The modern viewer is to blame for the current standard of the Babeshows

(09-08-2009 11:40 )tony confederate Wrote:  

(09-08-2009 10:38 )StanTheMan Wrote:  What I will say regarding Babestar, is that they didn't have their licence revoked because of the material they aired. There was a whole host of reasons, but none of them because of what they were showing.

This was the complaint which originally got them into trouble:

"Complaint: Two women wearing underwear were shown lounging on a mattress and using sex toys. The women used crude, explicit language, masturbated, simulated oral sex and showed full frontal nudity."

Oh, I'm not saying there weren't complaints, but it wasn't their content that brought about their eventuall downfall.

(09-08-2009 11:40 )tony confederate Wrote:  This was the complaint which originally got them into trouble:

"Complaint: Two women wearing underwear were shown lounging on a mattress and using sex toys. The women used crude, explicit language, masturbated, simulated oral sex and showed full frontal nudity."

The main issue in Babestar having their licence revoked was that they had a broadcast licence as a Telly Shopping channel, therefore they fell under the scrutiny of the ASA, which does not permit "adult sex material" within advertising.

A Premium rate telephone service of a sexual nature was used, which goes against the CAP TV Advertising standards code. They didn’t have the correct licence to show a Babe Show. They were given the chance to rectify this and they didn't bother.

Babe Star also stated that the whole show was live. It wasn’t. Babestar continued to advertise that you could speak to the Girl on screen. You couldn't. The callers were being defrauded.

The rolling t&c’s banner was too small, they were given ample opportunity to change this. They didn't.

OFCOM and the ASA gave them a chance to rectify the problems. They chose not to.


Taken from the adjudication:

" At the beginning of the investigation, it appeared to the Executive that the licensee either had a fundamental lack of understanding of the requirements of the Advertising Code and its responsibilities under its licence, or simply ignored advice, warnings and a direction from the organisations that regulate it.

The licensee had explained to Ofcom that it had been approached by a third party supplier to use evening slots to transmit “babestar content”. Simon Woolnough stated that he was unaware, at that stage, that such material would not be permitted on a teleshopping licence - albeit he was at the time responsible for compliance of the service under Television Concepts’ licence.

The view of the Committee was that the licensee had been persuaded to broadcast material under his licence without first checking to ensure it was compliant both with licence conditions and the relevant Codes. He had not therefore taken his licence obligations sufficiently seriously.

The Committee considered that the licensee had had many opportunities to remedy the situation but had failed to take any effective responsible action. The licensee had persisted in this and had taken a seriously reckless approach as to whether or not the material was compliant in circumstances where the licensee was broadcasting a profitable service for the first time since the business started."

http://www.ofcom.org.uk/tv/obb/ocsc_adjud/look4love.pdf

So there you have it. Babestar brought about their own end, not Ofcom. Which futher backs up my theory that these channels are playing it far too safe - their licences permit them to be ruder than they are, they just don't want the hassle of having to defend themselves should someone make a complaint. And as I keep saying, while they're making money from callers and texters, they're not even going to consider ruder material.

(09-08-2009 13:05 )StanTheMan Wrote:  So there you have it. Babestar brought about their own end, not Ofcom. Which futher backs up my theory that these channels are playing it far too safe - their licences permit them to be ruder than they are, they just don't want the hassle of having to defend themselves should someone make a complaint. And as I keep saying, while they're making money from callers and texters, they're not even going to consider ruder material.

In all fairness Bangbabes is stronger now than it has ever been. They stood their ground with the last ofcom challenge (in July) and as it was said before in the thread, no fines were issued. Elite TV are not that far behind Bang either.

Cellcast are making money by the truck load with their poster girl that doesn't show nipples, and as you point out, they are literary suffocating under piles of cash. So there doesn't seem to be any incentive to change their style.

(09-08-2009 13:05 )StanTheMan Wrote:  don't want the hassle of having to defend themselves should someone make a complaint.

That sounds like a sensible policy.

(10-08-2009 09:58 )elgar1uk Wrote:  

(09-08-2009 13:05 )StanTheMan Wrote:  don't want the hassle of having to defend themselves should someone make a complaint.

That sounds like a sensible policy.

Maybe 'defend' is the wrong word. What I mean is that they don't want the hassle of any investigation following a complaint. Even if the channel knows they've done nothing wrong, they still have to provide recordings etc. Therefore, they stay well clear of anything even approaching the boundary - the result, hour upon hour of inanimate girls looking bored.