The UK Babe Channels Forum

Not directly ofcom related, but some interesting comments from Obama the other day. I didn't read it in depth, but according to the synopsis I read, he was suggesting legislation to ensure a free internet. Kind of ironic given the monitoring his security services are involved in I know
The basic things he was looking at was, preventing isp's from offering any sort of paid of priority internet, i.e. a slower feed for the masses, and higher speeds for those that pay, and more interestingly, no blocking of sites offering illegal content.
The UK is currently one of the world leaders in blocking access to sites, with piratebay and others being blocked by court orders at the isp level. As already mentioned elsewhere, ofcom is also involved in internet content regulation through the likes of ATVOD, and may potentially be looking to move further into this area, so its interesting to hear the US president speak out against some of these measures and supporting free access to all the net.

its not free internet mate its net neutrality. the words are very specific because the opposition is trying to use semantics to get there way.

ofcom want to be the guardians of the internet, but under eu law they have no power to regulate anything net related (its part of the reason the ukgov and its minions are pushing for eu exit because a lot of eu laws supersede uk law that subjugates us instead of freeing us). the pirate bay and others were blocked on behalf of the BPI not ofcom and atvod is actually voluntary (this is what i dont understand about s66 signing up to it)

The companies which are in membership of ATVOD make up the largest, and most
diversely competitive, on-demand community outside the United States. Companies
joining ATVOD do so voluntarily and are admitted as members by decision of the ATVOD
Board.

so the fact that s66 got sanctioned was there own fault...
fact is most of the sanctions imposed on the channels have been self inflicted not because they broke the rules, but because they refused to ask who it is making the complaints and accepting on the decision makers word that harm or offense was caused.
offending 1 person isnt grounds to hold up a complaint which is what the latest decisions were based upon, nor was any harm proven... yet hannah martin is now off our screens for the foreseeable future, all because of some petty cunt sitting up till 3 am looking for things that offend them
all the while s66 just roll over, take it up the shiter and say thanks for not using lube...

Call me a conspiracy nutter but if the major ISPs can slow down some traffic and speed up other signals then there must be tech pending to block out certain signals completely. Obviously they will argue it is in our good and blocking terror sites, the Dark Web etc but looking at the ultra conservative god squad that will likely be the next Republican US government and I can see net traffic been censored.......

(14-11-2014 09:47 )HEX!T Wrote: [ -> ]atvod is actually voluntary (this is what i dont understand about s66 signing up to it)

Presumably sucking up to their masters again in the hope of more lenient treatment elsewhere.

(14-11-2014 09:47 )HEX!T Wrote: [ -> ]...accepting on the decision makers word that harm or offense was caused.

I thought Ofcom got around this by claiming the "potential" to cause harm or offence was enough?

(14-11-2014 09:47 )HEX!T Wrote: [ -> ]hannah martin is now off our screens for the foreseeable future...

Hannah is on the TV schedule for tomorrow. Is this wrong? Or have I missed something?! She has been on TV since the last "in breach" decision was announced.


I commented in the Studio 66 general discussion thread recently on the extent to which the recent 'in breach' decisions against the channel have resulted in the moving of their dirty chat watershed to 10pm. (The last shifting of the changeover, from 9pm to 9.30, was publicly acknowledge to be in response to a previous Ofcom ruling against s66.) So yes, very much so, S66 have a solid history in trying to placate (pander to?) Ofcom's whims!

Whatever the final reasoning behind the above timeshift, s66 must surely be, yet again, hoping that it will be looked upon favourably by Ofcom and it's incoming chief as a result.

I was quite pessimistic in my assessment of Ofcom's ultimate aims in all this in that post; however, looking forward, and trying to see the current situation in it's BEST light, I would say this: Maybe their refocus on the internet may result in Ofcom biting off more than it can chew. Hopefully, their attention will be elsewhere if their aspirations to be internet watchdog brings them a significant amount of flack in the press. It may even result in their downfall if we are truly lucky.

In addition, a new broom at their head could lead to a different mindset for Ofcom. It always seemed to me that their views on the babe channels, at its root, smacked of one person's crusade against that type of operation - arising from some political manoeuvring to ensure Ofcom's own future after the last general election. Therefore, the fate of the babe channel's may rest in exactly who it was that began that mission at the content board and how engendered this type of thinking has become there since that time. Fortunately, politic motives are easily changed.

Hopefully, this last decision against s66, instigated in the summer (with Colette Bowe already gone) will be seen as the last hoorah for the current thinking. Ed Richards always seemed the most likely candidate for leading the charge against the babe channels in any case. Has anyone else been there long enough to have started it? I don't think there's anyone else is there?

We can only pray for a more enlightened regime to follow...

As we all know: We just shouldn't hold our breath!

^^^ Membership of ATVOD may be voluntary, but ATVOD rules over ALL UK based video-on-demand services, whether they are members or not.

Quote:I thought Ofcom got around this by claiming the "potential" to cause harm or offence was enough?

potential has no legal standing mate. there remit is to prevent actual harm and actual offence.
if there using potential it means they are skirting there own mandate and overreaching to impose there own agenda. (joe public isnt adult enough to make up there own minds as to what they watch)

cakes have the potential to make you fat, under ofcoms definition or potential harm. all cake shops would be sanctioned and then closed down to protect the obese from themselves.
is that fair to every 1 else who can eat cake without getting fat? no.

ofcom work to a set of very defined rules and were set up to uphold the standards of the day when tv was deregulated not impose creeping censorship. which is what there doing now.

(15-11-2014 06:23 )HEX!T Wrote: [ -> ]

Quote:I thought Ofcom got around this by claiming the "potential" to cause harm or offence was enough?

potential has no legal standing mate. there remit is to prevent actual harm and actual offence...

Quite right. Section 319.2(f) of the Communications Act 2003 says "generally accepted standards are applied to the contents of television and radio services so as to provide adequate protection for members of the public from the inclusion in such services of offensive and harmful material"

The enabling legislation refers to offensive and harmful, not "potential", and further limits powers by limiting their role to "adequate" protection.

The only get out is that Ofcom are required to put together a broadcasting code and apply it.

Fact is the broadcasting code is excessive, and the way it is applied exceeds what the code says.

Nice to see a success story

Daily Mail Wrote:The Prime Minister said Mr Desmond was a "remarkable man" and a "credit to our country".

Daily Mail


Daily Express

Eccles I'm somewhat confused here, maybe it's me that's missing something here but just what exactly does 2 story's declaring that Britain is back from 2 leading newspapers got to do with ofcom

Just what the fuck has any of this got to do with ofcom. Somebody please tell me