The UK Babe Channels Forum

(13-09-2011 22:55 )eccles Wrote: [ -> ]To give an example, BCAP rules refer to "offence or harm", but Ofcom decisions referring to that rule talk about "potential to cause offence or harm". My car has the potential to break the speed limit, but strangely I dont get a speeding ticket every time I drive past a camera.

I love analogies, and that's a great one!

(14-09-2011 15:22 )IanG Wrote: [ -> ]In a progressive liberal democracy we would expect a relaxation of unnecessary censorship as our understanding of what is truly harmful and what actually constitutes offensive material increases over time. It is clear however that OFCOM do not understand words like proportionality, necessity, liberalism, plurality or freedom of expression....

Or that the real harm is potentially contained within the flood of torture porn films shown on The Horror Channel - which Ofcom are perfectly happy to let the kids digest on a nightly basis.

Well it's up to the channels to not so much take ofcom on at the moment but ask for some kind of consultation as I'm sure with a bit of negotiation surely some sort of deal can be thrashed out to suit all parties. This is what the babe channels should be looking for. 9PM - Topless, 10PM - 0530AM - Full nudity including the frontal areas. 12am onwards - sex toys to be allowed. This would ofcourse fuck up the Babestation Xtreme show but surely Cellcast can't realistically expect to sustain charging £5 which is only available to freeview customers as any kind of long term plan. Now this compromise is far from the ideal solution but it would be a bold move in keeping the shows interesting as last night the only way I can sum the lot of them up was Yawn Yawn Bloody Yawn, with the current format I can see a lot of them going to the wall, they literally sent me to sleep last night and at no point did I feel compelled to pick up the phone going by the poor product onscreen.

what your on about there is showing R18 action on the sky channels and cant see that being allowed. as long as ofcom are as they are at the moment the shows will be like this at least for the forseeable future

(14-09-2011 17:59 )Rammyrascal Wrote: [ -> ]what your on about there is showing R18 action on the sky channels and cant see that being allowed. as long as ofcom are as they are at the moment the shows will be like this at least for the forseeable future

Rammy that's why I'm suggesting that they at least come to some kind of compromise, personally speaking because these channels can be blocked permanently via the parental control button I think they should be immune to regulation. In an ideal world I'd like to see sex shows 24 hours a day in the same way that the Sexstation TV Webshow does currently which despite all the gloom and doom at the moment is the way I see these shows panning out in the future. I mean why the hell should a channel that you can easily block have to obey the watershed rules, It's unconstitutional.

agree there that there should be a compromise, especially as the channels can be pin blocked/protected

(14-09-2011 17:59 )Rammyrascal Wrote: [ -> ]what your on about there is showing R18 action on the sky channels and cant see that being allowed. as long as ofcom are as they are at the moment the shows will be like this at least for the forseeable future

Ever since it was legalised in 2000, R18 in film, DVD format has been strictly controlled in the UK. It's distribution has been restricted to licensed sex shops with no mail order allowed.

If it was allowed on UK TV that ruling would cease to be effective.

I.M.O. Ofcon fear a flood of porn films getting into the hands of people who cannot (in Ofcon's view) cope with it. I believe they think we will all degenerate into having mass orgies at every opportunity.

It's all about fear of loss of control, I think. Ofcon are terrified of it.

Stan, we all know there's far more potentially harmful material on FTA channels that OFCOM simply don't aquate with serious harm to children. The BBFC rate material '18' for a reason. I cannot think of one scene in a film such as, Pulp Fiction, that could in any way be demed suitable for children to watch (well, maybe the dance contest at the 50's style diner but as this is bookended with drug abuse and a near death overdose I stand by my original statement). Pulp Fiction contains gay rape, drug abuse, murder and enough blood and guts to give any vulnerable child nightmares for weeks.

Again, the TVFW/AVMS Directives state that TV regulators should consider the impact of potentially harmful material such as pornography and gratuitous violence. OFCOM obviously didn't read past porn or apply these Directives properly either.

The High Court ruled 10 years ago that R18-type porn was not a significant risk to children that might view it. From a logical point of view there is absolutely no possible evolutionary advantage in creating a creature that, in its most formative and vulnerable years as a youngster, could or should have its normal development seriously impaired by the sight or sound of its own means of reproduction. Think about it. If this type of harm were at all likely or remotely possible then I dare say none of us would be alive today. Anyone who believes R18-type porn is harmful to kids is frankly insane, incompetent or both.

Oh, and I've just read elsewhere that a study by Edinburgh University links lower intelligence with an incresed belief in religiosity and religous fundamentalism. So, its likely all the wankstains making complaints to OFCOM about supposed 'harm and offence' and, indeed, OFCOM themselves who support these nutters' claims, aren't reasonable people capable of rational thought.

Just because you believe something doesn't make you or it correct.
Just because you feel something doesn't mean its real.

It's such a pity OFCOM can't grasp the fundamental principles of evidence-based regulation and the basic tenets of a just and tolerant society.

(14-09-2011 18:07 )Scottishbloke Wrote: [ -> ][quote='Rammyrascal' pid='904529' dateline='1316019548']
what your on about there is showing R18 action on the sky channels and cant see that being allowed. as long as ofcom are as they are at the moment the shows will be like this at least for the forseeable future

Rammy that's why I'm suggesting that they at least come to some kind of compromise, personally speaking because these channels can be blocked permanently via the parental control button I think they should be immune to regulation. In an ideal world I'd like to see sex shows 24 hours a day in the same way that the Sexstation TV Webshow does currently which despite all the gloom and doom at the moment is the way I see these shows panning out in the future. I mean why the hell should a channel that you can easily block have to obey the watershed rules, It's unconstitutional.
[/quote
Like you, i watched some of the babe shows last night and it's getting worse and worse. Now for me my favourite babe is Lucy Summers, and i could tell a mile off she wasn't happy, i'm mean she was trying to make the best of it, but this not the Lucy summers i've known and loved of the past yrs. And the lack of calls she was getting, it was literally every 15-20mins saying my line is free, i genuinely felt bad for her, because a babe as stunning as her should be on the phone all the time. It's like Redlight Central have put her in a straight jacket on her, plus the rest of the channels were not much better.
And with the lack of phone calls, it appeared Redlight central were receiving, it won't be long until this channel fades away into the sunset, i hope this never happens of course. I guess they can do one of 2 things, either they watch the slow and painful death of there channel, or go down fighting? this goes for all the channels.
However in my opinion Ofcom needs to be dealt with and dealt with now, i agree with you that if a compromise could be reached, and reached quickly, it might appease the situation somewhat, if on the other hand no deal is reached then this could be the final axe in the babe channels coffins. Now i don't no how Ofcom can be taken down, but " where there's a will there's a way" and we need to find this way very quickly.
I agree with your time slots which i think it's fair for all parties, but the way it's going you might as well put cartoons with Tom and Jerry on
At the end of the day Ofcom must be challenged, i no Eccles has drafted a petition, which i think it's great, and i've gladly put my name forward. Let's hope in the near future Ofcom will be challenged in the courts for there blatant disregard for the rule of Law.

(14-09-2011 19:19 )blackjaques Wrote: [ -> ]

(14-09-2011 17:59 )Rammyrascal Wrote: [ -> ]what your on about there is showing R18 action on the sky channels and cant see that being allowed. as long as ofcom are as they are at the moment the shows will be like this at least for the forseeable future

Ever since it was legalised in 2000, R18 in film, DVD format has been strictly controlled in the UK. It's distribution has been restricted to licensed sex shops with no mail order allowed.

That's not strictly true. You can freely IMPORT R18-rated material from (UK) stockists operating anywhere outside the UK. The High Court ruling didn't just affect the BBFC, it also removed HM Customs' ability to deem R18-type porn obscene - i.e. 'harmful and offensive'. Needless to say that ruling SHOULD have applied to the UK TV regulator...but, by some magical means they appear to have escaped the long arm of the LAW!

Quote:If it was allowed on UK TV that ruling would cease to be effective.

Yes. And its about time the VRA and its 25 year-old attitudes toward sexual material were brought upto date with the Internet generation. We've moved-on but, the legislation still pampers to the whims of Thatcher and Mrs long dead Whitehouse.

Quote:I.M.O. Ofcon fear a flood of porn films getting into the hands of people who cannot (in Ofcon's view) cope with it. I believe they think we will all degenerate into having mass orgies at every opportunity.

It's all about fear of loss of control, I think. Ofcon are terrified of it.

And you're absolutely correct about OFCOM wanting to remain in control - all authoritarian dictatorships are the same.

As for mass orgies...there are swingers clubs all over the country and they've been around for donkeys years.

Porn is used mostly by single men to aleviate sexual tension. Sexual stimulation is a basic human need, indeed, it is necessary for our continued existence and is fundamental to the process of life itself. Masturbating to porn is the safest, healthiest, guilt free form of sexual pleasure on the planet. It's not harmful - clinical studies show that guilt free forms of sexual pleasure are beneficial to the individual physically, mentally and emotionally.

The illogical laws surrounding the availability of porn that remain in this cuntry are the product of religious dogma, irrational fear and total ignorance. None of the typical religiously corrupted scaremonger fears regarding 'porn floodgates' have come true in any of the countries that legalised porn over 40 years ago. There's no evidence from any real-world source to support the type of bullshit we still have to endure in Britain.

I blink and this thread takes off! So much to catch up, but here goes

(14-09-2011 17:55 )Scottishbloke Wrote: [ -> ]This is what the babe channels should be looking for. 9PM - Topless, 10PM - 0530AM - Full nudity including the frontal areas. 12am onwards - sex toys to be allowed.

Why not? You can see people being killed in films, or for real on the News, but we cant see people being fucked?

Quote: This would ofcourse fuck up the Babestation Xtreme show

Would it? Sky Movies and BoxOffice do a thriving business charging money when exactly the same material can be shown Free To Air.
(Excuse the lack of examples but Lori is getting into the Victorian bath, with tasty neon blue lighting so Im not about to pull up the EPG).

To charge or not should be a commercial decision, not a moral one.

Besides, are we talking about full on sex toy use shown in detail, or waving them about, fake handjobs, fake blow jobs and rubbing them outside of underwear? All of the play except the rubbing underwear can occasionally be seen on comedy shows. Teenagers are not very discriminating and dont care about context, so they arent being protected.

blackjaques - 14-09-2011 19:19 Wrote:Ever since it was legalised in 2000, R18 in film, DVD format has been strictly controlled in the UK. It's distribution has been restricted to licensed sex shops with no mail order allowed.

The postal rule is to prevent pranksters getting porn films sent to little old ladies (mags do sometimes get sent) and to have adequate age verification to prevent kids buying.

Little old ladies select their own TV channels, so thats not a problem.

Encrypted channels need access to the PIN. Ofcom regard that as weak age verification. They regard credit card use as strong age verification, which is why they insist that encrypted channels can only show "Sex Works At 18" if there is a credit card payment somewhere down the line.

My personal view is that R18 should be allowed on ordinary TV late at night with suitable warnings. Is it really more harmful than South Park with its constant Jew bashing? Or finance adverts on kids TV, so kids nag their parents to get into debt? Or Jeremy Kyle? If slippery ***ts are not allowed on TV how come we can see Piers Morgan interview Sheryl Cole?

Back to the point. I think there should be debate about removing restrictions on R18 and comparative risk from other sources, including violent films, gun use, cage fighting and religious fundamentalism of all flavours. (Was it the Celtic or Rangers manager who received death threats?).

If this does not result in R18 being allowed on unencrypted TV then it should at least be allowed with PIN protection. At worst the subscriber should have to ask Sky or Virgin to unlock it - payment should not be used as a proxy for age verification.

Part of the reason for keeping R18 in licenced sex shops is that this keeps the Daily Mail readers happy. Stick it in a ghetto in a run down part of town. Keep it out of decent shops. Meanwhile Tesco and Sainsbury put SAW on low shelves.

The other big reason is that this gives the sex shop owners a local monopoly. I wouldnt put it past some to campaign to restrict porn mags their shops too.

R18 is the only film category that is singled out for special treatment like this. And on TV sexual content is the only category singled out for restrictive tereatment, with Cert 18 strength material being banned on Free-To-View. Even Psychic shit does not have to leave out its core content.

blackjaques Wrote:Porn is used mostly by single men to aleviate sexual tension.

And married men. Very few marriages are blessed to have equally matched sex drives in both partners. Sexually repressed societies accept high levels of violence against women and that cant be coincidence. As a society we accept that men eat more than women (2200 calories against 2000), and can drink more for the same effect, so why dont we accept, in our hearts, that men have a higher need for physical relief and need some images to back that up.