BabestationX & Live Shows - Chat & Discussion

^^
Yes wouldn't be surprised if Ofcom have been contacting Cellcast/BS, or more likely the Dutch regulator again like they did before..
Check out this link from 2012 concerning Ofcom complaining to the Dutch regulator regarding BS on freeview, one particular piece of the article says Ofcom were in discussions with the Dutch and wanted the Dutch regulator to ask BS to voluntarily comply with Ofcom rules http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/17297090

The Dutch regulator told them to fuck off by the way (not exact words lol), the main thing Ofcom have been complaining about is the BS channels starting on freeview before Ofcom rules allow (12am) BS are still breaking Ofcom rules over 2 years later, and are still starting at 10pm with the BS Xtra free to air channel and putting 2 fingers up to Ofcom .

{edit} So to summarise, BSX does not have a Ofcom licence, Ofcom do not regulate BSX, Ofcom cannot find BSX "in beach" of it's guidelines, so cannot give them a fine either, they are also powerless to ban or block BSX according to Ofcom themselves, but it does look like Ofcom do try and put pressure on the Dutch regulator to ask BS to voluntarily comply with Ofcom rules, to me it looks like sometimes they comply and other times they decide not to .

But who from ofcom is watching bsx and do they pay for it?

(22-06-2014 19:07 )blackjaques Wrote:  Do you know for certain that Ofcon have not contacted BS?

Not even one little e-mail telling them to tone down?

I'm sure that they(Ofcon) did try to influence the Dutch regulator some time ago.

I cannot believe that these zealots are not behind the tame output from BSX.
Of course, if you have evidence to disprove my beliefs, I apologise in advance.

I have no proof as to whether Ofcom have been in touch, however . . .

If there had been a complaint then that would be published in their bulletins. Now I don't read every bulletin, but there are people on here who give regular updates as to who's been complained about and when, and I'm sure they would mention it if there had been one. In fact I'm pretty sure BSX themselves would have said "look, see, that's why we can't do it"

Also, if Ofcom have been "leaning on" BSX in any way, then I still say all BSX have to do to get us off their backs is publish the correspondence. It's a simple solution on their part, and as they have never done it, I'm pretty confident it means they've never received such a letter (about pussy rubbing at any rate).

Finally, the fact that every now and then they let it happen for a day or two is evidence to me that they CAN do it, they just don't want to.

As I say, no proof, but I think there is enough circumstantial evidence to convict them.

^
Grawth, I check out Ofcom official broadcast bulletins, Ofcom have never in their broadcast bulletins to my knowledge stated that they have had any complaints about BSX , they have never stated that they have launched a investigation into any complaints either, Ofcom don't deal with complaints if any are made, it's out of their remit to do so, it's out of their jurisdiction to launch investigations into channels that are licensed and regulated by other European country's.
If i remember correctly, it was reported in a news article a few years ago, that Ofcom advise anyone making a complaint about channels not regulated by them to complain to the relevant regulator of the channel concerned, ie NICAM the regulator of BSX .

If i remember correctly a while ago now Ofcom did officially state that they had been in discussions with the Dutch regulator concerning who should regulate the BS channels broadcasting in the UK but using a Dutch licence, The Dutch told Ofcom that they were responsible for the regulation of the BS channels licensed in the Netherlands but broadcasting in the UK,not Ofcom Ofcom accepted this .(i think)

The obvious reason it is so tame has been brought up many times,they want to go the 'internet' only route,but it wouldnt be cost effective putting it on the net only,they would lose loads upon loads of free to air viewers,which means a lot less revenue for them,one feels they are stuck between a rock and a hard place....

For me what is far worse than the tamed down live shows is the number of repeats shown. There has been no new recorded content for ages. I now only watch bsx about 2 or 3 times a month when a fave babe is on but every time I see the same recorded crap.

I moan about that ALL the time,watch a section of the live show and OH NO NOT THAT AGAIN,Repeat about 10 times a night, £5 for 3/4 tame live shows,some only lasting 25 minutes..... is it worth it? of course it isnt and bs know that,they know full well they will get enough people tuning in and paying for it, it doesnt help when they advertise it during the night on BS1 with lie after lie to think it may actually be the real mccoy for once.....see the bs girls go further than they can on the normal channels then show a vid that always ends before you do actually see something,and usually it involves Lori.....

Will we ever learn ? The only way bs will improve the channel is if people stop paying . There must be enough people out there willing to pay for the show for bs to make a profit without bs having to up their game.

If we could get everyone to stop purchasing it,then they will have to up the ante to get people watching again, it'll never happen but hey we can dream of a miracle......they do happen sometimes when you least expect it

I suspect Ofcom expected nothing to come of their 2012 approach to the Dutch authorities, but felt they had to make a show of trying.

Interesting thing is that in the 10 years of their existence - yes, 10 years!!! - they have not proscribed a single foreign hardcore porn channel. Quite a few are openly and legally advertised in satellite magazines, decoder cards can be bought over the counter from UK limited companies using UK bank cards, and they can be watched by anyone with a dish pointing at a different bit of the sky. But Colonel (Rtd) and Doris Blatchington-Worth get no hint of it because the channels arent on Sky (not even the Foreign channels section ) or advertised in the Daily Mail.

Fisting, pissing, hardcore bondage, humiliation, transsexuals, group anal, all available to supposedly "cause widespread offence" or harm childrens morals, but tolerated by the regulator whose duty is to protect us from harm, presumably because it is out of sight.

Draw your own conclusions.

As for BSX, who would subscribe to the website if the same strength material were available on TV? But without the TV channel it would just be another website and there are plenty of others out there.