The UK Babe Channels Forum

(11-02-2013 22:02 )eccles Wrote: [ -> ]Of course cancer prevention is to be encouraged, but is that a valid reason for cock and ball closeups on family TV during the middle of the day? A paedo could use that to validate their behaviour to a victim "Look, theres someone one Phil and Hollys show with their bits out so it must be OK, what are you complaining about? Bit of an extreme argument perhaps, but there seem to be no limits on the education, documentary or arts argument, so long as it is not enjoyable*. Not so long ago Channel 4 had a daytime series on life modelling with naked male and female models. Is there anything to stop a channel having an explicit sex education show aimed at teenagers to try and prevent unwanted pregnancy, STIs and unsatisfactory relationships?

* Because that would be wrong. Unless it is Art.

i'd quite happily go on morning tv and let holly check my bits for lumps n bumps, aslong as could check her aswell

Is it right to show nudity (male or female) when children may be watching? Some people on this forum certainly don't think it should be shown, but they are quite alright with nudity to be shown when there aren't children watching. But when is the time when no youngsters are viewing? Maybe there isn't a time. So then if we can never be sure when we are child free, then surely Ofcom as a duty to protect those children who watch TV late into the night. Me myself, I am in the mind that children don't need to be Mollycoddled quite so much as they are. It is only the narrow mindedness of certain people that as created such an issue regarding a naked human body. If it was up to me we would have full nudity 24 hours a day. And do you know what? Fuck all damage would be done to the kids that is not already being done to them in this selfish, money grubbing, not any ones fucking fault, shithole of a society that between us we have created, FUCK IT!!!

Mainstream nudity should only exist if it is relevant to what is being shown, so something like testicular cancer or breast cancer then it is acceptable, if a soap was to have nudity showing genitals then it wouldn't be acceptable. Remember they're can be nude that doesn't show genitalia which I would say is acceptable.

The babe channels are considered 'arts and entertainment' and agree that the times are good as it is the best times for children not to watch and for adults to watch.

(15-02-2013 23:48 )RCTV Wrote: [ -> ]Mainstream nudity should only exist if it is relevant to what is being shown, so something like testicular cancer or breast cancer then it is acceptable, if a soap was to have nudity showing genitals then it wouldn't be acceptable. Remember they're can be nude that doesn't show genitalia which I would say is acceptable.

The babe channels are considered 'arts and entertainment' and agree that the times are good as it is the best times for children not to watch and for adults to watch.

If a nude man and women are on a docu but their genitals are covered thats acceptable by me too.It gets my goat to high heaven all the clouded out female genitals in all these docus yet all the male genitals are exposed thats sexist..Thats all i want fairness i am not offended by nudity or penises altho being super straight i dont like penises but this constant sexism is all down to Ofcom ..These documentry makers cant show female genitals cause of ofcom ,the channels cant because of ofcom so its all ofcoms fault NOBODY ELSES.

Ofcom must hate women genitals.I hate keith lemon,songs of praise and operation programmes etc but i cant ban them.

Not nudity but definitely mainstream TV and very pleasant to watch. Bit of a Benny Hill moment as it was family viewing time with the maiden aunt in the corner laughing at the gags:

Blandings ("6. Problems With Drink"), BBC2 Sunday 6:30pmThe delightful Monica Simmons (Emerald Fennell) bends over in tight jodpurs, leather boots and a suggestive suspender belt betwixt her buttocks before splashing her front top bottom with water and dominating some upper class twit.

(15-02-2013 23:48 )RCTV Wrote: [ -> ]The babe channels are considered 'arts and entertainment' and agree that the times are good as it is the best times for children not to watch and for adults to watch.

Well Ofcom doesn't consider the channels to be 'arts and entertainment' Ofcom considers them to be adult phone chat teleshopping/advertisement services, Ofcom state because they are advertisements/teleshopping services they have less leeway than editorial programming and are governed by the advertising code, that's why they can't use bad language or show full frontal nudity on the babe channels because there are different guidelines/rules for channels operating under the advertising code . .

(19-02-2013 19:39 )mr mystery Wrote: [ -> ]Ofcom state because they are advertisements/teleshopping services they have less leeway than editorial programming and are governed by the advertising code, that's why they can't use bad language or show full frontal nudity on the babe channels because there are different guidelines/rules for channels operating under the advertising code . .

And yet some dating website can show a naked mans arse in its advert, the one that shows them getting dressed and the woman walking down the street in stockings and high heels.

And then there is the Lady Gaga perfume one where dear Stephanie is buff naked with only midget men covering her modesty, one man positioned to look like a nipple.

(19-02-2013 19:39 )mr mystery Wrote: [ -> ]

(15-02-2013 23:48 )RCTV Wrote: [ -> ]The babe channels are considered 'arts and entertainment' and agree that the times are good as it is the best times for children not to watch and for adults to watch.

Well Ofcom doesn't consider the channels to be 'arts and entertainment' Ofcom considers them to be adult phone chat teleshopping/advertisement services, Ofcom state because they are advertisements/teleshopping services they have less leeway than editorial programming and are governed by the advertising code, that's why they can't use bad language or show full frontal nudity on the babe channels because there are different guidelines/rules for channels operating under the advertising code . .

In terms of nudity, they are arts and entertainment, ofcom may well classify them as adult channels, but the nudity they show is arts and entertainment.

I don't want to start the teleshopping argument as it annoys me to much. Has been said on numerous occasions that they shouldn't be grouped together and that babe channels should be babe channels and teleshopping teleshopping channels.

Remember ofcom and industry terms will always be different for babe channels. industry one is the right one, ofcom know fuck all about classifying babe channels, hence why I got asked to leave, didn't like I actually stuck up for the girls and what they were doing was artistic and for entertainment, rather than teleshopping.

(19-02-2013 23:33 )RCTV Wrote: [ -> ]...I got asked to leave, didn't like I actually stuck up for the girls and what they were doing was artistic and for entertainment, rather than teleshopping.

Being asked to leave because of a different opinion just illustrates the moral bankruptcy of Ofcom. Rules should be based on object fact not personal opinion. Staff should apply rules impartially regardless of whether they agree or disagree with them. Obviously the regulators staff should agree with the principle of regulation, but that is not the same as systematic bias.

Would it be acceptable for Border Agency staff to regard all immigrants as freeloading criminal scum? Or prison warders to regard prisioners as bad to the bone and incapable of reform? No.

(20-02-2013 00:16 )eccles Wrote: [ -> ]Being asked to leave because of a different opinion just illustrates the moral bankruptcy of Ofcom. Rules should be based on object fact not personal opinion. Staff should apply rules impartially regardless of whether they agree or disagree with them. Obviously the regulators staff should agree with the principle of regulation, but that is not the same as systematic bias.

Would it be acceptable for Border Agency staff to regard all immigrants as freeloading criminal scum? Or prison warders to regard prisioners as bad to the bone and incapable of reform? No.

no, but as a co-opted member, I was there to support, and not cause arguments, ones that were needed, and have just been ignored. The babe channels could be very different, if several of the co-opted members/advisors had been listened to at the beginning.