The UK Babe Channels Forum

Just wondering if anything was actually achieved with that government freedom website earlier in the year or was it just empty promises as nothing has changed at all. Censorship is still as bad as ever and also if the telly's crap then you have to stand outside a fuckin pub just to have a smoke. This country is neither democratic nor Liberal. Ofcom have to go it's all just fucked up, we the british public shouldn't have to be subjected to these draconian rules or stand for them. Sexline channels should not have to conform to ofcom rules as its unfair for them to operate under these constraints that are in place and further more its scandalous they should be charging us a premium rate number if they are failing to return us the goods in return.

Theres supposed to be a government Freedom Bill sometime soon. theyve got to do it, it was in the Queens Speech and you dont *uck with Brenda.

The Freedom website closed in early September and they recokned it would take a few months to go through all the suggestions. My guess is some of the ideas will make it into a mega piece of legislation, other stuff will be slipped in here and there, and some (like smoking in schools) will ignored.

Short answer: December.

OK, I accept that I'm probably getting a reputation as some sort of Ofcom mouthpiece in these threads (I'm not, honest!), but let me just make this point for the purposes of giving the alternative view.

None of us are surprised by the fact that Ofcom (and I would suspect mainstream society) do not think that topless women being broadcast on an unencripted TV channel during the daytime is acceptable. Rules exist to prevent this type of material being shown. Fine.

We only have to look at the 'Slip of the Day' thread to see that virtually every single day there are numberous examples of daytime breast exposure. Whilst it may have started out as a genuine 'slip', we also all know now that so many of these slips are done accidently on purpose (there's actually a discussion about this very issue on that particular thread).

I like the slips and you like the slips. But all of the babe channels know that deliberatly exposing boobs on daytime TV to titilate viewers or encourage people to ring in is a big no-no. C'mon guys, it's not rocket science!! You won't get into trouble for a genuine accident (followed by a prompt apology), but Ofcom will view the babe channels as just taking the piss. It can't be any surprise they're being targeted, can it?

Sootbag1 Wrote:I find much of the "Ofcom don't like sex" argument to be childish and uninformed. Just because you don't happen to agree with the view taken by Ofcom, doesn't mean that they are a group a Victoria prudes, who blush at the merest sight of a penis.

That may have been a reply to a post of mine quoting an Ofcom sexual diversity survey where the results seemed very out of kilter with the norm for a public sector organisation, or even a private sector one (post #249). Arguably a cheap shot, but I wasn't trying to say "Ofcom don't like sex", just that the survey was out off kilter with the rest of society and suggests a dysfunctional organisation where either sexual minorities are very under-represented (due to organisation bias and resulting in a locker room mentality) or there is no openness and toeing the corporate line and not creating waves is seen as essential for career survival

A workforce with just 0.7% gay men in this day and age? Even the armed forces, civil service and police have better representation. A climate of dishonesty is no way to run an organisation, let alone a regulator.

Quote:Ofcom essentially try and reflect public taste. If you compare the views of the general public against the views of members of this forum on the content of the babe channels, you'll no doubt find a marked difference. Until the former catches up with the latter, I think you'll find Ofcom are far more comfortable with mild titilation, rather than outright pornography.

Ofcom do not reflect public taste. They do not even comply with their own public attitude surveys. The 2009 one showed more tolerance than the 2004 one of explicit adult content late night on specialist adult channels. Tolerance began to waver not for explicit content, but for stuff that Joe Public does not do at home - anal and strong fetish.

Despite the survey showing more public acceptance, Ofcom did not change the Broadcast Code, Guidance or practice one jot. Restrictions are still tighter than 4 years ago.

What upsets the public is sex, violence or swearing when they are in their "comfort zone". The show that attracted the most criticism was a morning TV Alan Titchmarsh chat show where sex toys were discussed on ITV. The Vicars wife doesnt expect that sort of thing when holding a coffee morning. Mums expect morning TV to be safe to park the toddler in front of when doing the laundry. Because of that the show was rated more offensive than trailers for encrypted sex shows.

(06-11-2010 20:49 )Sootbag1 Wrote: [ -> ]OK, I accept that I'm probably getting a reputation as some sort of Ofcom mouthpiece in these threads (I'm not, honest!), but let me just make this point for the purposes of giving the alternative view.

None of us are surprised by the fact that Ofcom (and I would suspect mainstream society) do not think that topless women being broadcast on an unencripted TV channel during the daytime is acceptable. Rules exist to prevent this type of material being shown. Fine.

I dont think you are an Ofcom mouthpiece. Much as I enjoy the odd glimpse of daytime TV I am always surprised at how much the channels push it. But in other contexts I wish Ofcom would relax and actually follow the rules instead of digging for constructive ways to extend them.

Put it this way. I like a beer and whiskey. I dont want them banned. But I dont want young teens to have unrestricted access either. Yes, I want explicit sex on TV, and I want an honest system where it can be broadcast for its own sake, not some faux dramatic justification. But I also want reasonable safeguards to stop kids access it and to stop accidental embarrasment of adults who choose not to watch. Its a bit like saying I want beer outside of a steak and ale pie.

(07-11-2010 01:44 )eccles Wrote: [ -> ]Put it this way. I like a beer and whiskey. I dont want them banned. But I dont want young teens to have unrestricted access either. Yes, I want explicit sex on TV, and I want an honest system where it can be broadcast for its own sake, not some faux dramatic justification. But I also want reasonable safeguards to stop kids access it and to stop accidental embarrasment of adults who choose not to watch. Its a bit like saying I want beer outside of a steak and ale pie.

These reasonable safeguards are already in place! The 18 warnings, the watershed, and the biggest safeguard being that these children have parents to prevent them from watching. See, already done! There shouldn't be any other safeguards in order for someone to see an uncensored woman.

(07-11-2010 03:03 )mrmann Wrote: [ -> ]These reasonable safeguards are already in place! The 18 warnings, the watershed, and the biggest safeguard being that these children have parents to prevent them from watching. See, already done! There shouldn't be any other safeguards in order for someone to see an uncensored woman.

Plus the fact that the 900 channels can be easily and permanently removed from the EPG, if only parents could be bothered.

Personally I think Sky boxes should be supplied with the 900 channels locked out as a default setting, so that subscribers would have to make a conscious decision to enable them.

In the case of parents this would put the onus on them to police their delicate children's viewing. It would (or should) also change the emphasis when parents complained to Ofcom. Rather than automatically blaming the babe channel, Ofcom could ask the parent what safeguard they had put in place to prevent the child from seeing the 900 channels, given that they (the parents) had enabled them.

(08-11-2010 13:18 )Digital Dave Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-11-2010 03:03 )mrmann Wrote: [ -> ]These reasonable safeguards are already in place! The 18 warnings, the watershed, and the biggest safeguard being that these children have parents to prevent them from watching. See, already done! There shouldn't be any other safeguards in order for someone to see an uncensored woman.

Plus the fact that the 900 channels can be easily and permanently removed from the EPG, if only parents could be bothered.

Personally I think Sky boxes should be supplied with the 900 channels locked out as a default setting, so that subscribers would have to make a conscious decision to enable them.

In the case of parents this would put the onus on them to police their delicate children's viewing. It would (or should) also change the emphasis when parents complained to Ofcom. Rather than automatically blaming the babe channel, Ofcom could ask the parent what safeguard they had put in place to prevent the child from seeing the 900 channels, given that they (the parents) had enabled them.

I like that idea!

(04-11-2010 19:34 )Gold Plated Pension Wrote: [ -> ]Latest complaints being investigated by Ofcom against the daytime shows. This could be the end of minimal c-thru clothing and tit tape if these broadcasters roll over like Elite.

Up to 29 October 2010

Programme Channel Transmission Date Date Lodged

Bluebird TV Essex Babes Thursday, 16 September 2010 28 September 2010

Bluebird TV Essex Babes Monday, 27 September 2010 28 September 2010

Live 960 Live 960 Sunday, 26 September 2010 29 September 2010

The Pad Tease Me Wednesday, 13 October 2010 13 October 2010

The Pad Tease Me Thursday, 14 October 2010 15 October 2010

The Pad Tease Me Tuesday, 19 October 2010 20 October 2010

The Pad Tease Me Friday, 22 October 2010 25 October 2010

The Pad Tease Me TV2 Tuesday, 19 October 2010 20 October 2010

Lets hope they come out fighting.

Well, as stated above it is the end of minimal c-thru clothing and tit tape on the day shows but for reasons i did not foresee. The revocation of all licenses for Bang has put this broadcaster on the back foot but i believe Ofcom's action has been disproportionate to the alleged harm done and would be difficult to defend in the high court.
They could have suspended the licenses whilst seeking compliance from the broadcaster before reinstating, but Bang's failure to pay the fine no doubt annoyed the regulator to go for revocation. I don't believe Bang are a maverick operator but one who challenged the regulators guidance which kept changing and moving the boundaries making it inpossible for this broadcaster to keep providing compliant output.
Anyway there is a new dog for the regulator to kick, latest investigations. I believe these are again daytime shows for Red Light Lounge.

Up to 26 November 2010
No investigations against the Babechannels

Up to 19 November 2010
Programme Channel Transmission Date Date Lodged
Red Light Lounge 40 n Naughty Wednesday, 13 October 2010 26 October 2010
Red Light Lounge 40 n Naughty Tuesday, 02 November 2010 03 November 2010
Red Light Lounge 40 n Naughty Saturday, 06 November 2010 08 November 2010
Red Light Lounge 40 n Naughty Wednesday, 10 November 2010 10 November 2010

Up to 12 November 2010
Programme Channel Transmission Date Date Lodged
Bang Babes Tease Me Wednesday, 13 October 2010 13 October 2010
Bang Babes Tease Me 3 Tuesday, 10 November 2010 10 November 2010
Early Bird Tease Me TV (Freeview) Sunday, 17 October 2010 17 October 2010
Early Bird Tease Me TV (Freeview) Thursday, 21 October 2010 21 October 2010
Early Bird Tease Me Thursday, 28 October 2010 22 October 2010
The Pad Tease Me Friday, 22 October 2010 22 October 2010
The Pad Tease Me Saturday, 06 November 2010 10 November 2010

Up to 5 November 2010
No investigations against the Babechannels

(03-12-2010 03:18 )Gold Plated Pension Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-11-2010 19:34 )Gold Plated Pension Wrote: [ -> ]Latest complaints being investigated by Ofcom against the daytime shows. This could be the end of minimal c-thru clothing and tit tape if these broadcasters roll over like Elite.

Up to 29 October 2010

Programme Channel Transmission Date Date Lodged

Bluebird TV Essex Babes Thursday, 16 September 2010 28 September 2010

Bluebird TV Essex Babes Monday, 27 September 2010 28 September 2010

Live 960 Live 960 Sunday, 26 September 2010 29 September 2010

The Pad Tease Me Wednesday, 13 October 2010 13 October 2010

The Pad Tease Me Thursday, 14 October 2010 15 October 2010

The Pad Tease Me Tuesday, 19 October 2010 20 October 2010

The Pad Tease Me Friday, 22 October 2010 25 October 2010

The Pad Tease Me TV2 Tuesday, 19 October 2010 20 October 2010

Lets hope they come out fighting.

Well, as stated above it is the end of minimal c-thru clothing and tit tape on the day shows but for reasons i did not foresee. The revocation of all licenses for Bang has put this broadcaster on the back foot but i believe Ofcom's action has been disproportionate to the alleged harm done and would be difficult to defend in the high court.
They could have suspended the licenses whilst seeking compliance from the broadcaster before reinstating, but Bang's failure to pay the fine no doubt annoyed the regulator to go for revocation. I don't believe Bang are a maverick operator but one who challenged the regulators guidance which kept changing and moving the boundaries making it inpossible for this broadcaster to keep providing compliant output.
Anyway there is a new dog for the regulator to kick, latest investigations. I believe these are again daytime shows for Red Light Lounge.

Up to 26 November 2010
No investigations against the Babechannels

Up to 19 November 2010
Programme Channel Transmission Date Date Lodged
Red Light Lounge 40 n Naughty Wednesday, 13 October 2010 26 October 2010
Red Light Lounge 40 n Naughty Tuesday, 02 November 2010 03 November 2010
Red Light Lounge 40 n Naughty Saturday, 06 November 2010 08 November 2010
Red Light Lounge 40 n Naughty Wednesday, 10 November 2010 10 November 2010

Up to 12 November 2010
Programme Channel Transmission Date Date Lodged
Bang Babes Tease Me Wednesday, 13 October 2010 13 October 2010
Bang Babes Tease Me 3 Tuesday, 10 November 2010 10 November 2010
Early Bird Tease Me TV (Freeview) Sunday, 17 October 2010 17 October 2010
Early Bird Tease Me TV (Freeview) Thursday, 21 October 2010 21 October 2010
Early Bird Tease Me Thursday, 28 October 2010 22 October 2010
The Pad Tease Me Friday, 22 October 2010 22 October 2010
The Pad Tease Me Saturday, 06 November 2010 10 November 2010

Up to 5 November 2010
No investigations against the Babechannels

Bang were given 24 hours to prepare a defence against complaints about what, 10 shows over 5 days. Ofcom know full well that it takes more than 24 hours go get the recordings, let alone look through them making notes and comparing against the regulations. They then gave a 24 hour extension and complained that Bang filed their response right at the end of it - but within the permitted time (late on a Friday). Not surprisingly, Bangs response was inadequate. This leaves Ofcom looking draconian. Usually they take months to consult over situations crying out for immediate action, like the telecom operator who had no insurance for 6 years and finally applied to put the company in liquidation, or the shopping channel that went out of business.

If Ofcom really wanted to avoid the appearance of a vendetta, they could have argue that repeat serious breaches left them with no choice other than immediate suspension but give Bang time to prepare a response and appeal it, even letting Bang set the date.

Bang look as if they are letting it go, but Ofcom should know that Bang could be sold tommorrow and the new owner could sue for damages. The chance of a case succeeding diminishes with time, but technically this will hang over Ofcom for the next 6 years. Unresolved legal action is a potential asset in the bank.

And no matter how combative Ofcom are, their insurers might be tempted to settle out of court.

I wonder how many FIFA representatives are on the board of Ofcom, maybe bangs problem was, they didn't offer a large enough Bung to ensure trouble free broadcasting.......LOL