(04-12-2012 13:35 )mr mystery Wrote: [ -> ]Iv'e just been having a quick look through it and some babe channels are mentioned.
Sky channel GirlGirl have been found in breach for daytime material broadcast by ChatGirl on that channel between the hours of 7.30am and 8.30am on the 22nd of August 2012,.
As yet i haven't read much about it but it seems it was for what the girls were saying on the mic and for costumes and position adopted by the girls that Ofcom thought were to adult for daytime shows.
I believe that the complaint here references Kimberley
you will see from the 3rd set of caps there is a lot of breast fondling along with some aggressive/sexual facial poses while talking to a caller within the 5th or 6th set... TUT TUT KIMBO!
http://www.babeshows.co.uk/showthread.ph...03&page=13
the video from James Rockon shows that this isnt something younger viewers should have seen
DOWN WITH THIS!
^^ Just watched this, and all I can say is that if this got ChatGirl into trouble, then Studio66 and Hannah have got some punishment heading their way too.
well thats from the same day so I assume thats what it relates to, far too much excitement for that time of the morning really isnt there
Thanks Mystery, you read further than me.
Sorry but who complains about a freeview?
They have to tune in specially because noone leaves the set on a blank screen for 50 minutes. Either they are optimistic like I used to be an tune in for a flash or to decide if it is worth getting money out, or they tune in specially because they have an agenda. Noone deliberately selects a sample of a harder channel hoping for a flash then complains when they get it.
And what is going on with dates? XXXFirstTimers goes all the way back to September, Red Hot and TVX to early October. Mind you, ITV Grimefighters is just as old and BBC Watchdog goes all the way back to June. 2010. Is something odd going on or is Ofcom on the verge of collapse?
(04-12-2012 13:35 )mr mystery Wrote: [ -> ]Ofcom's latest broadcast bulletin came out yesterday Issue Number 219 and dated 03/12/2012 .
Iv'e just been having a quick look through it and some babe channels are mentioned.
...
Also mentioned in this latest bulletin is that four new investigations are being launched into four adult/babe channels
One of the four investigations started was against - sorry that implies prejudice, into - a freeview for XXX First Timers on 22/09/2012.
It may be coincidence, but when the Daily Mail was campaigning against Ed Richards becoming BBC Director General in June they detailed "pre-watershed sleaze on offer" on XXX First Timers.
Is it possible this is an Ofcom own initiative investigation, started in a direct response to the Daily Mail taunt? 3 months later but they might have been waiting for the dust to settle.
Daily Mail Wrote:Given that Ed Richards is waiting to discover if he’s landed the job of running the BBC, it would be understandable if his eye was slightly off the ball when it comes to his near £400,000-a-year day job.
But if the current head of the broadcasting and media regulator Ofcom had flicked through the channels of his television any evening last week, he might have found the experience provoked for some serious soul-searching.
For example should he, by chance, have tuned in to Sky Channel 929 several minutes before the 9pm watershed, what he’d have found would, I guarantee, have left him thinking he had wandered by mistake into the most sordid of Soho cinemas.
I apologise in advance for going into detail about the shocking level of pre-watershed sleaze on offer. But it is, I am afraid to say, necessary to illustrate the way Ofcom, under Richards’ stewardship, has surrendered our airwaves to the pornographers.
The station in question is called XXX First Timers. It is, as its unashamedly quasi-paedophilic-sounding title would suggest, at the most grubby fringes of the increasingly out-of-control ‘adult entertainment’ available on our TV screens.
And its sales pitch is not for the faint-hearted. Playing on a loop is film of a selection of young women, some of whom have clearly been dressed to resemble schoolgirls, in a series of provocative poses.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...n-BBC.html
I see ofcom fined the website “strictly broadband“ £60000 today for having hardcore stuff on their site.
(07-12-2012 19:53 )sala Wrote: [ -> ]I see ofcom fined the website “strictly broadband“ £60000 today for having hardcore stuff on their site.
How can they fine a website?
(07-12-2012 22:36 )mrmann Wrote: [ -> ] (07-12-2012 19:53 )sala Wrote: [ -> ]I see ofcom fined the website “strictly broadband“ £60000 today for having hardcore stuff on their site.
How can they fine a website?
Their website streams video, and under UK law, steps must be taken to prevent children having access to such material, even on the web.
Playboy fell foul of the same ruling a while back.
This rule rests on the material being considered 'television' content, and Playboy argued that their material was so strong it couldn't be considered tv content, so didn't come under this jurisdiction, but they still lost.
Several others have also fallen foul of this, and many have chosen to move their websites overseas to get around it. I understand Strictly Broadband have done this already, as well as putting an age check in place.
Still sounds like they want too much power, to control everything.
Maybe they should control the tabloid papers first
, as oppose to deciding what people can or cannot see
The Daily Mail have obviously got there own motives for this.
Picking on one specific channel is a bit weak.Every channel has had their models dressed up as school girls,to cite xxxfirsttimers as Quasi-pedophilic,is grabbing at thin air.
I have never been a fan of woman in school uniforms.As i personaly fell it's broaching to close to a subject that's rightfully illegal,taboo.
As for the content of the channel itself i can't say anything about that as i have never seen any of there shows.
(06-12-2012 03:22 )eccles Wrote: [ -> ] (04-12-2012 13:35 )mr mystery Wrote: [ -> ]Ofcom's latest broadcast bulletin came out yesterday Issue Number 219 and dated 03/12/2012 .
Iv'e just been having a quick look through it and some babe channels are mentioned.
...
Also mentioned in this latest bulletin is that four new investigations are being launched into four adult/babe channels
One of the four investigations started was against - sorry that implies prejudice, into - a freeview for XXX First Timers on 22/09/2012.
It may be coincidence, but when the Daily Mail was campaigning against Ed Richards becoming BBC Director General in June they detailed "pre-watershed sleaze on offer" on XXX First Timers.
Is it possible this is an Ofcom own initiative investigation, started in a direct response to the Daily Mail taunt? 3 months later but they might have been waiting for the dust to settle.
Daily Mail Wrote:Given that Ed Richards is waiting to discover if he’s landed the job of running the BBC, it would be understandable if his eye was slightly off the ball when it comes to his near £400,000-a-year day job.
But if the current head of the broadcasting and media regulator Ofcom had flicked through the channels of his television any evening last week, he might have found the experience provoked for some serious soul-searching.
For example should he, by chance, have tuned in to Sky Channel 929 several minutes before the 9pm watershed, what he’d have found would, I guarantee, have left him thinking he had wandered by mistake into the most sordid of Soho cinemas.
I apologise in advance for going into detail about the shocking level of pre-watershed sleaze on offer. But it is, I am afraid to say, necessary to illustrate the way Ofcom, under Richards’ stewardship, has surrendered our airwaves to the pornographers.
The station in question is called XXX First Timers. It is, as its unashamedly quasi-paedophilic-sounding title would suggest, at the most grubby fringes of the increasingly out-of-control ‘adult entertainment’ available on our TV screens.
And its sales pitch is not for the faint-hearted. Playing on a loop is film of a selection of young women, some of whom have clearly been dressed to resemble schoolgirls, in a series of provocative poses.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...n-BBC.html