Is it time for a mass attack on OFCOM?

Not with self propelled cannons, but with all the babe channels blatently disregarding the rules after say 11 pm (so as not to suggest a provocative "horse and carriage action" once the notional watershed is passed)?

As things stand if one channel wittingly or otherwise pushes at the envelope that stations owners get hit with a fine and sharply worded judgement after which the stations they control turn rather coy for a while at least. If they all acted as one and simply said "sod this for a game of soliders" and went full on frontbottom on the same night and continued to do so OFCOM would probably find itself in a tricky position.

While I do not know the dynamic within the QUANGO I suspect if the babe channels were seen not to back down they'd end up looking rather silly. What would they do? Issue massed fines, suppose everyone refused to pay, then what? Massed jailings? For the sake of frontbottoms after 10 pm? The attendent publicity might be a bit uncomfortable for some channel owners who I suspect are happy to keep a low profile but it would be far worse for OFCOM. Its not like anyone is cheerleading for them.

If a campaign was intelligently run using the concepts of freedom and personal responsiblity as the focus point I think they could be seen off and new ,more realistic regulations drafted.

Could it be done, do the stations even talk to each other about common threats/interests? Or is this just a silly idea?

(21-09-2010 17:03 )mikeboob Wrote:  What would they do? Issue massed fines, suppose everyone refused to pay, then what? Massed jailings?

Non-payment of a fine means that the licence to broadcast is cancelled, and without a licence to broadcast Sky would remove the broadcaster from their platform.

I think it's better to campaign before letting it all hang out so to speak. If the channels go as far as you suggest, the backlash from the self-appointed guardians of our morals would be huge and the pressure on government may be such that they'd feel forced to tighten controls rather than loosen them. Remember that the aforementioned moralists tend to be staunch supporters of the Tories who are only in power by the skin of their teeth. The last thing they want to do is lose such core support.
The relaxation of "the rules" will take time I suspect, but hopefully it will happen.

Pretty much as wolleysheep says: all the channels would be hit by fines, and then further fines for non-payment of the original fine, then another huge fine, followed by the revocation of their licence to broadcast. The channels would close down, and quickly replaced by new channels who are quite happy to play by Ofcom's rules and make a ton of money broadcasting channels with content the vast majority of its viewers think is tame and insulting.

Plus ca change.

I'm still waiting for any evidence that suggests any of the babe channel operators are unhappy with the rules as they currently stand. For example, I'd imagine that TVX would be dead against the losening of what's allowed for fear of any 'harder' content eating into their pay-TV business model.

(21-09-2010 18:38 )Sootbag1 Wrote:  I'm still waiting for any evidence that suggests any of the babe channel operators are unhappy with the rules as they currently stand.

I think the existing channels are mostly looking to avoid any Ofcom crackdown to make the rules stricter than they are now.

(21-09-2010 17:03 )mikeboob Wrote:  If a campaign was intelligently run using the concepts of freedom and personal responsiblity as the focus point I think they could be seen off and new ,more realistic regulations drafted.

Personal responsibility...there aren't many fans of it around.

They were called the self-appointed guardians of morals above, but its not just them. A lot of people in this country no longer see why they should take responsibility for their own actions.

Its like mothers who don't want their child seeing 'that kind of thing', but won't take the responsibility themselves to actually stop the child. Rather than monitor what their child watches, they would rather everything be feeble, inoffensive crap. People not thinking about anybody but themselves and their own little world...there is no concept of the greater good in this country any more.

One thing first of all to point out irrespective of whether ofcom do eventually relax the rules for full frontal to be shown is that not every model would be comfortable or willing to get naked as a lot of the models on the channels are very shy and won't show more that their top half, another point worth remembering is that back in 2006 babestar tv decided one night to show full frontal without warning and this continued for a few months right up until they were hammered with a massive fine from ofcom for showing content of an adult encrypted nature and the channel was subsequently closed down in November of that year. In theory it sounds like a good idea to be so defiant but in reality it would probably mean ofcom closing down all the babe channels. I would love to see ofcom closed down instead or challenged in a courtroom but unless you do things through the proper channels ultimately you face a losing battle.

Ofcom might decide to make an example on one channel. Surprising how quickly most management cracks when it becomes clear that it is their business that will be closed down. And remember Ofcom have 60 days before they even have to start an investigation, so all the other channels can have 2 months to worry their socks off.

Sadly some of the parents who "don't want their kids watching that sort of thing" let them see Jeremy Kyle. Serioulsy, what's more harmful? But try telling them and you'll loose your place in the Argos queue as they hit you with their Elizaberth Duke jewlery. And thats just the blinged up Dads.

I'm beginning to think that the market for Babe channels might actually be smaller than we all like to think. I'd like to imagine most men tuning in if they get a chance, but Virgin Media doesn't seem to think that not having babe channels will cost them business. And I suspect that BTs TV on demand business feels the same way.

On the plus side quite a lot of Tory and LibDem's are as interested in sex as anyone else, and Tories tend to have more money and more time away from home, allowing them to play around more. They are interested but daren't say so. The Con-Dem alliance is the perfect excuse for Tories to relax the laws while blaming someone else (Dems).

(21-09-2010 21:46 )eccles Wrote:  Ofcom might decide to make an example on one channel. Surprising how quickly most management cracks when it becomes clear that it is their business that will be closed down. And remember Ofcom have 60 days before they even have to start an investigation, so all the other channels can have 2 months to worry their socks off.

This is true I suspect, there would be no "all for one and one for all" solidarity if OFCOM decided to bully one station, the rest would run for cover and promise not to do that agian.

If ever any government was likely to change the laws it should be this one. Politicians should stick to politics and leave the telly producers to entertain us in any way that they see fit but ofcom has to go. It should be completely scrapped as life is supposed to be enjoyed and telly is classed as entertainment a sort of way to escape your everyday stress's and troubles. we should be line now with the rest of europe and not even having this debate. We are not a prudish nation but the government tv censors would have you believe otherwise. Do we have to drop a bomb on ofcom headquarters or is there a more peaceful solution.