Ofcom - Current Investigations

Of course they are fleecing the tax payer. Where do you think a finite amount of the funding comes from for OFCOM (I don't give a shit how much - even a penny is still fleecing us)? My tax goes to the government don't know about yours (see below).

From the OFCOM site:

"Ofcom is funded by fees from industry for regulating broadcasting and communications networks, and grant-in-aid from the Government."

They are also fleecing us indirectly by requiring us to pay more to get decent adult entertainment. If there was NO OFCOM your 'babe TV fun' would be better and cost you less! I also bet if 'the industry' had a choice they wouldn't pay OFCOM fuck all.

S

Yes fair point Shylok but like I said in the bigger scale of things the argument Ofcom are costing the taxpayer's money is an obvious line to be used. I think the main issue here is fairness, we need an end to these repressive rules and regulations. Last night's fare was absolutely dire and an indication of just the damage Ofcom have done to our enjoyment of the Adult Channels. It was dire, wall to wall of shit, not even the slightest hint of erotism, you'd have been forgiven for thinking it was the dayshows you were watching, rather than the channels going out to entertain us there main focus was trying their best from start to finish to avoid the wrath of Ofcom, you cannot run a sexline channel with rules like they do at present. Unless a meeting is called between Ofcom and the channel execs I predict the babe channels are eventually going to go the same way as the dinosaurs and although the initial blame will go to Ofcom untimately it's the channels themselves who are to blame for agreeing to these unworkable rules in the first place. I've yet to see a single post on this section from any of the Channel Reps so that for me would signal that they are content to run their channels into the ground, in many ways if you don't stand up to Ofcom then you don't deserve any sympathy unless you have shown a clear indication of fighting for your cause which I've yet to see. Watch this space for more fines and future sanctions before RIP Babe Channel Threads begin to appear throughout the whole forum.

Scottishbloke is right, the way the Adult channels in this country are going, the obituaries are getting closer and closer and why, one word " Ofcom " Since this coalition has come into power they've done F**K all with regards to tackling this issue, and as we see our beloved Babe channels slowly but surely drift away into the distance never to be seen again, all we can do on this forum is just watch our Babe channels just drift away one by one
In this current climate, it is nigh on impossible to try and offer Quality Adult Material, it's so so sad in the modern 21st century that we are even having this debate, this country has become a Nanny State, and its such a crying shame
Question? How long will our current Babe channels last in this current climate? answer who knows. If there is one glimmer of hope, there's only one Babe channel which might last and thats going to be Babestation just because of its foreign license, but even thats not set in stone.
Look i don't no what to tell you anymore, i like all of us wish this was all a bad dream, and we could all wake up and Ofcom was just a figment of our imagination, unfortunately this dream is a reality and yes Ofcom unfortunately does exist.

Shylock is right, compulsary industry fees are a tax by any other name. To anyone who says a compulsory regulator fee for doing something is not a tax I say what about car tax?

And as Shylock says, those fees come from somewhere, the channels aren't running charities to prop up Ofcom. The fees are built in to whatever channels charge their paying customers through advertising, premium rate calls, PPV and PRS. One way or another it gets passed to the public.

As for the channel reps either they are scared of retribution for Ofcom or they are happy with the trickle of money coming in and other interests like online businesses, DVDs and sex shops. Its a bit as if the FA turned down Sky because they just couldn't see how total cash in the game would increase even if it meant some fans staying at home and spending less on Sky Sports than they used to on a season ticket.

You make an excellent point Scottishbloke. Where are the channel reps? At this rate the mediocre babe-fair on offer will eventually bore people into not bothering to watch the broadcasts and call the girls.

I see some merit in a coalition of channels fighting OFCOM together not separately (maybe sharing the cost of doing so through the courts?).

Of course the cynics may think well as long as the channels hit their 'sales budget' they won't rock the boat - just keep the punters coming back - no more hassle. Easy life...

Also, I still think there is scope in channels ALL getting foreign licences where, if nothing else, regulation may be less oppressive...

One thing for sure, something has to happen or we'll be left with one (or two maximum) BIG players that are happy toe the line of safe mediocrity...

Seen this BTW http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17503116 bent as fuck!

Mr Clegg's new 'liberal' coalition government has really fucked us all over good and proper!!! NB: its important to keep embarrassing the 'liberals' [on this issue] at each and every opportunity because they are the only ones who may have a hint of guilt about sleeping with the Devil for a sniff of political power! What terrible sell-outs...

S

Look I completely agree with what's been said, however to cut all the Red tape the bottom line is that if the current Babe channels don't do something about the current situation right now concerning Ofcom, either they all get together like Eccles has said and try and fight Ofcom in the courts, or if they choose to do nothing about it then in laymans terms the Current Babe channels in my opinion are F**KED it's that simple.

" THE BEST FORM OF DEFENCE IS ATTACK " it's about time in my opinion that the Babe channels started to grow some Balls instead of sticking there heads in the sand and come out Fighting

Which has allready previously been pointed out the problem the channels have is to put it bluntly they are selling wank material which has a stigma about it to the religious cretins running Ofcom. The very notion that we have such channels disgusts a lot of people who will view them as blatant explotation and something that is very unpure, this is where Ofcom get their reasoning behind the words harm and offence. Ofcom have in effect got them all by the balls. Unfortuntely I don't know a single MP who would stand up publicity and defend them, privately they are probably thinking the same thing as us that they are getting a raw deal but the very notion that any MP would bring up this subject in PM's question time could cause major embarrassment. It is far easier to take a stand against Ofcom if they are offended by anything that is non sexual and Ofcom know this which explains why so many mainstream channels are not getting hounded in the same manner as the Adult ones are as they do not have any akward stigma's to overcome. I really do hope that yes all the channel execs get together and take on Ofcom but with the very nature of the content of discussion it will only happen behind closed doors but even then it's an uphill struggle to convince those at Ofcom that they need the rules relaxed, unfortunately this is an issue that is going to drag on for some time yet, we need opinion change at Ofcom which at the moment is a going to take a long time to achieve. 10 years now since Babestation first hit the screens and the rules are a lot more repressive now that they were then, let's just see what direction this rollocoaster takes as I predict more twists and turns to come, it's going to be a bumpy ride before we eventually see the end result which we all desperately crave for.

The whole thing of obtaining foreign licences so easily to escape the rules or regulator whether it be because of OFCOM or other licencing organisatation here in the UK or Ireland isn't gonna happen.

The only reason Cellcast got their Dutch licences is because they are a Dutch based, owned company owned by Dutch people, the other stations are not.

The Dutch or other European or even ex Eastern Block countries won't and aren't going to start issuing licences willy nilly to companies/organisations not based in their country of origin or not owned by people from the country of origin.

In reverse these days the Dutch won't let non Dutch licenced stations onto their TV networks.

For many years Radio Caroline tried to get around obtaining a terrestrial AM/Medium Wave licence to broadcast legally to the UK from the UK or International Waters off the UK without a (then) Radio Authority (now) OFCOM licence and still have not achieved this after 30 odd years of trying, now working with OFCOM to obtain their so far illusive terrestrial high powered radio licence.

Radio Luxembourg was never allowed to broadcast from the UK in its 60 year history despite the technology always there to make it possible.

Its a strange annomily how OFCOM are letting Cellcast get around the rules whilst also complaining about Cellcasts output on SKY at the same time.

I'm sure with the output being UK based regardless of the Dutch licence, they could stop Cellcasts output originating from the UK without a UK licence if they really wanted to?

And im sure the rest of the UK based owned Babe Channels know this cos they'd have all found a way around the rules long ago if it was so easy and cost effective as would so many other UK based broadcasters TV or Radio.

The complications and politics of all of this foreign licencing this all get so much more complicated the further you go, so far I think Cellcast have just been very lucky in finding a loophole to exploit but whether that loophole will eventually be closed who knows.

As for the channels and their tame output? We'll all never come to any agreement on this as everyone has their own ideas, thoughts as I guess the TV stations, girls themselves also do too.

I think ultimately even if the rules were relaxed again, it would always only be a select amount of girls that would be willing to go all the way on national unencrypted tv, some would go slightly further, many more I guess not.

Despite us all complaining about what we see on our screens, ulitimately it is all about making money like it or not, its all about business and I guess that despite the current tight regulatary rules, many of the stations are profitable supplementing their income with web based output, cams, videos, photos, websites and more.

Companies like Cellcast and xxXpanded TV's parent company have their fingers other non babe/chat tv profitable media and computer based technology activities which add to how they make their money, the TV channels and other associated output simply in many ways a sideline or way to publicising some of their other activties hence the reason some of these channels end up not being as they should be adult services and instead advertising based channels.

It is surprising at times seeing the channels that do have girls waiting for callers with no one phoning in and despite all the comments on here about favourite channels/girls and girls who bring in the most calls etc, the reality of this which only the actual channels themselves and their bosses know the real answer and I suspect we would be in for some real shocks and surprises with the real answers. We can only continue to speculate, i'm guessing more often than not the reality being quite different to our continued guessing.

How many people that watch the channels ever phone in, use the web based output, text etc??? How many of those people ever look at, post on or visit sites like this one despite the massive amount of members?

I often guess that probably the percentage of people that do not call the channels are high than those that do in their fustration of what is shown on TV, getting their satifaction from the content of their phone calls whist still watching their girls on TV even be it that the TV screen is tamer than previously.

As far as which stations/girls get the most calls, how much does the actual cost per minute of the call govern who we call and how oftern we call and the length of the call? I often wonder that in this respect cost governing things that stations like xxXpanded might be more succesful with their business model despite so many not understandably sometimes not liking what they do and as ever each one to their own...........

xxPanded obviously make so much of their money from the girls webcamming whilst on air also at a much cheaper rate than their competitors with in many cases dependent on the girl and their own personal limits, much stronger output on webcam. It would seem the girls at that channel are well paid and well treated and on the whole enjoy working there and their working environment which is why they have attracted the girls that are working there.

I'm sure the same can be said for all the other channels in their own ways and how they operate and despite comments on here, i'm sure that includes Cellcast too to a large extent.

Back to OFCOM, in the current in many ways PC taboo society we currently seem to have with many people, I don't sadly know the answers and the government have too many more important things to put right sooner than later, sadly adult TV is not a priority and I think that would not change which ever political party runs UK PLC in the immediate future.

As much as I would like to see things change, if there is any change it will be later than sooner, but I suspect regardless the Babe channels won't dissapear, they'll continue and most will still be profitable, the girls still work for them and be reasonably well paid.

On closing, I do wonder into the future, its not the regulation of TV or radio we have to worry about, but regulation of the Internet, its output and if things do become more stifled and regulated, who actually regulates it and how, and this I see as not just being a UK based problem but will end up happening in many other free open based countries like the UK, Europe, USA and others.

Again something we cannot answer and only continue to speculate???

On that last penalty, the hand thong and applying white lotion we knew about (which is why it was odd Elite went as far as avoiding oil altogether, needlessly as they can apply it by hand ok), but the worrying thing was the additional aspects detailed, such as lingering shots of the genital area, stroking body, imitation of fellatio etc.

Some of those things are bread and butter to the whole enterprise. So far Ofcom have only really cited them as additional factors when talking about something else, such as 2-4-1s or hand thongs and such, but presumably they could just hand out penalties for all the rest if they wanted. Thankfully the rate of penalties appears to have stabilised though? Ofcom used to talk about a recent past trend of steady pushing the content levels due to competition between channels, perhaps they feel they have gotten on top of that, perhaps this is where it stays.

And having said all that, it is worth remembering that about a year and a half ago we thought the channels were facing over-regulation-death as a matter of months, and here we still are. Plus despite some of our frustrations there are performances well worth watching, especially from newer girls like Jennifer Jade, Clare Richards (exhibits A&B on right now). I imagine they personally must still find it exciting not knowing the earlier more unrestricted times, and so still find ways to enjoy the boundaries with callers. Things are still ok. (Plus still worth seeing where the babestation dutch thing leads us, hopefully status quo or better.)

(25-03-2012 22:50 )Roquentin Wrote:  On that last penalty, the hand thong and applying white lotion we knew about (which is why it was odd Elite went as far as avoiding oil altogether, needlessly as they can apply it by hand ok), but the worrying thing was the additional aspects detailed, such as lingering shots of the genital area, stroking body, imitation of fellatio etc.

Ofcom claim they list things that they do not rule to be offensive to describe the general nature of the shows. Usually they describe the presenters stockings, skirt, knickers, bra (or whatever clothing) and gestures in drooling detail. This is usually listed 2 or 3 times, in the intro, the outline of the case against the channel and, sometimes, in the decision. Someone is being paid a good wage to write this up.

This might make sense except that for other categories of show comparable content that is not in breach is rarely described in similar detail. Cases involving foul language rarely have lists of milder words and phrases used. In the Ricky Gervais "mong" case Ofcom did not transcribe some of his other jokes. Cases against religious channels criticised for selling fake cancer do not have lengthy write ups of the religious clothing worn, humble posture and religious language, even though this would strengthen the case. When descibing gambling channels they don't give the number of people actually placing bets.

Ofcom deliberately spends significant amounts of staff time including irrelevant details about babe channels because they think it will make the channels seem dodgy to readers, particularly readers in positions of power. This is an abuse of authority.