The UK Babe Channels Forum

(28-01-2011 02:28 )Scottishbloke Wrote: [ -> ]Let me rephrase this what I meant was that if the government had to make extra cuts wouldn't it be fantastic to see an end to ofcom.

As far as we are concerned yes. But apart from its over-zealous censorship, Ofcom does have a function in its regulation of media ownership and related matters as can be seen currently with the Rupert Murdoch affair. That's a job which has to be done by someone.

(28-01-2011 10:53 )Tonywauk Wrote: [ -> ]

(28-01-2011 02:28 )Scottishbloke Wrote: [ -> ]Let me rephrase this what I meant was that if the government had to make extra cuts wouldn't it be fantastic to see an end to ofcom.

As far as we are concerned yes. But apart from its over-zealous censorship, Ofcom does have a function in its regulation of media ownership and related matters as can be seen currently with the Rupert Murdoch affair. That's a job which has to be done by someone.

Yes agreed with that,but that is exactly what a quango such as this was supposed to be all about.
It was not to give a few people the right to take their moralistic veiws and shove them down the rest of the nations throats,hiding behind a cloak of weird rules[probably made by themselves]which make them inaproachable by anyone,and sitting on a high chair that says ,they are always right.
Hows that for democracy

(28-01-2011 08:41 )gazfc Wrote: [ -> ]Just out of curiosity, who used to govern tv etc before ofcom, because the thing I remember about tv when I was growing up was how much stuff was cut out of films.

The ITC (Independent Television Comission) for commercial stations and before that the IBA (Independent Broadcast Authority). The BBC I believe was self-regulating.

At one stage they had the power to pre-censor TV and were capable of stopping programmes being broadcast or censoring them but that was given up to become the 'light touch regulators' they are now.

I find it funny that I was flicking through the babe channels the other day and it seemed fairly tame as it has been the last few weeks, I then flicked through the normal TV channels and turned it on CH4 in the middle of something called 'the joy of teen sex' to see some girl flicking through pictures of naked vaginas full on screen.

Why clamp so hard on channels that are unabashedly 'sexy' channels hidden in the 900's but allow shows that pretend to be educational and show far more flesh. Maybe if the babe shows played a boring lecture over the top instead of the music they could claim educational merit and whip it all off.

Apparantly this type of outfit is unacceptable to be broadcast on TV during the daytime.



Yet it's OK for TV Chef Gino D'Acampo to cook naked and constantly turn round and show his bare arse on a show broacast between 10am and midday.



Funny how anything aimed at men is coruptable material yet when it's aimed at women it's all a bit of harmless fun.

Yes blatant double standards if you ask me but ofcom will not even bater an eyelid with this one despite the fact and real possibility that kids could have sorry did I say could have I meant to say 100% sure of WOULD HAVE been been watching this.

Exactly! Blatant double standards, and the possibility that most of the ofcon members who make these decisions are gay. That might be one reason why they find vaginas to be dangerous well after the watershed, yet penises can be shown on other channels.

This caption is very typical of them. How in any way is a bare ass of a man educational on a morning show?????

I think from now on, the babe channels should show EVERYTHING, and pretend that they are educating us doing it in a humorous way. If they do so, then ofcon does not have a case against them. I also hope that our evidence of double standards is brought to attention, when other babe channels are fined or investigated. They should bring these examples to the table.

From what I heard dear sweet Holly didnt know where to look. Im told he took the pinny off and turned round occasionally - the counter hid his manhood from viewers, but could people in the audience see?

Holly and any other female staff would have a cast iron case for sexual harassment, particularly as this was pre-planned and she is only 16 . Beats a non-threatening deorgatory comment about the offside rule, and a throwaway line to someone the other side of the studio that clearly was not going to translate into reality, into a hat.

Ofcom have made it clear that nudity for sexual stimulation is not acceptable before 11pm, and then only of clearly labelled adult channels. Dont kid yourself, some women and gays will have derived sexual pleasure from the display, it was sustained (not a flash), long enough to reach a happy ending, and pre-announced.

Lets complain.

Back to cuts. I think Ofcom do have a regulatory role to play, protecting against market abuse and clearly unsuitable content. But if we can see eyeballs being gouged out on unencrypted channels (Horror Channel), why not a harmless normal human activity like looking at naked women, provided its late at night?

Fact is Ofcom are like kids in a sweetshop, engaging in overblown and pointless investigations, consultations, and regulation, while failing in many important areas. Advertising is through the roof. American content is through the roof while UK and EU content is non-existent outside BBC/ITV/C4/Five and Dave. Childrens content is dropping. Regional content is dropping. News, documentaries, educational content, investigative journalism, political content, original drama and humour (apart from low budget panel shows) is decreasing rapidly even on te quality channels.

Looking though Ofcoms Annual Report (sad, I know) there were many areas that should be cut by 25-75%. They even made a fanfare about blocking mention of 2 websites with XXX content: Have they seen the internet? Talk about futility. And lots of international jollies to China, India, Japan and Australia. Ultimately paid for by you, the viewer.

Ofcom have made it clear that nudity for sexual stimulation is not acceptable before 11pm, and then only of clearly labelled adult channels.


Let's face it Ofcom are not going to ease up on the Babe shows at all while they are FTA - and I can't in all honesty say that I disagree with their stance. What really annoys me is that adults are not allowed to view more sexually explicit content on encrypted, subscription channels despite that sort of material being perfectly legal on DVD.

If anyone from Ofcom actually deigns to read this humble group then I don't honestly think the bulk of posters, in the threads covering broadcast regulations do our cause any good whatsoever. Eccles is a shining exception, but so many come across as incoherent and inarticulate. Does anyone seriously imagine that a comment such as 'Fuck Off Ofcom' is a debating point likely to impress anyone with half-a-brain? I'm afraid we do ourselves no favours with this sort of idiocy.

Article 10: Right to freedom of expression

Article 10 protects your right to freedom of expression. This includes the right to hold and express opinions yourself as well as to receive and impart information and ideas to others.

'Fuck off Ofc@m' could be a good debating topic for the University's of Cambridge or Oxford.

I will say no more and i hope this forum respects everyones opinion.