(11-10-2012 18:28 )elroyticklestab Wrote: [ -> ]Somewhere in Ofcom there is a Harriet Harman wannabee who sees the 900 channels as disgusting. Last night's shows were pathetically tame so it is obviously the producers who are running scared of Ofcom as many of the models do hardcore, open leg or at least tasteful nude.
Now if they all got together and said "right lads, 11pm Friday 12th Oct, best models out and all bollock naked, across every channel and screw Ofcom, they can't sanction all of us"....
I suggested something similar a few years ago
http://www.babeshows.co.uk/showthread.php?tid=24756
now things are even milder and nothing changes on any front.
Ofcom have got all this what is harm and offence the wrong way round. When I was a kid I'd have many a nightmare which is very common at that age. I will list you a few examples here.
Back in 1985 I went to the cinema to see Return To Oz, the follow up to the Wizard Of Oz and much darker than anybody had anticipated at the time. Certain scenes stick out to me, the men on the wheels chasing Dorthy and the wicked Queen who had a variation of different heads in a cabinet. That's just a few of the scenes that scared the living shit out of me, believe it or not this movie was made by Walt Disney.
Also I remember seeing various similar type programmes, some were even on childrens telly.
Not once did the sight of a naked body on the telly however give me nightmares. I should know because Channel 4 was showing some quite racy stuff during the 80's and 90's.
So my argument basically says that if a child were to accidently get up in the middle of the night and stumble across the 900 channels just what kind of harm would it do.
I'd imagine stumbling across the Horror channel would likely have an effect on a child whereas naked flesh just wouldn't. Ofcom need to get their research and facts straight. It's a no brainer just what is offensive to a minor and what isn't and nudity just isn't one of them.
(14-10-2012 03:03 )Scottishbloke Wrote: [ -> ]Ofcom have got all this what is harm and offence the wrong way round. When I was a kid I'd have many a nightmare which is very common at that age. I will list you a few examples here.
~~~
~~~
Same here the bad things i hated on tv from childhood was Jaws when Jaws bit into the person on the boat and blood come out of his mouth made me feel ill..Alien when the thing come out of his stomach and Salems Lot scared me to bits..I remember twice seeing a baby being born properly on tv, not pixellated crap on One Born Every Minute and disliked the blood but not the vagina...Ofcon are anti-vagina with no valid reason for this,,not one valid reason at all..
So what's the endgame for Ofcom? Does Ed Richards want the complete annihilation of the babe channels? Or does he want to tame them down so much that they'll collapse because of lack of content and the viewing public will get fedup watching and don't bother to call up?
Well i dare say other more knowledgeable forum members will shed more light on this, however in my opinion if Ofcom really wanted to close the babe channels they would have done this long ago. Now apart from the so called complaints about storm it's been pretty much quiet on the western front.
Now i might be wrong, however i really think Ofcom have realistically pushed the channels as far as they can regarding content. I think if the channels get any tamer we might as well be watching cartoons
I would be interested to see what you guys think?
My Main question is what's the endgame from Ofcom? that's the $64000 question i would like to no? whether anyone of us really knows the answer is open for debate
Does anybody know when Ed Richards takes his holidays, would be interesting to see if it is him that is spouting all this bullshit about the 900's being offensive to children, well offensive or not they are quite clearly labelled as Adult Chanels although to go along the same lines as Continental, maybe they should just stick them in the 600's next to all the childrens channels.
Afterall as ED and the gang put it, they must not cause any offence to the children. If we are using children as a pond to play then Babestation and co should now be placed next to CBBC and The Disney Channel.
What a choice now
The Flintstones followed by some Babestation and then rounding up the nights entertainment with some Blue Peter directly after watching feel or no feel on Televison X.
Maybe Richards should do another research and send out a survey around all the primary schools asking the kids if they reckon Lucy Summers should get a boob job or not.
I mean as he appears to think that they watch the channels then I'm sure any feedback Miss Summers get from a large part of the viewing audience is vital in order to keep all the customers happy
(15-10-2012 22:20 )Scottishbloke Wrote: [ -> ]Afterall as ED and the gang put it, they must not cause any offence to the children. If we are using children as a pond to play then Babestation and co should now be placed next to CBBC and The Disney Channel.
Maybe this is why Alex Salmond is courting school children as prospective voters in 2014. Vote for me kids and I'll give you tea time porn
It might explain why Ed's being such a knob!
Ofcom's latest broadcast bulletin came out today, issue number 216 and dated 22/10/2012 .
No babe channels were mentioned as being found "in breach" or "not in breach" , so i presume the investigation launched into Studio 66 mentioned in their last bulletin is still ongoing .
Ofcom broadcast bulletin mentions that they received complaints about three babe channels , Ofcom received a complaint about sexual material shown on STD 66 on the 25/09/2012 , Ofcom assessed the complaint but decided not to investigate further.
Ofcom also received a complaint about RLC 4 for something shown/done on the 12/09/2012 , Ofcom also decided not to investigate this complaint further .
Ofcom received a complaint about something done/shown on Storm nights on the 29/9/2012, but this time Ofcom have decided to launch a investigation into this complaint .
(15-10-2012 22:20 )Scottishbloke Wrote: [ -> ]Does anybody know when Ed Richards takes his holidays, would be interesting to see if it is him that is spouting all this bullshit about the 900's being offensive to children, well offensive or not they are quite clearly labelled as Adult Chanels although to go along the same lines as Continental, maybe they should just stick them in the 600's next to all the childrens channels.
Afterall as ED and the gang put it, they must not cause any offence to the children. If we are using children as a pond to play then Babestation and co should now be placed next to CBBC and The Disney Channel.
What a choice now The Flintstones followed by some Babestation and then rounding up the nights entertainment with some Blue Peter directly after watching feel or no feel on Televison X.
Maybe Richards should do another research and send out a survey around all the primary schools asking the kids if they reckon Lucy Summers should get a boob job or not.
I mean as he appears to think that they watch the channels then I'm sure any feedback Miss Summers get from a large part of the viewing audience is vital in order to keep all the customers happy
Good points and a well put forward argument but pls pls no suggestion that the awesome Lucy Summer should get a breast job not even joking pls she is perfection personified not having a go SB as I do agree with your OFFCOM views but pls not Lucy changing that awsome body.
Well you'll have a laugh at this I emailed Ofcom a few months back about there ridicules stance on the Adult channels. When I mentioned about the 9pm watershed there response to me was that they don't believe children don't go straight to bed at that time!! In otherwords they are saying that the watershed really means nothing to them at all? I also mentioned about the farce concerning the classification of the adult channels being classed under the umbrella as shopping channels. The answer they gave me was not convincing at all to say the least.
You talk about double standards, when the clock strikes 9pm a woman can bare all for a medical programme, yet when it's for sexual pleasure the 9pm watershed doesn't mean the same thing!! What a load of Bollocks!! It's one rule for one programme and one rule for another it's a bloody joke!! These guys couldn't regulate bath water let alone programmes
(22-10-2012 17:30 )continental19 Wrote: [ -> ]Well you'll have a laugh at this I emailed Ofcom a few months back about there ridicules stance on the Adult channels. When I mentioned about the 9pm watershed there response to me was that they don't believe children don't go straight to bed at that time!! In otherwords they are saying that the watershed really means nothing to them at all? I also mentioned about the farce concerning the classification of the adult channels being classed under the umbrella as shopping channels. The answer they gave me was not convincing at all to say the least.
You talk about double standards, when the clock strikes 9pm a woman can bare all for a medical programme, yet when it's for sexual pleasure the 9pm watershed doesn't mean the same thing!! What a load of Bollocks!! It's one rule for one programme and one rule for another it's a bloody joke!! These guys couldn't regulate bath water let alone programmes
Yes you can see a vagina lips open wide at 8pm Embarrasing illness thing yet you can never,ever see this any other time after watershed ever,ever,ever..SEXIST ,HYPROCRITAL AND ,WELL ,,,,SEXIST.