The UK Babe Channels Forum

(04-10-2011 16:01 )blackjaques Wrote: [ -> ]Eccles, just out of interest, who is the guy who is stated as saying he will keep R18 off the screens?

Took a while to find. It was Christopher Woolard, Group Director, Content, International and Regulatory Development Group.

In an article about the Bailey Report he said "The question under­lying Mark Law­son's G2 article last week was: if you can find the same video on­line in sec­onds, why do we both­er enforc­ing standards? First, to pro­tect chil­dren from see­ing harmful con­tent. Sec­ond, to set expectations for all viewers, including par­ents, about what kinds of con­tent can be found by us­ing proxies like the 'wa­tershed'. Finally, to keep the most inappropriate con­tent, such as BBFC Rated R18 hardcore porn, off TV screens al­togeth­er and to en­sure that oth­er strong con­tent is re­stricted from general view­ing though parental con­trols."
and
"So where does that leave the humble TV wa­tershed? The bottom line is, so long as parlia­ment con­tinues to val­ue standards reg­u­lation we will enforce those standards. Even as we enter an even more complex converged mar­ket, the power of tra­ditional televi­sion and viewer expectations endure. It is one tool, not the answer to all ills."
Ongo The Guardian June 13, 2011
(Hint: there are some non obvious next page/back page buttons at the bottom right of the page).

Not biassed then.

(04-10-2011 23:00 )eccles Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-10-2011 16:01 )blackjaques Wrote: [ -> ]Eccles, just out of interest, who is the guy who is stated as saying he will keep R18 off the screens?

Took a while to find. It was Christopher Woolard, Group Director, Content, International and Regulatory Development Group.

In an article about the Bailey Report he said "The question under­lying Mark Law­son's G2 article last week was: if you can find the same video on­line in sec­onds, why do we both­er enforc­ing standards? First, to pro­tect chil­dren from see­ing harmful con­tent. Sec­ond, to set expectations for all viewers, including par­ents, about what kinds of con­tent can be found by us­ing proxies like the 'wa­tershed'. Finally, to keep the most inappropriate con­tent, such as BBFC Rated R18 hardcore porn, off TV screens al­togeth­er and to en­sure that oth­er strong con­tent is re­stricted from general view­ing though parental con­trols."
and
"So where does that leave the humble TV wa­tershed? The bottom line is, so long as parlia­ment con­tinues to val­ue standards reg­u­lation we will enforce those standards. Even as we enter an even more complex converged mar­ket, the power of tra­ditional televi­sion and viewer expectations endure. It is one tool, not the answer to all ills."
Ongo The Guardian June 13, 2011
(Hint: there are some non obvious next page/back page buttons at the bottom right of the page).

Not biassed then.

Thanks for the post mate, it's kinda what we've ben saying all along, in this day and age with smartphones, laptops, tablet pc's etc etc, the average teenager can quite easily access hardcore porn on these devices, which we all no is a dam sight stronger than what we see on these free to air babe channels. So the argument that Ofcom keep saying it might cause wide harm and offence is Crap.
If you take an average teenager with a smartphone and question him about porn content, i reckon it would make your hair curl, and even if they happened to stumble on the babe channels, i reckon they would say is that it? is this is what all the fuss is about and laugh.
One thing SKY have done to there credit is to strategically put the babe channels in a spot where no one can stumble on them, and the fact they give you an option to block them with a 4 digit pin number in my opinion is plenty good enough.

" SO WHAT'S THE PROBLEM "

Many thanks, Eccles.

So, Woolard thinks that R18 is "inappropriate" then. Nothing to do with protection of children, as we all have been saying all along.

Why is it inappropriate, Mr Woolard?

Fucking hypocrite and bullshitter.

Up from 250 to 264 in 4 days. Thanks everyone.

(06-10-2011 01:22 )eccles Wrote: [ -> ]Up from 250 to 264 in 4 days. Thanks everyone.

HOORAY We're getting there slowly but surely.

Well were still in 14th place. But were catching up slowly. But you can disregard two of those above us, as they are the same as the one in first place. So unofficially, were in 12th.

(06-10-2011 19:04 )aceman65 Wrote: [ -> ]Well were still in 14th place. But were catching up slowly. But you can disregard two of those above us, as they are the same as the one in first place. So unofficially, were in 12th.

I think we need a 1000 signatures am i right?

It is promising, slowly but surely moving up. We just need to keep on.

Oh and it's now 265

Scottishbloke raised a good point about the need of keeping the 9pm watershed? Well as long as i can remember from being a small child the 9pm watershed has always meant to me, that from 9pm Adult content will be shown, in other words some form of nudity might be shown from this hour onwards.
However as with anything in life things do change, and the definition of nudity after 9 pm has changed. Meaning in recent times I.E. Ofcom has been stepping in year upon year changing the goalposts as we all no. So in my opinion if the so called watershed means anything anymore, nudity can be shown in whatever form, and that includes the Babe channels it's that simple.
The problem is that Ofcom has put in to many grey areas which they didn't need to do, and the question we all ask ourselves is why? Well i have a theory on this, in my opinion everything in this world is driven by money, greed, and i do believe that the bureaucratic thieves at Ofcom are secretly pocketing the needless fines that they impose on the Babe channels.
I do believe that Ofcom deep down no that these babe channels aren't doing any harm at all, but they've found an easy scape goat in the Babe channels to cipher all this money from them, and as the years have gone on they've made the fines higher and higher so they can keep there £50,000 Mercedes Benz or Rolls Royces or there villas in Spain, and this wouldn't surprise me at all.
I would like some governing body to look in this to this, i would love to no the real truth why they've targeted these channels, i do believe there's more to this than meets the eye, I think there is some shady dealings going on.

(06-10-2011 19:04 )aceman65 Wrote: [ -> ]Well were still in 14th place. But were catching up slowly. But you can disregard two of those above us, as they are the same as the one in first place. So unofficially, were in 12th.

267 now.

Yup, no change in position but Im thinking that other petitions will run out of steam once the initial band of supporters dries up, also some stop in February. Keep pushing our one and it will move up the charts. At one point "Scrap Ofcom and split its regulatory functions" was above us, now we are 4 rungs ahead. On the All Department page most petitions are only separated by 1-4 votes: just 3 more votes would leapfrog us over 4 petitions ("Save Plymouth City Airport", "Mental Health Issues", "Safeguarding Cyclists" and even "Repeal of the European Communities Act 1972"). YES! just 1 vote behind the Eurosceptics, and ahead of "Ban the burqa". Keep 'em coming.

Yup, some of the petitions are similar. Im tempted to say its poor moderation but in a way it shows lack of interference. As does the lack of spelling corrections. This is the only one on this subject though.

As for the woolie cardie lot seeing social media mentions, dont worry, they cant work the internet.

The 9pm watershed always used to be the point after which material unsuitable for small children could be shown. Scary drama. Ghost stories. War stories. Shagging. Football hooligans. Documentaties about war atrocities. Police drama. Live autopsies. Documentaries about troops in Afghanistan, council sink estates or heroin use. Spooks. Shows before 9pm shows might be suitable for children. It was never the case that before 9pm shows were unconditionally guaranteed to be suitable for children otherwise Dr Who, Kenny Everett and Benny Hill would never have been screened, let alone the scary bits from Casualty, confrontation, beatings, gay kisses, gambling and drug taking in East Enders and Coronation Street.

There has always been a phased introduction to the watershed, with some risque material for the dads and boys. In real life teens see kissing, cleveage and women in bikinis and TV used to mirror that.

But now Ofcom want teens to exist in an unreal sanitised Disney style environment. After 9 we now have a gradual transition so according to the rules any hard hitting police or war drama with a scene setter at the beginning cannot start at 9pm but has to wait until - what - 9:30? 10?

This is despite Ofcoms own claim that more people say regulation is "about right".

Did any one see Italian mafia series Romanzo Criminale (Sky Art2, Tues 4/10 at 9pm)? Did it satisfy Ofcoms rules for graudual transition or did it feature murders, corpses, sex?

I dont think Ofcom are creaming off the fines - they are too public and the amount wouldnt go far. But being seen as a safe pair of hands at Ofcom can lead into other quango jobs on the regulator merry go round.