The UK Babe Channels Forum

(07-08-2013 20:44 )babelover48 Wrote: [ -> ]When was the last time OFCOM ever pulled in record companies about their performers sexy video? I can't ever recall OFCOM saying they were in breach. Sometimes I wonder how much they get away with in comparison to the babe channels?

To answer your question mate, this is the last time ofcom pulled in one of the music channels and it was fairly recently if my knowledge serves me correct going in the name of Scuzz TV

http://www.digitaltveurope.net/71812/ofc...-clean-up/

Although the fine was nothing when you compare it to the babe channels and to be honest I said this at the time but that fine was more than justified.

Thank you for clearing that up. But it seems to me sometimes that there's one rule for one genre of TV and one rule for the rest. I bet Ofcom wouldn't even dare to try and tone down an artist like Beyonce or maybe Eminem.

(08-08-2013 19:55 )babelover48 Wrote: [ -> ]Thank you for clearing that up. But it seems to me sometimes that there's one rule for one genre of TV and one rule for the rest. I bet Ofcom wouldn't even dare to try and tone down an artist like Beyonce or maybe Eminem.

That's exactly what the situation is and Ofcom are completely upfront about it. Below is a quote from their recent slamming of Studio 66:

Ofcom: "However, the advertising content of ‘adult chat’ services has much less latitude than is typically available to editorial material in respect of context and narrative. The primary intent of advertising is to sell products and services, and consideration of acceptable standards will take that context into account."

Most broadcast TV is deemed to be 'editorial material' and producers can use the excuse of context to justify swearing, nudity etc. Ofcom deliberately reclassified babe channels as Teleshopping so that they'd have no leeway whatsoever. Ofcom see their entire output as one long advert and as such, it must adhere to a whole extra layer of taste and decency (acceptable standards) regulations.

I think one of the earlier posts had a good point when they mentioned all the major broadcasters only get a slap on the wrist from Ofcom if they breach the rules, while the babe channels are treated like shit!
In otherwords money talks, Ofcom knows they can treat the adult channels with impunity and they no they don't have the finances to fight them, while on the otherhand if Ofcom decided to take on the BBC or ITV they would come under stronger opposition.

Really all the problems started when Ofcom decided to change the rules and they branded the Adult channels under the same as the shopping channels, since then its all gone down hill, hence this is where we are now!

(08-08-2013 19:55 )babelover48 Wrote: [ -> ]Thank you for clearing that up. But it seems to me sometimes that there's one rule for one genre of TV and one rule for the rest. I bet Ofcom wouldn't even dare to try and tone down an artist like Beyonce or maybe Eminem.

I would in all honesty,love to know,who gave Ofcom the power to give out these fines,who gave them the power to make their own laws on censorship,and who the hell gave them the power to overturn the laws of the land.,without going through parliament and having a debate about it.

Who are these people? because they were never elected into the post they are in,not a lot of people even know who they are,they seem to be a bunch of characters who in my opinion can just do as they want.

Take for instance,when there was a debate on whether 18+ (and that is a load of controversy,because 18 should mean 18 ffs,why 2 different types of 18 certificate],anyway Ofcom decided that they would not allow it on `OUR` tv,because it would be too easy for kids to tune in.(even though a 4 pin digit is suffice to confuse any one that got a hold of your credit/debit card details.)

Yes I remember this well,because I was at work when the bbc news gave this statement out.

What happened to the Tory leaders complete lies about getting rid of all these overpaid ,under worked quangos that are still about us,the ones we are still paying millions if not billions of pounds to dole out misery,to dole out suffering and to down right go against what took years and years of building up.

I am on about the censorship laws,the ones that got squashed to a certain extent in the late 70s early 80s,when I could go to my local (yes we had one in every village then)VHS rental store,where you could pick up titles by the likes of TVX Electric blue,etc.etc the list could go on.
Then 1 day while looking around,I noticed that the titles were not there no more.

What had happened?

Oh! we had another `LAW` it was called the video law or something.

Which meant that all the videos that we had been watching up until this date were now unwatchable because someone said so.

So all the explicit videos that were on general rent or sale were now deemed pornographic,because someone said so.

So all the naughty(thats a laugh) 70s and all the things that really tried to fetch Britain into league with the rest of Europe went straight out of the window,BECAUSE SOMEONE SAID THEY DID NOT LIKE IT)!annoyed

Britain is far, far,away in terms of liberated television,even though we are in a community that has liberalised tv with a covernent of Television Without Frontiers.

The only time this or any government want to advocate a ruling by the E.U is when it does not affect what they want to do.

They ignore the directive when it pleases them,they do not listen to what Britain wants and they just break the laws to please as they will.

Let us just face this,
While ever we have people like the ones at Ofcom ,whom seem to be a law unto themselves,we will never have freedom of tv or anything else that relates to images that portray what humans do or what many,many of us like to watch as entertainment.

That`s it for now peeps,I have had my rant,had a good drink,got a lot off my chest,am now going to watch a good film on sky movies.

As ScottishBloke, or SB as we now have to call him, Ofcom do place limits on music channels. It started years ago when Channel AKA was punished for broadcasting more sexual vids in a late night slot (10:45). I don't recall seeing even topless in music vids since, not that I watch many, and doubt that hardcore versions have ever been broadcast. The write up is below, but as we all know these write ups sound far more explicit than the content actually looks. bulletin 141 (14/9/09)

Quote:A viewer complained about the broadcast of the music video ‘Playtime Two’ by Giggs Featuring Kyze, which featured material of a sexual nature. The complainant considered the sexual material broadcast in this video too strong to be available at approximately 22:45 and on this channel. Ofcom noted that the video included: frequent shots of naked breasts; women wearing revealing thongs and pulling at their underwear to expose genital detail; women touching their breasts and genital area in a sexual manner; women squirting water and licking whipped cream off each other’s naked breasts; frequent shots between women’s legs (while wearing thongs); frequent close up shots of female buttocks (while wearing thongs); a brief shot of a woman pulling her buttocks apart to show anal detail; and a man simulating sexual stimulation between a woman’s legs.

Also I cant agree that explicit videos used to be allowed without censorship. There was a brief period in the 80s when local video stores were renting the likes of Electric Blue, and yes, there were blurry poor quality "tasteful" VHS quality images on women stroking themselves (on a yacht in one), but that was not because the Thatcher government allowed it, it was because the law had not caught up. Cinema films had to certified but the law quite simply did not cover videos. Suddenly the antifun press get hold of it and a law was rushed through. I came back from a weekend visiting elderly relatives to find the entire adult section in the video store had been pulled. After that videos had to have certificates, and it was about 6 months before a certification body was set up and granted the first 18 certificates for "sex" films, that were very weak.

I cant agree with continental19. The problems started shortly after Ofcom was set up. Ever since Babestar and XXX4U they have had it in for adult content, and have used every excuse to tone it down. There have been two surveys that muddled adult and ordinary TV, both lacking clear conclusions and both interpreted very strangely. There were THREE consultations on teleshopping. The first two would have forced adult channels to close or go subscription. Ofcom only relented because the replies forced them into a corner.

Its true there is one law for normal TV and another for babe channels as babelover48 says. Historical drama, documentaries and serious film can show content that would not be permitted on a babechannel. Ofcom say it is because sex can only be shown on an exceptional basis "if justified by context" and adverts do not have context. So a documentary about male strippers can show cock and a daytime series about art can show naked female artists models. (Made up context anyone?).

While I agree that using sex to advertise gambling or cars or breakfast cereal would be pushing the wrong buttons, the whole context argument becomes S-T-O-O-P-I-D when the product is sex. Of course you want horny adverts for sex chat lines. How is that going to mislead customers?

Ofcom hides behind advertising standards authority rules, but conveniently forgets to mention that there was a joint consultation where Ofcom wrote the proposed rules that it wanted in the advertising rulebook. Having got the rules it wanted approved, Ofcom then proceeded to keep regulation of sex chat channels to itself. In all (or almost all) other areas regulation is delegated to the advertising standards body. Why?

The thing that makes me really laugh (sorry do I mean cry?) is how OFCOM loves to appear - and to project the image of being - a objective and fair body [an organization whose work is part of the process of government, but is not a government department]. OFCOM goes to great pains to 'consult' see its broadcast bulletins and other communications. It makes a big deal about its focus groups and its data collection and analysis.

THEN IT DOES WHAT IT FUCKING LIKES!!!

The fact is (and always will be) that OFCOM does the governments bidding. One quiet word by civil servant X in the right ear at OFCOM and fuck all the 'consultation'. Almost all regulators are as bent as fuck, doing (a) what the government wants or (b) taking bungs from 'big industry players' for the ongoing junket.

Objective and Fairness? Get fucked Joe Public you stupid cunts...

Thanks

Shylok

(09-08-2013 02:19 )eccles Wrote: [ -> ]I don't recall seeing even topless in music vids since, not that I watch many, and doubt that hardcore versions have ever been broadcast.

Well apart from this one I seen on one of the music channels the other night which brought a smile to my face - Maybe times are changing or it was a one off, who knows but it was certainly a refreshing change.

Please note at the time of this being broadcast it was well after the watershed

(09-08-2013 02:19 )eccles Wrote: [ -> ]I cant agree with continental19. The problems started shortly after Ofcom was set up. Ever since Babestar and XXX4U they have had it in for adult content, and have used every excuse to tone it down. There have been two surveys that muddled adult and ordinary TV, both lacking clear conclusions and both interpreted very strangely. There were THREE consultations on teleshopping. The first two would have forced adult channels to close or go subscription. Ofcom only relented because the replies forced them into a corner.

I agree with Eccles the problems started when the ITC left and Ofcom took over, i guess what i was trying to say that it's only in the last 3 yrs or so that Ofcom decided to brand the channels under the same as the shopping channels that was all, and since then the channels have become tamer and tamer. I like you and SB and many others on this forum can't wait till Ofcom gets the boot out of there London offices.

I get the feeling that the Tories are going to be ultimately responsible for the babe channels' demise!! Couple this with their piece of shite idea in porn filters, we could be almost be turning Britain into an Islamic state without realising it!! It makes me shudder to think that could possibly be happening.
I don't think they would even lift a finger to allow new pubs to open when you think how quickly pubs are closing these days and how they are planning to price alcohol in supermarkets. sooner or later we'll wake up one morning and we won't see babe channels on TV or the internet anymore.