The UK Babe Channels Forum

^ The last sentence is spot on!

(12-11-2011 03:57 )eccles Wrote: [ -> ]When channels thought they were allowed they did show stronger content.

I presume you're referring to the above, mrmann, and you're dead right. In fact, it's the best answer yet to all those on here who insist the girls don't actually want to give stronger performances.

(12-11-2011 03:57 )eccles Wrote: [ -> ]If content is soft many people will not be interested

And many will be interested, and are interested. Providing good softcore/teasecore/mildcore is an art in itself, and many of the babes on these shows specialise in it. A skilful soft show doesn't equal babes/programme makers 'not giving a toss.' The babe channels are still some of the best providers of this sort of material anywhere. Babestar aside, it's what they've basically always provided (even Babestar was essentially serving up 'hard softcore,' when its picture was good enough and its camerawork stable enough to be able to tell).

Edit: It's excessive OSGs that I want to see us getting together to get reined in!

(12-11-2011 05:03 )Addison Wrote: [ -> ]Edit: It's excessive OSGs that I want to see us getting together to get reined in!

Great, then we can see even more of the girls lying there doing bugger all.

If Ofcom isn't stopped, not only will it destroy the babe channels, but it will destroy any other channel that it doesn't agree with in it's path. Ofcom is a DICTATORSHIP it's as simple as that, and like all Dictators they will eventually fall, the only problem is when? If Ofcom isn't stopped now, then it will have major repercussions accross the whole of Britsh Television.

(12-11-2011 02:42 )StanTheMan Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-11-2011 01:58 )continental19 Wrote: [ -> ]They either keep pandering to Ofcom, or they simply become PIN protected kind of like when you watch a film on SKY say at 2.30 in the afternoon, and if it has sexual content in it, all you have to do is enter your PIN.

What you're talking about here is soft encryption, i.e simply entering your PIN unscrambles the broadcast as opposed to full encryption that requires payment of some kind.

The former wouldn't give the babeshows any leeway, as Ofcom have already stated that soft encryption wouldn't be sufficient protection against children accessing the channels.

Ridiculous, I know, considering they're perfectly satisfied that soft encrypting Sky Movies is sufficient protection, but that's only to stop the kids from seeing mindless violence, so they're obviously not as concerned.

IF a channel used PIN protection (soft encryption not Subscription)for daytime shows would this then allow the shows to be a bit more raunchy ? , i'm not talking about any form of nudity or even topless girls being shown , i mean more or less what they were showing last year on daytime before the big crack down , i'm referring to girls wearing Bikini's or being scantily clad like what the girls from The Pad used to wear and do ? , surly the fact that the channel was clearly positioned in the adult section of Sky programing and was also PIN protected would allow the channel to have a bit more leeway to what it could show , after all it wouldn't be showing anything more than what can be seen on regular daytime tv but would be PIN protected and be in the adult section .

Hey Mystery, the babe channels can't have it both ways, they either go PIN protected which as you've mentioned should allow them to be as they used to a yr ago, however Ofcom can be unpredictable as we no, I guess if the channels went soft pin protection they might have some ammo to fight Ofcom but who no's, it's bit like playing Roulette none of us no where the ball is going to finish either on black or red. In otherwords Ofcom are an unknown quantity, and thinking you've managed to gain an advantage with these guys is a gamble in itself.

(12-11-2011 19:29 )continental19 Wrote: [ -> ]Ofcom is a DICTATORSHIP it's as simple as that

I thought Sky were suing them. If so it can't be a dictatorship.

Hi Injecy, well if what you're saying is correct, then maybe this might be the initiative from a company as powerful as SKY to fight head on with Ofcom.
Injecy I need more info mate, if you can find out then please let me no? Cheers

So it is ok to go graphically inside a womens private parts if it's educational but not if it's to get men off as part of a phone sex chat. The one rule for one programme and another for another needs to be tackled!!

(11-11-2011 18:08 )Roquentin Wrote: [ -> ]I can see the double standards as eccles points out between the advertisements for encrypted channels that go on for 10 minutes of the hour, which shows much harder content than the free to air channels are allowed. Thats a great point.

But the sex education show? Ofcom argue that the context is different. In the sex education show the primary aim is to educate about sex, in the babechannels the primary aim is to sell phone sex to you (for money that is, and as often as possible, just to state the obvious lol). Sorry but I think I see the difference in context there that they talk about. I just have a different attitude to selling phonesex. I also understand alot of people find that distasteful, its not that mainstream.

I'm not fully defending Ofcom here but I'm not interested in portraying their argument as bewildering nonsense when I am pretty sure it would play perfectly reasonably to plenty of folks beyond this forum. To underestimate their position is to attack a straw man.

(just putting another point of view here, not that far away really)