The UK Babe Channels Forum

Ofcom are fucking bastards and anything that's feasible just won't do for them. I think they get some kind of perverse pleasure out of this constant hounding of the babe channels. Let us enjoy them in peace. A sexline channel shouldn't have to have guidelines they should do exactly what they do on the tin. Ofcom's problem is they are trying to govern them just like any other channel. My wish for 2011 is for this country and government to wake up and boot these bastards out for good. Censorship in the UK. 2 words - Fucking Disgrace. Another point is minors up at 2 in the morning watching the babe channels. What a load of bullshit.

(28-12-2010 01:47 )gazfc Wrote: [ -> ]

(28-12-2010 01:32 )StanTheMan Wrote: [ -> ]

(28-12-2010 01:26 )gazfc Wrote: [ -> ]So how are ofcom taking your human rights away from you?

By stopping me, as an adult, watching adult material that's on a level with the government's guidlines and not Ofcom's made-up ones.

Ask me a difficult one.

But are they?? Adult material is still been broadcast it just seems to me that your to tight to pay for it.


Is it not also the human rights of a child to be protected from that sort of material??


As much as you like to whine about it all the channels agree to ofcom's rules/interpretation of them rules when they agree to broadcast on uk tv

gazfc, what do you mean "that sort of material"?

I assume you believe there's something 'obscene' or 'indecent', indeed, 'offensive and harmful' about the naked human form and the sex act?

Do you honestly believe there is something 'dangerous' in anyone of any age seeing someone naked? Do you really believe children need specially protecting from the sight of female nipples or piss flaps?

You do know that the World Health Organization recommend women breast feed for the first four years of a child's life? Nature saw fit to create these teats specifically for our kids to suck on. 'She' also saw fit to equip us with dicks and fannies to make those kids in the first instance.

Can you be absolutely certain that filling people's (e.g. children's) heads with anti-porn, anti-sex, anti-nudism propaganda is actually good for them? Doesn't it strike you as a bit odd that only religious control freaks want folks to believe sex is evil and the naked body is disgusting?

Sex is such a fundamental part of our very existence that I find it utterly impossible to agree with any argument that says sex and nudity, their portrayal or celebration, are in any way 'offensive and harmful'. There is no evidence anywhere to support these ridiculous beliefs or accusations. Sex is normal. Nudity is natural. How can anything so necessary to life itself ever be deemed 'offensive and harmful'?

Moreover, OFCOM clearly believe this utterly unbelievable nonsense and, indeed, pamper to the whims of the clearly deranged minority that take offence at the sight of a naked body and get their knickers in a twist at the mere thought of people enjoying porn. These attitudes are not healthy. They're not based on fact or reality. The law says OFCOM are to protect against that which IS (proveably) "offensive and harmful material", which is NOT merely that which some dozy fucking cretins claim (against all evidence, rationality and common sense) offends their personal definition of good taste.

Spreading irrational fears and promoting unfounded phobias about sex and nudity is not good for people's physical, mental or moral health and stability yet, this is exactly what OFCOM and their religiously corrupted ilk claim is necessary for society's wellbeing. We know where this kind of bullshit leads...to people covering piano legs or being forced to cover their entire body in the burkha. It ain't good and it ain't healthy.

In the year 2000 the High Court ruled that explicit 'hardcore' R18-type material was perfectly safe and legal for people to take into their homes where children might view it. Had the evidence the BBFC presented from over 30 child wellfare experts from around the world backed-up their claims for censorship then R18 would still contain softcore shite. The law (the VRA 1984/2010) contains a clause which demands the BBFC protect against "any harm which may be caused" especially to children and especially in the home (that's as broad a scope as you could ever wish for) yet, the evidence from the experts did not support the BBFC's claims to be preventing any harm whatsoever.

OFCOM have produced no new evidence of harm. Their own commissioned report states R18 is perfectly safe for children to view. Kids under 18 have been accessing porn since the arrival of the Internet over 15 years ago - if there were any reason to worry about porn it would by now be blatantly obvious to everyone but, in fact, rates of sexual assaults have been falling all over the freeworld since folks of all agaes got unfettered access to porn on the Internet. OFCOM aren't just wrong, they are actively undermining the wellfare of sexually inquisitive young people in the UK - forcing them in effect to have underage sex simply to find out what life is really all about in this sexually repressed shithole of a nation.

How can anyone argue OFCOM are doing the right thing when they are clearly perpetuating sexual ignorance and repression? Kids have a fundamental right and, indeed, a fundamental need to know all about the facts of life. Only evil self-righteous monsters would deny anyone their fundamental human right to know about their own bodies and inherant sexuality...I give you OFCOM! Self-serving, self-righteous fucks of the highest order.

If you have some evidence to prove that boobs and fanny are indeed "offensive and harmful material" then please share it. If you have evidence to prove kids need any protection from "that sort of material" then please share it. I'm dying to see it...I think we all are.

So in your mind you'd be ok with your children viewing the babechannels/hardcore porn at any age??


Children should be protected from adult material until they're old enough to understand it properly, it shouldn't be shoved down their throats from an early age just because a small minority of people can't conceive that it may be harmful/unsuitably for children.

I wonder aswell how the girls themselves would feel about children watching them, would they be comfortable with it? Would they even do the job if they knew that was happening. Would you yourself be alright been naked in a sexual way innfront of children??


I see you mention sexual assaults stats been down( wouldn't know about that so I'll take your word for it) but what about teenage pregnancy been up? Could that not be because kids are seeing porn to early? Anorexia also on the increse which is mainly due to teenage girls having the wrong image of beauty been forced upon them which the model/adult industry has a massive part in. Hell I've read in the news before about boys trying to stretch their cocks because theirs wasnt as big as the guys in the porn films they'd seen. Those are the type of kids that need protecting from adult content.

In an ideal world no person would need protecting from anything whever that be nudity/violence etc but we don't live in some kind of utopia, we live a world where different people get offended by a variety things. We're lucky we live in a world where people can be protected from unnecessary harm.

I can't even understand what most of the complaints are about, there's an almost endless amount of ways to see some stronger stuff if that's what you fancy, I could understand if ofcom had banned all nudity but really nothing has changed from before and it's not like the uk is the only country that doesn't allow adult material to be broadcast on unencrypted channels.

(27-12-2010 19:33 )StanTheMan Wrote: [ -> ]

(27-12-2010 19:16 )johnm Wrote: [ -> ]i wouldnt bother with eurotic tv as it is just as tame as the uk babe channels and not available on the same satellite that sky uk use .

I don't think that's wholly accurate, john, to be perfectly fair. ETV certainly isn't HC, but we do get lingering shots of the girls lower halves and labia - albeit with closed legs.

we get more than lingering shots of pussy,sometimes open sometimes not and this is a free to air channel which would bring tears to the eyes of Ofcom.
Better yet is the free to air channel Sexy Sat Tv which on a night time give you girls that are naked and who routinely hold there vagias open [in close view] heart attack for Ofcom, of course these channels are on 19 degrees and 13 degees east so would need a movable dish,but all in all these satellite channels are governed by the same `television without frontiers`recomendation which all the euro countries agreed to in the debate [only our country choose to ignore and blatantly flout these guidelines]
There is a lot of free to air erotic sexy channels [not hard porn] on fta on these satellites so my recomendation would be to get a free to air satellite box instead of the very limited sky box and get a dual tripple or even quad feed horn for your dish which should enable you to pick up a few of these satellites

I'm going to gloss over the last page, as people are entitlted to their own opinions, but all i will say is, people will not like being told that they have to have a pin, they've tried it in other countries and it has failed big time.

(28-12-2010 07:42 )Azrail360 Wrote: [ -> ]Blah blah blah.......

Is nudity really so damaging to children? This all goes back to the bible bullshit etc etc boring snooze....

it can be yes as remember reading something a while ago that an increase in nudity on tv leads to kids growing up faster, and I'm not sure if it's been proven, but there is certainly a trend that the increase of nudity on tv and sexual acts, means that there is an increase in teenage preg. And before anyone says that is bullshit sit back and actually think. BTW that is coming from someone who had my first kids at 15, although was preg while i was 14, and it was legal before you moan as it was in Spain

(28-12-2010 07:42 )Azrail360 Wrote: [ -> ]I just can't believe someone took all that time to justify his Christian sensibilities.

At the end of the day more and more graphic content is shown to us from an earlier age. Censorship is not going to stop this

You only have to watch the news to see some war zone were people are getting killed, or you see dead bodies. The news doesn't get censored.

Sorry you CANNOT compare babe channels to a war zone at all. I would go into more detail, but I've lost close friends because of conflicts but lost none working for any babe shows. Also I'm due to go on a tour of duty soon.

(28-12-2010 07:42 )Azrail360 Wrote: [ -> ]Which is worst? huh. Censorship is a blast from the bible past, that needs applied very liberally if at all.

Censorship isn't, lets see what has censorship, TV shows before the watershed, Facebook, Myspace, various modelling websites, the babe channels themselves have disclaimers and ask if you are over 18.

I can think of one word for you, but not going to say it, as I bet other forum members can think of words for me.

From an ex squddie, the news IS censored, ALOT!!

(28-12-2010 13:51 )mjw664 Wrote: [ -> ]From an ex squddie, the news IS censored, ALOT!!

it is, but it has got less censored.

(28-12-2010 13:35 )RCTV Wrote: [ -> ]I'm going to gloss over the last page, as people are entitlted to their own opinions, but all i will say is, people will not like being told that they have to have a pin, they've tried it in other countries and it has failed big time.

RCTV, have you read even a single word of Scottishbloke's propositiion regarding PIN protection? His idea would be that no one would be 'forced' to have a PIN. New boxes would come with the adult channels already hidden behind a six-digit (extra security) PIN. If you have children and/or don't want these adult channels available then you don't need to do a single thing.

That does leave the problem of the millions of people with existing boxes, of course, but we're looking further into the future with this.

Oh, and IanG, if I could thank you a million times for your last post I would. There was more sense spoken in that one post than there has been in practically the whole thread (with the exception of Scottishbloke's and a few others)

(28-12-2010 04:43 )gazfc Wrote: [ -> ]So in your mind you'd be ok with your children viewing the babechannels/hardcore porn at any age??

Well why not? There's no proof this is harmful, in fact, the evidence shows it is harmless. There are people today living in cultures that don't wear clothes and do indeed have sex in front of their children, their neighbours and their neighbours' children - and none of them believe this is wrong or harmful because, for the thousands of years they've lived like this, they've never seen any harm come from it.

As I was trying to point out before, we only believe what we believe because we don't know any better and, moreover, we're not being given any opportunity to find out the truth. We're being FORCED and ORDERED by OFCOM to believe-in and put-up with their insane censorial bullshit - for which they've not provided any evidence whatsoever to back up their reasons for such censorship. OFCOM simply decided to apply a "cautionary approach" based on their own IGNORANCE of the facts and despite all common sense and real-world evidence to show their beliefs are based on irrational fears and discriminatory bullshit.

Quote:Children should be protected from adult material until they're old enough to understand it properly, it shouldn't be shoved down their throats from an early age just because a small minority of people can't conceive that it may be harmful/unsuitably for children.

No one suggested it should be "shoved down their throats". But the FACT remains that we're born with one purpose in life - to reproduce and perpetuate our species. Sex being the whole purpose in and of life, it is highly unlikely that creatures born to shag will at any point in their lives be harmed by a knowledge of how babies are made.

Moreover, as there is no proof of any real harm, porn should not be banned just because some minority can't conceive it may be harmless/suitable for children.

Porn exists because human societies have decided to cover their bodies 'in shame' and carry out sexual relations in secrecy. Porn exists because there IS a social need for it - if no one wanted it or wanted to make it there would be no market or industry for it. But the fact is, the market and industry is MASSIVE, therefore, there exists a HUGE social need and demand for porn.

All so-called 'moral' arguments against the porn industry and market seem to stem from some bizzare notion of 'human dignity'. Apparently there's no 'dignity' being in the normal and natural naked human state. You have to cover-up, you have to have sex behind closed doors, otherwise they'll come and arrest you for indecent behaviour - that's a rather oxymoronic view of human dignity as we're all apparently so disgusting and indecent that we must hide our bodies and sexual activities to be 'decent' and 'dignified'. This supposed moral dignity makes no sense whatsoever, it is nonsense, it is religious nonsense and, it is what we're all brainwashed to believe from a very young age.

Quote:I wonder aswell how the girls themselves would feel about children watching them, would they be comfortable with it? Would they even do the job if they knew that was happening. Would you yourself be alright been naked in a sexual way innfront of children??

As I pointed out earlier, if you haven't been brought-up to believe sex is 'disgusting', 'indecent', 'obscene' and 'dangerous' then you wouldn't bat an eyelid at having sex in front of your grandmother or grandkids. Why does no other creature on earth show any fear at having sex in full view of the world? There is nothing to fear, there's only an irrational belief that sex (and porn) is something we should fear.

Quote:I see you mention sexual assaults stats been down( wouldn't know about that so I'll take your word for it) but what about teenage pregnancy been up? Could that not be because kids are seeing porn to early? Anorexia also on the increse which is mainly due to teenage girls having the wrong image of beauty been forced upon them which the model/adult industry has a massive part in. Hell I've read in the news before about boys trying to stretch their cocks because theirs wasnt as big as the guys in the porn films they'd seen. Those are the type of kids that need protecting from adult content.

Well there's nothing we can do to protect nutters and idiots from themselves. However, knowledge and education are how most of us choose to protect the 'innocent' from any stupid behaviour arising from their ignorance of the facts.

Quote:In an ideal world no person would need protecting from anything whever that be nudity/violence etc but we don't live in some kind of utopia, we live a world where different people get offended by a variety things. We're lucky we live in a world where people can be protected from unnecessary harm.

I'm afraid we live in a world where people are unnecessarily protected from that which is utterly harmless and, actively encouraged to believe in harmful bullshit which leads to censorship, terrorism, war, torture, child abuse, murder and all the rest of the shite that plagues human society.

Quote:I can't even understand what most of the complaints are about, there's an almost endless amount of ways to see some stronger stuff if that's what you fancy, I could understand if ofcom had banned all nudity but really nothing has changed from before and it's not like the uk is the only country that doesn't allow adult material to be broadcast on unencrypted channels.

The fact there are other ways to see stronger stuff is entirely the point. WHY ban it on TV if we can all find it in the corner shop or on the end of a mouse click? OFCOM have simply created their own little fascist dictatorship so that they can control and extort money from anyone they don't like the look of.

QUOTE:

"As I pointed out earlier, if you haven't been brought-up to believe sex is 'disgusting', 'indecent', 'obscene' and 'dangerous' then you wouldn't bat an eyelid at having sex in front of your grandmother or grandkids."

You are a sick, sick man ha ha