The UK Babe Channels Forum

Bit grumpy today arent we? Sounds more like one of my rants, but with more facts.

Interesting to read the final paragraph of the Statutory Code of Practice for Regulators

Quote:9.7 Complaints procedures should include a final stage to an independent, external, person. Where there is a relevant Ombudsman or Tribunal with powers to decide on matters in this Code, the final stage should allow referral to that body. However, where no such person exists, a regulator should, in consultation with interested parties, provide for further complaint or appeal to another independent person, for example, an independent professional body.

By contrast the "Review of procedures for handling broadcasting complaints, cases and sanctions" published today says that Sanctions decisions relating to program content will normally be taken by "Ofcom’s Director of Standards and the Group Director of Ofcom’s Content, International and Regulatory Development Group ... together with a Non-Executive member of Ofcom’s Content Board" (2.90) and makes no mention of conflict of intenterst if they were involved at an earlier stage. This is apparently a "fair" process. Ofcom dismisses the suggestion that Sanctions should be "dealt with by a panel of at least three Ofcom officers who are different (and preferably more senior) to the Ofcom officer(s) who dealt with the original (breach) complaint (or investigation)." (2.92).

The word "efficient" is used quite a bit, "impartial" does not appear once despite being a legal requirement.

(30-05-2011 23:06 )tonkpils Wrote: [ -> ]

(30-05-2011 00:16 )StanTheMan Wrote: [ -> ]

(29-05-2011 22:44 )tonkpils Wrote: [ -> ]btw, the latest night show before midnight are as hot as evelyn's shows on the pad a year ago... almost...

I'm confused. Which Evelyn shows are you referring to, tonkpils. I don't recall anything on the pad ever being as explicit as the European babeshows.

http://www.babeshows.co.uk/showthread.ph...30&page=11

the months of july and august were very nice for Evelyn's fans... she was doing her best on the pad.

if you see today, the girls before midnight are wearing what she was wearing during dayshows... and are barely showing nude...

Thanks, Tonkpils, but I understood the poster I quoted was referring to some overtly explicit nightshows I'd managed to miss. Didn't realise he meant the dayshows.

(01-06-2011 03:11 )HypnoToad Wrote: [ -> ]I only ask as there does seem to be quite a bit of hostility towards ofcom on here, so is there a place where I can check out what exactly the rules/guidelines that these channels have to stick to in order to see exactly what all the fuss is about?

Thanks.

I suppose you are right, every now and again a poster is a little negative about the regulator. Cant think why. Excellent reply from GPP by the way, particularly the staggeringly long list of guidance letters.

Trouble is the rules are so vague as to be incomprensible. Broadcasters must not breach generally accepted standards. Thats about it. But what are those standards? If you are Frankie Boyle or Charlie Booker you can be as offensive as you like at 10pm. Films can show decapitations, gouged eyeballs and genital torture, because that is drama. Boxing and wrestling can show real violence which occasionally results in death. Female boxing is allowed. Adolescent cartoon South Park can say "M**********r" at 9:01pm. But full frontal nudity, even for 2 seconds, or mining masturbation at 3am is apparently an offence against decency.

Ofcom has commissioned 2 Standards studies, both came back with vague information that does not provide hard and fast guidelines. Both measure opinions, but fail to define and acceptable standard.

Ofcom also singles out adult channels for special monitoring and will take them to full investigation while being lenient with other channels. Which is the most complained about channel? The BBC. Which channel broadcasts the F word during the day time to millions of viewers several times a year? The BBC. Which channel hardly ever proceeds to a full hearing, and often has cases against it "Resolved" despite technically breaking the rules? The BBC. Its dual standards and it didnt used to be like this.

Without a doubt ofcom are failing miserably in their duties, on the bonus I am a massive fan of South Park but the bottom line is the UK or any other country for that matter doesn't need a regulator, just use plain bloody commonsense on anything that is aired, as far as the watershed goes, the babe channels should be immune to this because they can be blocked permanently 24 hours a day and as for the other channels goes anything that is broadcast before the watershed that is of adult material should be pin protected, it's as easy as that, ofcom have and allways will continue to look for problems when in reality their never has been, ofcom should be abolished, nothing but a complete and utter waste of fucking tax payers money, this country isn't a democracy for nothing, as far as the adult channels having any influence on any future demise of censorship and ofcom I think the challenge most likely will come from elsewhere, unfortunately a lot of people in this country still consider these channels as sleazy so the best we can hope for is for ofcom to be disbanded without the sole purpose of it being for hardcore porn to be shown, this unfortunately is the most likely scenario, if the babe channels were going to take a stand to them they would have by now, but I sense it's just going to be a waiting game for as far as the immediate future goes. The challenge will inevitably come from elsewhere.

Personally if I walked in to my 13 year old lad bashing his man meat to day babes, I'd say get in there son.... At least your not gay !

(03-06-2011 03:45 )eccles Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-06-2011 03:11 )HypnoToad Wrote: [ -> ]I only ask as there does seem to be quite a bit of hostility towards ofcom on here, so is there a place where I can check out what exactly the rules/guidelines that these channels have to stick to in order to see exactly what all the fuss is about?

Thanks.

I suppose you are right, every now and again a poster is a little negative about the regulator. Cant think why.

Whoever it was that said sarcasm is the 'lowest form of wit' obviously had no sense of humour!

Finally, after 5 years Ive got it. The babes should get really close to naming people in super injunctions. Even better some of women involved (but not protected) should appear on screen and say how unfair it is that they have been shagged over and cant name their former boyfriend. Give it a few weeks and Lib Dem MPs will be standing up Parliament and condemming Ofcom. Pity I didnt think of this a month ago.

Talk about coincidence. As I clicked Submit on the last post Ant (or Dec) mentioned Imogen Thomas. Just the name I was looking for. Among others.

Easily the most offensive thing I have seen in the past month was on Have I Got News For You at 9:27 this evening. In the caption section they flashed up a photograph of 3 flayed corpses sitting around a table, Gunter von Hagens crap. Fortunately noone else in the room realised what they were looking at. No warning. No context. Not late.

The Daily Mail slams into Ofcom in todays paper


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...ds-newsxml

theirs a report out on monday which will enforce the 9pm watershed

(04-06-2011 13:17 )davyboysmith Wrote: [ -> ]The Daily Mail slams into Ofcom in todays paper

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...ds-newsxml

theirs a report out on monday which will enforce the 9pm watershed

An interesting, if not wholly annoying, read.

But the sexualisation of children.. what the f*ck does that mean (to these people)? It’s not like they’re being treated, or indeed are, sex objects is it? Nor are they victims of paedophilia? Really.. what f*cking crusade are these tw*ts on? For f*ck’s sake.

And children growing up too fast? Maybe.. but that’s the way life is, and has been. Life moves on, things change, technologies etc, and therefore generations too. If children are blinkered to the things these bloody crusaders are intent on blocking them from seeing, this will stunt their growth and development. I know, it happened to me – hence why i’m a loner, a perv, a member of this forum and a sex pest to the babe channel girls! But seriously, there are serious undertones here.. hence so many people living alone, cannot interact, communicate etc and (too many) sex crimes.

Some comments already made after that piece suggest Ofcom are pointless, one to hit the nail right on the head, in saying that parents need to do “their” job. They’re the censors children need, and the only bloody ones too.

This country is becoming more and more like a bloody communist state. The mere name of the (majority) of the ruling government even suggests so.. “conservative”. And that’s exactly what we are forced to become.

What this country needs is to become more liberal, and fast. In respect of raunchiness and “sex” (actually, more than just this), just look at The Netherlands for example.. they don’t have such social problems anywhere near what we have.

These f*cking crusaders intent on restricting any of our pleasures are only going to do the complete opposite of what they claim they are doing. What do you think happens when more and more people get more and more frustrated? Social f*cking unrest, that’s what. What does this then lead to?

I don’t think i need to answer, we all know.