The UK Babe Channels Forum

(17-10-2010 15:11 )SYBORG666 Wrote: [ -> ]From what i've read on here is that Ofcom allow nudity within the context of the programme on fta channels. So here is what I can't understand, i'm flicking through Sky around 10am and come across a programme showing full frontal female nudity on Sky arts. So if that is allowed because of the context rule, then the babechannels should show material that is within context e.g full frontal nudity, dirty talk. Ofcom are in my eyes then just a bunch of hypocritical retards that should just fuck off and join the rest of us in the 21st century instead of living in the medeival times.

You have given the answer to your own question without realising it, the main word in your comment was Arts, in this context full frontal nudity on tv is allowed, also it was allowed at lunchtime on itv as well. Also if i'm correct, but is'nt full frontal nudity allowed if the program portrays itself as educational.

Its piss's me off that so long as its artistic then its ok but if its meant as a turn on then its not ok. Whats the difference, I don't understand. Here's a perfect example for you for anybody who likes french arthouse movies, back in 1991 a certain movie called la belle noiseuse starring emmanuelle beart was released and was given a 15 certificate which is basically what I would call a full frontal skin flick because if anybody honestly says they watched it for the plot then they are a fuckin liar I know I only watched it to see her cavorting about in the buff for practically the whole movie with a running time of 3 hours on a non existent plot involving an artist and his muse, what a fucking boring storyline and off course if the muse was ugly then you just wouldn't want to watch it either. Tell me is this movie not just voyeuristic material as opposed to art. Blatant double standards. There is no difference between watching a naked model in art or on a babe channel, its exactly the same. People view the nude for a turn on pure and simple. Art is just a bullshit word made up to try and justify it. Maybe the babe channels could argue the fact that what they show is also art. A certain model even apologised last night for accidentally flashing her lady bits, why apologise maybe they should apologise instead for not being allowed to show their bits. Ofcom has reduced this country into a nanny state. What must the europeans think to put this into context a model on a sexline channel apologising for showing exactly what they should be allowed to show. Ofcom has to go, its fucking up this country.

I have just flicked through the night time channels... they are tame, boring and pathetic. By contrast the day time schedule is getting more daring... today we have seen nip slips, girls open legs and 'up shots'.
What is going on? Do the Ofcom police sleep all day to protect us from the night time sins???

(17-10-2010 23:32 )Suurbier Wrote: [ -> ]I have just flicked through the night time channels... they are tame, boring and pathetic. By contrast the day time schedule is getting more daring... today we have seen nip slips, girls open legs and 'up shots'.
What is going on? Do the Ofcom police sleep all day to protect us from the night time sins???

Makes us wonder that fucking ofcom pipsqueaks feel they have the need to interfere so much. Even on BS the cameramen are taking the piss moving the camera side to side. The day shows are winning the battle obviously being far more interesting. Cellcast really need to stop being ofcoms bitch right now. Oh I realised FV might be the reason lol. Ofcom get lost right now please, miserable sods.

(17-10-2010 19:51 )matt38 Wrote: [ -> ]

(17-10-2010 15:11 )SYBORG666 Wrote: [ -> ]From what i've read on here is that Ofcom allow nudity within the context of the programme on fta channels. So here is what I can't understand, i'm flicking through Sky around 10am and come across a programme showing full frontal female nudity on Sky arts. So if that is allowed because of the context rule, then the babechannels should show material that is within context e.g full frontal nudity, dirty talk. Ofcom are in my eyes then just a bunch of hypocritical retards that should just fuck off and join the rest of us in the 21st century instead of living in the medeival times.

You have given the answer to your own question without realising it, the main word in your comment was Arts, in this context full frontal nudity on tv is allowed, also it was allowed at lunchtime on itv as well. Also if i'm correct, but is'nt full frontal nudity allowed if the program portrays itself as educational.

I'm not sure how you define Art. Apparently a dirty bed or a tent plastered with the names of your fuck buddies is Art. So is half a pickled calf or shark. Of course nudity per se has always featured in works of art - the ancient Greeks made, er, an art of it.

The OFCOM Content Board are not experts in art, nor are they known art critics, indeed, most appear to be professional Board Members of various business institutions - certainly not the type I'd consult on the finer points of porn vs art. Of course, were the BBFC to comprise the OFCOM Content Baord members then one could probably speculate that they'd have been dragged into the High Court way back in 2000 and told in no uncertain terms that their unsubstantiated claims to be protecting vulnerable people from harm and/or offence were simply not borne out by expert analysis.

There is certainly supposed to be some clear distinction between art and porn however, films like Baise Moi, Romance and perhaps even moreso, Destricted, tend to blur such distinctions. Destricted in particular is a collection of a dozen or so porn movies featuring everything from artistic nudity to explicit hardcore sex. The BBFC certainly view such content in the context of an artistic work and not that of a 'made to turn people on' porn flick despite the fact that one can watch the scenes in all these 'arthouse' movies with the view to being sexually aroused by the explicit sexual action - and why not...?

Is porn really 'dangerous', 'harmful' and/or 'offensive'? To some perhaps - in their distorted opinion. The fact is porn has been around as long as art has existed. Some of the ealiest forms of art are in fact fertility symbols - explicit sexual icons - e.g. the so-called Venus Statuettes. Porn is only the portrayal of sexual congress or the sexual organs. Most people have done the sex act or seen the sex organs first hand. If doing and seeing such things live and in colour doesn't cause us any harm, one wonders how exactly the deranged protectors of supposed morality arrive at a different conclusion? There is after all no evidence at all to support a ban of R18-type material on TV - OFCOM said so...even when kids might get to see it. But, apparently, those kids still need OFCOM's brand of protection despite OFCOM being charged by law to uphold the rights of adult viewers and our BBFC/High Court/LEGAL RIGHT to watch whatever is not actually deemed illegal by Parliament.

I see NOTHING in the Comms Act that allows OFCOM to deem anything illegal on our behalf. I see NOTHING in the Comms Act that allows OFCOM to ban what is legal for any adult to purchase and view in their own home. And surely, those that WANT to watch R18 are far more likely to buy such DVDs and take them into their homes where children may find them because OFCOM won't allow them to watch the same on late night 'adult' TV shows...? Clearly, if this stuff is so risky it needs to be banned from TV then, OFCOM are enforcing a scenario where more children could be exposed to such material which is necessarily in the home when adults are not around to supervise what videos/DVDs their children are watching. I conclude that OFCOM have likely made more 'vulnerable people' more 'vulnerable' through their own biased and probably unlawful bullshit decisions.

For all the 'intellectual' definitions of 'Art', true Art is supposed to cause a reaction in the audience. Whether you're disgusted or turned on, porn is definitely an Artform and deserves to be treated as such by the narrow minded fucks that wish to deny anyone the right to pursue their own happiness anyway they see fit.

As the Guardian says "The eight duties they have selected for reform from over 150 Ofcom duties read as a list of cherries picked by government in order to retain the tightest grip on the media, and offer little hope of saving money in the short term."

Just 8 high-level review duties transferred to the Government, not even abolished, and mostly they are about ownership and public service broadcaster reviews. As the paper says, this is a transfer of power from an imperfect but neutral body to the government of the day. Because the Secretary of State can call a review whenever he feels like it, this actually represents a threat and broadcasters feel they have to toe the party line (Afghanistan, Iraq, wepons of mass destruction, cuts) and might not want to expose scandals.

If it goes no further than the announced changes then this is dissapointing. I'm hoping that this is just the start and someone takes a good ard look at the money wasted on obsessively investigating every trivial, misguided or malicious complaint, and the role of broadcasting freedom vs censorship in a free society.

(19-10-2010 02:19 )eccles Wrote: [ -> ]As the Guardian says "The eight duties they have selected for reform from over 150 Ofcom duties read as a list of cherries picked by government in order to retain the tightest grip on the media, and offer little hope of saving money in the short term."

Just 8 high-level review duties transferred to the Government, not even abolished, and mostly they are about ownership and public service broadcaster reviews. As the paper says, this is a transfer of power from an imperfect but neutral body to the government of the day. Because the Secretary of State can call a review whenever he feels like it, this actually represents a threat and broadcasters feel they have to toe the party line (Afghanistan, Iraq, wepons of mass destruction, cuts) and might not want to expose scandals.

If it goes no further than the announced changes then this is dissapointing. I'm hoping that this is just the start and someone takes a good ard look at the money wasted on obsessively investigating every trivial, misguided or malicious complaint, and the role of broadcasting freedom vs censorship in a free society.

Politicians in spouting pre-election bollocks shocker?

I hope not!!

Shows ofcom are full of blatant bullshit that we don't believe in anyway. I mean where is that freedom thing that was set up by the government for anti-censorship, not been acted on has it? What is the point of this stupid quango being set up in the first place? waste of bloody money. The issue of BSXtreme is still outstanding and Cellcast really don't know where to stop. This evenings girls good shows have effectively been interrupted by the stupid xtreme plugging. Cellcast should be ashamed of themselves for influencing this adertising and self promotion. Another thing that is still grating on me with BS is lack of rota variation and day girls on nights. Don't they see that daygirls on night contribute harder than the established tried and trusted regular night babes? to me they do. If it's the girls personal choice however they don't want to do nights then they don't have to, talk filthy and expose their body more. Not just that the day babes who are on night show are unfairly censored, it needs to stop big time. Right spin by BS to tell us TAMMYS xxx pics were uncensored when they were clearly not and I am not impressed with it at all. Like I said in my previous post the dayshows are outshining the night shows. If the night show producers do their level best to censor everything then really they are not fit for purpose. You either have ambition or leave simple as that.

(20-10-2010 04:53 )ledders69 Wrote: [ -> ]Shows ofcom are full of blatant bullshit that we don't believe in anyway. I mean where is that freedom thing that was set up by the government for anti-censorship, not been acted on has it?

Details are a bit hazy, but the will be a huge Freedom Bill, probably later this year. Totally abolishing laws is easy - one line. Allowing something where there is no clear law banning it is more complex - exactly what laws do you delete to allow kids to play conkers without safety helmets? So Id be curious to see just how far it goes.

Id love to think it would get Ofcom off broadcasters backs, but part of the problem with Ofcom is attitude. I dont think any of us want to see hardcore bondage sex in the middle of Blue Peter (mind you, that Anthea Turner...) which sort of implies there has to be some control mechanism. So either Ofcom get a severe dressing down and agree to volunarily tone it down, or some civil servant has to write a complete new rule book that limits their powers. And if doing that they will be drafting new laws, a notoriously complex process that takes months at the best of times.

If Im optimistic, Im hoping they get told in outline what their new powers will be, and told to act in accordance with the spirit of them until a new law is passed. Why would the Goverment do that? Because they can cut 50% off their running costs, reduce the compliance cost for broadcasters, and usher in a new era of freedom and personal responsibility.

Also it will keep Murdoch happy.

The sooner that this quango is sacked the better.