The UK Babe Channels Forum

that will never happen as there are always people who will call in. for me it has to be the channels teaming up against ofcom

(28-07-2011 07:43 )Rammyrascal Wrote: [ -> ]that will never happen as there are always people who will call in. for me it has to be the channels teaming up against ofcom

ofcom wont bow to anyone,the shows now are bordering when party people first started just before they allowed topless after 11 i think it was,the sets are dated ,some of the models have seen better days and the producers of these shows seem stuck in a rut between themselves on who is going to be the one who is going to gamble on putting on a more watchable show,weekends were always looked forward to with anticipation ,nowdays they are as bad as manic mondays ,camilla on b/s is the only one who doesnt take any notice of what she is told and gets away with it some of the time yet the channel in question never seems to be in ofcoms radar,it was plain to see on the german version of b/s last night that a different angled camera on a web stream can be done with success but the british channels just cant be bothered and they wont be as long as people are still ringing in

When setting rules it is important to use clear unambiguous language, and adhere to it when reaching legal judgements that may be used to fine people or deprive them of their livelyhood. Noticed this in Bulletin 185:

"5. Red Light, Red Light 1 (Channel 911), 13 April 2011, 22:00 to 23:00
...
The Licensee ... explained that “our stance has always been that the skin between the thighs and the labia majora is not labial detail. However I assume that this is what is being objected to, as this is the only visible portion of the presenter‟s genital area."

Yet again Ofcom fall below basic minimum standards for legal administration and twist language to suit their whim like an electricity company redefining a "year". Labia is a well established medical term. Ofcom are a bunch of incompetent illiterate fuck wits who should not be allowed to run a tea club let alone multi-billion pound industry.

Apologies if GPP or someone else has already pointed this out.

eccles, where does OFCOM's Code ban the broadcast of "labial detail"? I'm pretty sure that it doesn't. Indeed, I'm pretty sure broadcasters could challenge OFCOM's "justified by context" bullshit - after all, if labia can be exposed in lingering detail on a sex/med-utainment programme at 9pm, the same must surely be justified in an adult entertainment context after 10pm...?

Of course, it wouldn't be so bad if OFCOM had applied the law correctly - as it is written - but instead they've completely ignored the fact that they're supposed to be acting within the confines of the HRA when implementing the Comms Act. The HRA implicitly denies censorship on grounds of mere 'offence', yet OFCOM seem to believe the Comms Act overrides this essential part of our freedom and democracy. Indeed, Freedom of Expression enshrines the Right to cause offence - as there is simply no need to protect any form of expression that is acceptable to all and sundry. The Right to Freedom of Expression exists specifically "To protect the transmission of information and ideas that are NOT RECEIVED FAVOURABLY" - and that's according to the highest Judges in the land and the ECHR.

The Comms Act states that OFCOM are "to provide adequate protection to members of the public from the inclusion of offensive and harmful material". It doesn't say OFCOM are to act upon the whims of mindless cretins who feel lady bits shouldn't be allowed on our TV screens. I've seen 100s of lady lips in my time and found none of them to be offensive or harmful let alone offensive and harmful. Indeed, anyone subscribing to encrypted adult shows will certainly see lots of lady bits.

As I've seen lots of fanny in programmes like the Sex Ed Show, Embarassing Bodies and BSExtreme, it is clear that OFCOM's Code doesn't ban the broadcast of labial detail on either encrypted or unencrypted TV channels. So where exactly OFCOM get the idea that they can haul certain channels over the coals for broadcasting material that's allowed on other (mainstream) channels is somewhat perplexing and indicates some application of double 'standards' or, (most likely) some inherant and unjustified prejudice against certain types of channels/programming and/or viewers.

(11-08-2011 03:15 )IanG Wrote: [ -> ]As I've seen lots of fanny in programmes like the Sex Ed Show, Embarassing Bodies and BSExtreme, it is clear that OFCOM's Code doesn't ban the broadcast of labial detail on either encrypted or unencrypted TV channels. So where exactly OFCOM get the idea that they can haul certain channels over the coals for broadcasting material that's allowed on other (mainstream) channels is somewhat perplexing and indicates some application of double 'standards' or, (most likely) some inherant and unjustified prejudice against certain types of channels/programming and/or viewers.

This and everything else you said in the full post sums up perfectly how outrageous Ofcom's treatement of the Babeshows is, but if it really is this black and white, why the hell has no one called their bluff yet?

It seems that that channel and ofcom are in league with each other it's a sad state of affairs that clean adult fun is suddenly a problem the channels used to be interesting but they are all a shadow of themselves now it won't be long before they go bust unless they stand up to ofcom.

(11-08-2011 14:14 )Broncobilly Wrote: [ -> ]It seems that that channel and ofcom are in league with each other it's a sad state of affairs that clean adult fun is suddenly a problem the channels used to be interesting but they are all a shadow of themselves now it won't be long before they go bust unless they stand up to ofcom.

you may well be right ,but i think that the channel responsible for grassing others up has a master plan,i reckon within a few months of them all going down one would come back with a show and because all the rest would be bankrupt would have the audience at their beck and call maybe with some decent shows ,BUT I BET THE SCREEN WOULD BE COVERED IN ADVERTISING !

(11-08-2011 14:51 )shankey! Wrote: [ -> ][snip] ... i reckon within a few months of them all going down one would come back with a show and because all the rest would be bankrupt would have the audience at their beck and call maybe with some decent shows ,BUT I BET THE SCREEN WOULD BE COVERED IN ADVERTISING !

In that situation the opposite would be the case, surely? If you're the only one broadcasting then you have no competitors and wouldn't need to put on show to get your audience, as you'd already have them.

Except no one will watch them cause they will spoil there own show just like they are trying to spoil everyone else's

Well the guidance document from Ofcom specifically for the babechannel licensees does not only specify labial, but also anal and genital areas more generally. Sadly this example just looks like RLC trying to put up a slightly distracting defense, but the guidelines seem clear enough. Not agreeing with them but pointing out this is not a source of hope for defeating Ofcom or anything. Here is the relevant section:

 at no time broadcast anal, labial or genital areas or broadcast images of presenters
touching their genital or anal areas either with their hand or an object;
 ensure that presenters‟ clothing adequately covers their anal, labial or genital areas.
They should also avoid adjusting their clothing (including clutching or bunching)
which results in anal, labial or genital areas being exposed;

http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binarie...idance.pdf Thanks to GPP for posting this elsewhere.

As for the double standards, well I've tried getting off on embarrassing bodies, but it was a bit of hard work As for that sex ed show, it does more damage to sexual fun than Ofcom ever could Not surprised they let those things pass.