Thank you, HEX!T - excellent post and the point is well made in respect of the type of license under which the babe shows operate. I certainly wasn't aware of this and I suspect that I may not have been alone in this regard.
It was originally my intention that the sightings in this thread could form the basis of a kind of 'case law' to be used by an enterprising channel boss (or lawyers thereof) as defence against the kind of business-crippling action taken by the regulators as put Bang out of business; that is, heavy-handed and arbitrary fining. Note that I'm not saying that Bang themselves didn't deserve to be hauled over the coals, but most of us see an imbalance between the nature of broadcasts post-watershed on the serious channels and the babe shows. Why is this?
If it's the license that's at the heart of it, then a few questions must be asked.
Firstly; Why are the babe channels' night output (ie; post-watershed) listed as"18" on the Sky EPG? If one expects an advert to be lower strength than a tv drama, then is it possible to classify both as being intended exclusively for adult viewing? Or should one be assigned a different rating to the other?
Secondly; As an Ofcom survey demonstrated, a very significant proportion of viewers accept that an adult programme is likely to show material of an adult nature and accept also that it is not reasonable to take offence at that fact. So, as the Babe shows, advert or otherwise, are listed in the Adult segment of the EPG, can we not reasonably assume the content will be such?
Thirdly; Is it reasonable, on the part of the viewer of a post-watershed mainstream tv show (having accepted the nature of such shows' content) to then become offended by an advert shown during the main feature's screening slot, if that advert is of an equivalent strength to the main programme, only to then suspend such delicate sensitivities at the end of the ad break and for the duration of the main programme?
It's matters of this nature that prevent the babeshows from being classified quite as succinctly as the license issue might otherwise suggest, and reason enough for this issue to warrant discussion . I myself see an inconsistency that could be used as a defence against what a channel boss might very well present as discrimination at a hearing.
(23-01-2011 17:36 )HEX!T Wrote: they could get reclassified as adult entertainment ... but who wants american style tv where the programs are shorter than the adverts.
Ha ha! I see your point very clearly, but if the ads were of an adult nature and were presented in a similar format to the extant babeshows, who's to complain? And we get short adult shows in between, so it could be like a reversed, and better, Babestation.