex when I was seven, part of it due to movies, but also part of it do to me begining to have some feelings for other females my age. To me it would be wrong to push something like this by allowing everyone to be nude in public. We are all sexual, so eventually we are going to think of sex when we see nude people, so it's inevitable that sex is where we'll be headed. I don't believe this will ever change! Clothing acts as a protective barrier, pyschologically.

Having a show like this on E4 could give the impression to naive children that nudity in public isn't so bad, and that people will laugh it off. Well, what happens when a nude person approaches a child, and the child finds it funny, instead of wrong, there could be bad consequences! Also, I wouldn't want to be friends with someone who's comfortable being nude around children, which nudists would be if public nudity was allowed. That's weird to me, regardless of the intentions of the nudist.

I'm part European in attitude, and go to beaches where there is nudity at times, as well as saunas where you are told to go nude, and the occasional strip club, but I believe people should keep their clothes on in regular public places. This is 2012', not ancient Rome.