The UK Babe Channels Forum

Intense, just wanted to say Thanks for putting forward a line of defence. Unfortunately I doubt it would work*, but the more ideas the better.

Also common sense and logic doesnt seem to come into it. Ofcom know what they mean, and have no hesitation sticking to that, even if their rules actually say something different.

And as you say, if the broadcasters themselves cant be bothered to fight ... sod em.

Actually I suspect there are several reasons why the broadcasters dont fight (too much).
- Ofcom are like gangesters or benevolent dictators. Abide by their rules and they see you OK. Disrepect them and they punish you. After that you are "outside the circle". Disrepect comes in several forms. Refuse to plead guilty and grovel at a compliance meeting and you are questioning their judgement. Major broadcasters like C4 or Sky are allowed to do this once only. Appeal an In Breach finding and not only are you questioning their judgement, they owe you a slap. And going to Court is even worse.
- Babe channel revenue is actually quite small, making the benefits of an expensive court case very dubious.
- Winning a court case would benefit the competition equally.**
- It could take a year to get a hearing.
- Large foreign outfits would muscle in.
- Some operators are happy with the situation as it is.

(*Ofcom allow R18 DVDs to be advertised on encrypted channels, but do not allow the R18 content to be broadcast, just tamer extracts, a tamer description, and contact details.)
** A good argument for a shared fighting fund and co-ordinated action.

(06-12-2010 02:49 )eccles Wrote: [ -> ]Intense, just wanted to say Thanks for putting forward a line of defence. Unfortunately I doubt it would work*, but the more ideas the better.

Also common sense and logic doesnt seem to come into it. Ofcom know what they mean, and have no hesitation sticking to that, even if their rules actually say something different.

And as you say, if the broadcasters themselves cant be bothered to fight ... sod em.

Actually I suspect there are several reasons why the broadcasters dont fight (too much).
- Ofcom are like gangesters or benevolent dictators. Abide by their rules and they see you OK. Disrepect them and they punish you. After that you are "outside the circle". Disrepect comes in several forms. Refuse to plead guilty and grovel at a compliance meeting and you are questioning their judgement. Major broadcasters like C4 or Sky are allowed to do this once only. Appeal an In Breach finding and not only are you questioning their judgement, they owe you a slap. And going to Court is even worse.
- Babe channel revenue is actually quite small, making the benefits of an expensive court case very dubious.
- Winning a court case would benefit the competition equally.**
- It could take a year to get a hearing.
- Large foreign outfits would muscle in.
- Some operators are happy with the situation as it is.

(*Ofcom allow R18 DVDs to be advertised on encrypted channels, but do not allow the R18 content to be broadcast, just tamer extracts, a tamer description, and contact details.)
** A good argument for a shared fighting fund and co-ordinated action.

Yes, thank you eccles. This sums it up quite nicely.

Regards.

It looks like the same shite-bags who complained to Ofcom about the day shows, have jumped on the bandwagon and complained about the X-factor final, as some of the dancers were dressed and performed like some of the gals on the channels.
These shite-bag needs to be identified and sent to Afghanistan where i'm sure the telly conforms to his, her sense of decency. Fingers crossed, they'll get picked off by a sniper......

I did not see any of the X factor show, but I was listenning to Radio 5 this morning and they said that ofcom had received a lot of complaints about the sexiness of that final show, in particular, Christina Aguilera's performance.

(14-12-2010 11:45 )TheWatcher Wrote: [ -> ]I did not see any of the X factor show, but I was listenning to Radio 5 this morning and they said that ofcom had received a lot of complaints about the sexiness of that final show, in particular, Christina Aguilera's performance.

I didn't see it either, I've never watched it. This was what was being reported this morning, on breakfast telly

OFCOM seem to be overextending their reach somewhat. Big Brother is watching YOU.

There was no mention of it on the BBC1 news at 1pm today, but it said in their teletext pages that ofcom had received over 1000 complaints about it.
It will be interesting to see the next ofcom bulletin.

No tits, labia or bumholes on show. Just basques, stockings and bootees. Would have been just aboot acceptable at a Church fete. Its in the context of pop videos.

Far worse is that X Fuctor is basically an extended advert for Simon Cowells acts. Won last year and got an album out? Yes, of course you can have a slot. Panel judge and got a single out? Go ahead.

At least we havent had Piers Morgan singing (yet).

(14-12-2010 18:05 )TheWatcher Wrote: [ -> ]There was no mention of it on the BBC1 news at 1pm today, but it said in their teletext pages that ofcom had received over 1000 complaints about it.
It will be interesting to see the next ofcom bulletin.

With 596 complaints being received the previous week due to mis-representation of the premium phone lines and now complaints of pre-watershed burlesque shows on family friendly entertainment shows Ofcom will need to be seen to take action. With current concerns about the sexualisation of children being supported by all political parties pressure will be put on Ofcom to respond. Organisations like Mumsnet along with Harriet Harman MP will also put in their protests.

Ofcom will need to assess against their general principle that people under 18 need to be protected.

Rules
Scheduling and content information
1.1 Material that might seriously impair the physical, mental or moral development of people under eighteen must not be broadcast.

1.2 In the provision of services, broadcasters must take all reasonable steps to protect people under eighteen. For television services, this is in addition to their obligations resulting from the Audiovisual Media Services Directive (in particular, Article 22, see Appendix 2).

1.3 Children must also be protected by appropriate scheduling from material that is unsuitable for them.

Meaning of "children":
Children are people under the age of fifteen years.

Meaning of "appropriate scheduling":
Appropriate scheduling should be judged according to:

the nature of the content;
the likely number and age range of children in the audience, taking into account school time, weekends and holidays;
the start time and finish time of the programme;
the nature of the channel or station and the particular programme; and
the likely expectations of the audience for a particular channel or station at a particular time and on a particular day.

Mumsnet have also discussed the babechannels as part of the sexualisation of children debate. It would seem that as this issue gains momentum that all areas of sexual imagery are game to complain about even though such broadcast are not aimed at children. Perhaps they need educating about the benefits of pin protection.

Links to current concerns

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.u...eople.html

http://www.mumsnet.com/Talk/am_i_being_u...ockings-is

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/pol...03287.html

The film is actually cert 12a.

12 is suitable for children over 12.
12a does not apply to DVDs, and can be seen by children under 12 but only with parental discretion, and suitability will depend on the child.