The UK Babe Channels Forum

(17-06-2011 22:11 )shankey! Wrote: [ -> ]yet on embarrassing bodies yet again it showed a woman open legged in front of a quartet of other women with close ups ,the doctor asking we all know where the clitoris is right girls? and what its there for? pleasure,the way this show is going masturbation will be a topic one of the weeks i wait in anticipation lol

Series 1 episode 4 15 June. http://www.channel4.com/programmes/embar...od#3196643
The particularly education segment is about 22 minutes in. The previous week featured a vasectomy. See, all in the interests of adult education.

(18-06-2011 00:40 )eccles Wrote: [ -> ]

(17-06-2011 22:11 )shankey! Wrote: [ -> ]yet on embarrassing bodies yet again it showed a woman open legged in front of a quartet of other women with close ups ,the doctor asking we all know where the clitoris is right girls? and what its there for? pleasure,the way this show is going masturbation will be a topic one of the weeks i wait in anticipation lol

Series 1 episode 4 15 June. http://www.channel4.com/programmes/embar...od#3196643
The particularly education segment is about 22 minutes in. The previous week featured a vasectomy. See, all in the interests of adult education.

Makes you wanna fucking puke, don't it? Not the shows, the hypocrisy and double standards.

(12-06-2011 09:56 )TheWatcher Wrote: [ -> ]I expect there will be some complaints to ofcom regarding the new series Camelot which started on ch4 last night.
Only a few minutes after 9pm, there were arses and tits on view, plus simulated shagging.

In recent weeks there has also been loads of nakedness in Game Of Thrones including a full-on simulated lesbian sex scene with two women bringing each other to orgasm with the action being directed by a male onlooker.

There was also loads of nudity and sex in pretty much every episode of the two Sparticus series including a group orgy and a scene with two oiled up gay gladiators shagging.

Sparticus went one better.... one slave refused to talk, so they chopped his cock off.

Brought tears to my eyes

Broadcast Bulletin 184 is out today. http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binarie...obb184.pdf

One quite complaint (upheld) against a religious channel for soliciting donations in return for religious considerations, failure to account for donations and confusing calls for donations to the channel (permitted) and to a sister charity (advertising). It was, apparently, a one off caused by an inexperienced presenter.

Another staggering complaint against a different religious channel for a series of broadcasts with somewhat negative views about a splinter group. The broadcaster was exonerated from inciting violence as Ofcom considered that "this particular individual was not advocating that, or inciting, private individuals to kill apostates, but rather was expressing his view that the death penalty could be an appropriate sanction for apostasy to be carried out by the appropriate governmental or judicial institutions." The licencee accepted the complaints and has been warned that further breeches may result in a sanction.

A radio station almost read out publicity material for a boat repair company. The material sounds like a gushing advert, but apparently it was a misguided news item.

Another radio station that was supposed to broadcast live material had hooked a laptop up to the transmitter.

Yet another radio station seemed to be broadcasting repeats as live material, and claimed that a February reference to Halloween was a joke. Even supposed spoken material seemed to have a low proportion. To be honest I have difficulty getting excited about that that, but radio frequencies are in short supply and are dished out on the basis of promises about content.

Other Programmes Not In Breach
Here is a small selection of complaints that were not upheld:
Chart Show 22/5/2011 Capital FM - Harm ?!
Diagnosis Live From The Clinic (trailer) Generally Accepted Standards - 78 complaints
(strangely the show itself only attracted 8 complaints, for Nudity)
Loose Women - 5 complaints about 4 shows
Pornography: a Secret History of Civilisation 10/5/2011 Yesterday - 1 complaint
(This series has been repeated endlessly for the past few years and the title should have been a clue. Only one complaint).
This Morning - 3 various shows - Sexual Material / Premium Rate Services / Animal Welfare - 3 complaints, 1 each
(The sexual / animal /premium rate complaints were about different shows...)
TV Licencing Advert - 15 and 16/5/2011 BBC1 - Harm - 2 complaints

Yup, two complaints about TV licencing adverts, and Ofcom chose to dismiss 78 complaints about a trailer for Diagnosis Live.

(21-06-2011 00:21 )eccles Wrote: [ -> ]Yup, two complaints about TV licencing adverts, and Ofcom chose to dismiss 78 complaints about a trailer for Diagnosis Live.

But they also chose to dismiss the two about TV licencing adverts, to be fair.

I'm not surprised the trailer got that many complaints. I thought it might when I saw it. Some guy, adjusting what what the viewer is led to understand is a webcam, before stripping down to his undies and positioning himself (provocatively) on his sofa. The two Doctors then appear as his 'viewer' and ask what the problem is. He stands up and drops his pants (camera now behind him showing his bare arse).

So Ofcom think that's okay as a peak time ad (I could be wrong, but I don't think it was restricted to post-watershed airing) but get all upset and wary about female nudity on an adult channel at 3 O'clock in the morning.

You know, the more you analyse Ofcom's stance on the babeshows, the more ridiculous their attitude seems (if that's at all possible by now)

Saw the last half of In With The Flynns (dont ask). Will Mellors* wife is shown topless from the back, the tells him she is wearing raspberry flavor tassles on her nipples. His resolve weakens and the scene then cuts to them in bed with silly grins - a clear "representation of sexual intercourse" contrary to section 1.20 of the Broadcasting Code. It might be argued that this is not "representation" but even discussion must be justified and appropriately limited before the watershed.

Thats not the worst of it. Will Mellors* then decides to do star jumps in the nude. He is shown from behind, in full backal nudity, jumping up and down to his wifes horrow. His backside is on view for at least 30 seconds perhaps longer.

The justification for the scene seems to be that he has lied about having a vasectomy so sex carries a pregnancy risk but he cant admit it to his wife.

This was at about 8:50pm on BBC1 today Wednesday 22 June, before the watershed.

It went well beyond what was necessary to establish that the male character was put in a position where he could not refuse sex without getting into an argument, and the star jumps afterwards served no editorial purpose.

Tellingly the BBC found it possible to display full (rear) male nudity but no female nudity, guaranteeing fewer complaints than if the woman had been shown in the buff - reality and genuine artistic reasons do not follow such convenient gender lines.

(* him off Coronation Street and Two Pints)

I think that Eccles makes a point which, if I may, I'd like to develop a bit.

It seems that if you, as a viewer, tune in to watch a programme with the intention of being informed or entertained in any subject, other than some mild sexual stimulation, it is incumbent upon the programme maker to "ambush" you with relatively explicit sexual images or references. It seems also that in some of the drama the sexual content is not even relatively explicit.

By comparison, if a viewer wishes to have some mild sexual stimulation ( and the channel has a 9 as the first number ) then it seems necessary to frustrate that desire by overly restrictive rules.

The "full sex" channels are outside my thoughts and are in any case not free.

This suggests that there is intent to positively avoid giving the viewer what they are actually wishing to watch. I am supposing that when someone puts on a drama they do not want to be overwhelmed by images they didn't expect and that equally those who choose a Babe channel would actually like to see some sexual stimulation and perhaps the odd full frontal view of a woman who they have chosen to watch and possibly call on the phone.

It surely is not beyond the wit of those responsible to understand the absolute hypocrisy of the current situation which brings the whole regulatory regime into disrepute.

A fantastic post, Renfrew! Why is it that the people 'up there' - those who could actually do something about Ofcom - refuse to see the logic in this argument?

(23-06-2011 16:57 )StanTheMan Wrote: [ -> ]A fantastic post, Renfrew! Why is it that the people 'up there' - those who could actually do something about Ofcom - refuse to see the logic in this argument?

well i why dont any of the babe channels use this to defend their selves and challenge ofcom with it? is it because they are quite happy to sit back and paddle through ripples rather than waves? i think the later is the case every time! there are loop holes as big as the eye can see which could be used to defend their case ,but.sadly they dont for fear of reprisal