Ofcom's next target

The end is nigh methinks. I watched a documentary on BBC 4 last night as the babe channels were pathetically timid. Take away the chance of a few slips and the rule challenging girls like Bailey and Amanda and I'm off for an early night...

surely the channels can give a great performance without breaking rules. if porn is what is wanted then go down other avenues. i just want the channels to stay and the babes on them to give good topless performances. imagination is a wonderful thing.

(09-02-2011 23:50 )dragonking Wrote:  surely the channels can give a great performance without breaking rules. if porn is what is wanted then go down other avenues. i just want the channels to stay and the babes on them to give good topless performances. imagination is a wonderful thing.

You shouldn`t have to imagine ,dragonking,nobody should,we are adults and should be able to watch adult themed programmes complete with explicit nudity [after the watershed,which is LEGALLY 9pm,]
There will always be girls who won`t do explicit and that would make you happy apparantly,but PLEASE dont follow in the footsteps of the flock who just go with the flow and give in to the bullying rules that Ofcom are making.
And I bet if the channels started to show explicit nudity,you wouldn`t complain.

Yes totally agree, topless only is boring, it's certainly not what you would expect to find if you tuned into the shows for the very first time. Topless only is not interesting enough to maintain a full nights viewing with. For a while that's all you ever got from the shows, hence the reason I didn't bother my arse to watch them.

(10-02-2011 00:50 )Scottishbloke Wrote:  Yes totally agree, topless only is boring, it's certainly not what you would expect to find if you tuned into the shows for the very first time. Topless only is not interesting enough to maintain a full nights viewing with. For a while that's all you ever got from the shows, hence the reason I didn't bother my arse to watch them.

I've got to disagree I have to disagree (yeah, sorry, my old English teacher would've gone ballistic if she'd seen me insert 'got' into that sentence whilst abbreviating 'have') with the notion that topless only is boring, but that is only my own POV, so we can surely agree to disagree on that, Scottishbloke.
But it is nice However, it is nice (can't start a sentence with 'but') to see the girl on-screen dropping her knickers, even just for side-on, discrete rear or frontal with handthong views; it's the extra thrill of "oh yeah, what'll she do next...will she do it? Show it all, hun! Do it!".
Which of course is tease, and that's a great thing and it's what, I believe, dragonking was really alluding to.
I know that when I watch a dancer stripping, the greatest surge of excitement is that awesome moment when she's in the midst of transitioning from clothed (albeit scantily) to topless or naked; while the clothing still lingers in front of what you really want to see there's the promise of more to come. I absolutely love that!
It's what the babeshows have mostly thrived on during their relatively brief existence - we all like to see a bird flashing. But our expectations have grown over the years. Totally understandable, too.
*sigh* If only the encrypted channels were allowed to show R18, then there'd be little ground for the old "the babeshow bosses won't give it away for free when they can charge for it" counter-argument. With full hardcore content on encrypted, then full-nude softcore/glamour on late-night free-to-view adult programming would hardly appear controversial, would it?

Missing key events. Talking bollocks. Making stuff up.
~~~SAVE THE KRILL!~~~

I don't agree with the watershed as it was put in years ago and hasn't been altered.

(07-02-2011 23:42 )Gold Plated Pension Wrote:  

(25-01-2011 02:52 )Gold Plated Pension Wrote:  

(20-01-2011 19:22 )Gold Plated Pension Wrote:  Well my money is still on RLL with 5 complaints still to be investigated but expect those outcomes on Monday. With only 2.17% of the vote TVX now have 4 complaints to be investigated from December. What did i miss.

Up to 14 January 2011
Programme Channel Transmission Date Date Lodged

Dirty Talk Dirty Talk Wednesday, 08 December 2010 10 December 2010
Dirty Talk Dirty Talk Saturday, 11 December 2010 12 December 2010
Fone Girls Dirty Talk Saturday, 11 December 2010 11 December 2010
Honey Days Dirty Talk Wednesday, 15 December 2010 15 December 2010

Well it would appear we all got it wrong. Ofcom are about to issue a financial sanction with possibly a 'Notice of Direction' to a channel operator not mentioned above.
The decisions on the 5 complaints against RLL have also been published and yes you've guessed it 'In Breach'. These broadcasts are shown on channels licensed to Playboy and Just4us who have previously been found in breach so therefore Ofcom are now stating

In light of the above and Ofcom‟s recent concerns with Just4Us and Playboy‟s compliance, Ofcom is now requiring the licensees to attend a meeting at Ofcom to discuss its compliance procedures. Ofcom also puts Just4Us and Playboy on notice that it must take all necessary and appropriate measures to ensure its channels comply with the BCAP Code in the future. Ofcom will not expect further breaches of this nature to occur again.

So whilst RLL have taken ex Bang talent on don't expect to see them pushing any limits. Whilst Playboy did relax it's stance with Bang (post revocation) following the meeting of all channel licensee's in early December they will not want to suffer the revocation of a licence, imposition of a Notice of Direction or financial penalty due to non compliance of a broadcaster. Expect to see them put RLL on a very tight leash with immediate effect.

Read all about it.

http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binarie...sue174.pdf

Well the enforcement has begun. As predicted above a 'Notice of Direction' has been served on Hoppr Entertainment Ltd holder of broadcast licence TLCS 851 for channel Live 960.
The notice requires ownership information to be provided to Ofc@m in order to determine whether the de facto control of Hoppr Entertainment Limited complies with the media ownership rules as set out in the Broadcasting Act 1990.
I believe this to be a bit of a smokescreen, Hoppr Entertainment Ltd are not exactly in the same league as Rupert Murdoch in relation to media ownership.
This notice is to get accurate ownership information prior to the revocation of the licence and/or a substantial financial penalty to ensure correct service of such legal documentation.
The clock is now counting down on this broadcaster.

Also in trouble again is Playboy TV UK/Benelux Limited for breach of

Rule 1.17 “Material equivalent to the British board of Film Classification (BBFC) R18-rating must not be broadcast at any time”.

allegedly shown during the freeview section of their encrypted service Climax 3-3 on the 1st July 2010.

Whilst Playboy owned up to the breach the following day to Ofcom they will still be put on notice that this present contravention of its licence is being considered for the imposition of a statutory sanction.

So having been called in last week for a final warning and with several investigations still outstanding expect this broadcaster, once the outcomes of those investigations are made public, to be hit with a substantial financial penalty far in excess of that received by Bang for both it's encrypted and FTV services.

The question is will they fight the penalty through the courts, accept it or just close the channels down/transfer the licenses.

Following the service of the Notice of Direction on Hoppr Entertainment Ltd a month ago Ofc@m have now followed this up with a Notice of Revocation due to the relevant ownership information not being provided.

I don't know how long channel 960 has been off air but generally they would have been given a period of time to provide the information in both the NoD and the NoR, generally a month in each case.

Revocation of the broadcasting licence is the ultimate sanction and it will be interesting to see if the ex licensee will appeal the decision or let it lie.

The appeal process is not a judicial review at the High Court but a Competition Appeal Tribunal ( CAT ) which was created by Section 12 and Schedule 2 to the Enterprise Act 2002 which came into force on 1 April 2003.

The current functions of the CAT with regard to Ofc@m are:

To hear appeals on the merits in respect of decisions made under the Competition Act 1998 by the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) and the regulators in the telecommunications, electricity, gas, water, railways and air traffic services sectors.
To hear actions for damages and other monetary claims under the Competition Act 1998.
To review decisions made by the Secretary of State, OFT and the Competition Commission in respect of merger and market references or possible references under the Enterprise Act 2002.
To hear appeals against certain decisions made by Ofcom and the Secretary of State relating to the exercise by Ofcom of its functions under Part 2 (networks, services and the radio spectrum) and sections 290 to 294 and Schedule 11 (networking arrangements for Channel 3) of the Communications Act 2003 (“the 2003 Act”).

How the appeals process works

A person aggrieved by any of the above decisions, can appeal on either or both of the following grounds:

That an error of fact has been made.
That an error of law has been made.
The Communications Act has provided new arrangements for appeals to heard by the Competition Appeal Tribunal ( CAT ).

These include:

Appeals decided by the CAT on the merits and by reference to the grounds of the appeal set out in the notice of appeal
The CAT must include in its decision, a decision as to what (if any) is the appropriate action for Ofcom (or other decision taker) to take in relation to the subject- matter of the decision under appeal
The CAT may then remit the decision under appeal to the decision maker with such directions (if any) as the CAT considers appropriate to effect its decision
A decision of the CAT may be appealed to the Court of Appeal or Court of Session (in Scotland ) on a point of law.

So Hoppr Entertainment Ltd have limited scope of appeal but if they feel that information previously provided to Ofc@m concerning ownership was sufficient to satisfy Ofc@m then they could argue that Ofc@m are seeking information beyond their remit. If the information is good enough for Companies House then it should be good enough for Ofc@m.

I believe Ofc@m are trying to establish the controlling relationship between Hoppr and the broadcaster (they who cannot be mentioned) who also operate on other channels licensed to Satellite Entertainment Limitedand whom Ofc@m are also pursuing.

Ofc@m are known to pursue licensee's who do not comply with their wishes and demands, and when setting financial penalties will use a series of multipliers to increase any penalty on licensee's who are willing to argue their case or challenge Ofc@m, sufficient enough to put a small broadcaster out of business eg Bang Babes.


Broadcast Bulletin

http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binarie...sue177.pdf

Competition Appeal Tribunal

http://www.catribunal.org.uk/

Interesting just read that report first thing that springs to mind that the recent this morning naked chef incident was found to be not in breach, yet again mainstream channels get away with it but the daytime babe channels have to cover up. Also didn't actually find any complaints against the babe channels so in actual fact the Ofcom bulletin for this month has not been all that bad all in all.

Another licensee that is still to feel the wrath of the regulator is Satellite Entertainment Ltd who holds and operates four separate licences: Live XXX Babes (950), Sport XXX Girls (967), Essex Birds (955) and Northern Birds (954).
They have a total of nine 'In Breach' findings against them for non supply of recordings between September and October 2010 and Ofc@m are now considering issuing a statutory sanction.
The broadcaster at this time was they who cannot be mentioned on this forum but ultimately the responsibility for compliance with a licence condition lies with the licensee and not the broadcaster unless Ofc@m has been informed and agreed to alternative arrangements.
In these instances this is not the case and SEL themselves are being pursued.
The Broadcasting Sanctions Committee can take up to 60 working days (3 months) to reach a decision after hearing submissions by the licensee. A ridiculous amount of time.
This licensee has been fined previously for repeated breaches of the Broadcasting Code, £20,000, but never for breach of conditions, a more serious offence.
Bang Media was fined for a similar offence, £6,000, so with nine breaches plus Ofc@m always add an accumulator for non co-operation expect a minimum of circa £65,000 plus a Notice of Direction for the licensee to demonstrate to the regulator that it now has a full compliance procedure in place.
I might be being optimistic in this finding and Ofc@m might just go for revocation if it considers that the broadcaster has seriously, deliberately, repeatedly or recklessly breached a Licence requirement.

Whichever way Ofc@m decide to go ultimately they need to start recognising that these channels will not go away and that nudity, not grafhic explicit nudity, on FTV channels within the adult EPG should be permitted. It is not offensive, does not cause harm, is broadcast when the little darlings are in bed and is watched by people who know what to expect.

I have just finished watching the film Antichrist (18) on Sky where full frontal nudity, penetrative sex, ejaculation and female genital mutilation were shown. Because it was BBFC classified it is not regarded as offensive, harmful or in breach of the Broadcasting Code in anyway shape or form.
For those that do not get Sky i will post some of the more interesting clips on this thread.

(10-03-2011 01:07 )Gold Plated Pension Wrote:  For those that do not get Sky i will post some of the more interesting clips on this thread.

Here's caps http://www.celebritymoviearchive.com/tou...e.php/5120