(24-02-2013 01:13 )babestation Wrote: (23-02-2013 22:21 )Grawth Wrote: Sorry Dirk, but I have to disagree. The terms "explicit" and "hardcore" DO NOT have to be read in any context - they have (as evidenced by the 2001 court case) a legal meaning. Babestation cannot use those terms and then turn round and say it's OK because we all know they can't show R18.
Also, the supposedly live show between Ava and Jasmine would barely have qualified as "stronger than you can see on Freeview" never mind hardcore and explicit. It certainly didn't get close to the limits of what is allowed on encrypted channels.
If its going to be a soft erotic show, advertise it as that.
If it will be bananas and balloons, advertise it as that.
And if it is advertised as explicit, then it should be as explicit as allowed.
Let people make INFORMED choices.
you seem to be confusing the explicit, hardcore web show which Ava & Jasmine did online at 10pm-11pm on the babestation.tv site with the softer, "falls inside the ofcom rules" show they later did on freeview.
did you watch either of the shows Grawth?
As far as I'm aware the freeview show wasn't sold as explicit or hardcore, and was very unlikely sold as "stronger than you can see on freeview" as that doesn't make sense, as it's on freeview. If you saw the TV show advertised as that, could you let me know a rough day/time of the promo so we can find it in the recordings and deal with it so it doesn't happen again?
Yes I watched the BSX show, which is how I was able to review it on this site. And how I know that at no point did anything stronger than breasts get shown.
I was also aware that there was a hardcore web only show being broadcast from 10 - 11. I did not watch that.
I assume the webshow was indeed hardcore - there would be little point in having a tame webshow.
The freeview channel 174 show was repeatedly advertised as explicit and either hard or hardcore in the time leading up to the show. I assume the advertising continued after 11:30 (as it usually does) but I have no proof as I was watching the show - waiting to see something explicit.
When I said "barely qualified as stronger than you can see on freeview" what I should have said was barely stronger than unecrypted or free-to-air. My apologies for the confusion.
My basic point is that you really need to treat your customers with a bit of respect and advertise the shows that will actually be seen, so, as I said: If the show will be topless and erotic, then describe it that way; if it will be balloons and bananas then say balloons and bananas; and yes, if it will feature a girl or girls prepared to go to the limit of what is allowable on encrypted television then by all means say things like "explicit" or "strongest you can see on tv".
If you actually tell the truth about the shows then you will find the complaints by us viewers drop dramatically, and you will probably get more viewers as a result BECAUSE YOU PROVE YOU CAN BE TRUSTED!
Oh, and a personal request - please stop saying shows will be "hard". All you are doing is trying to find a way of making punters think "hardcore" without actually saying "hardcore" and it just makes you look like conmen which I'm sure is NOT how you want to come across.
Thanks, and apologies to all for the length of the post!
P.S. There is a HUGE difference between "falls within Ofcom rules" and "hard and explicit". Showing me a recording of a morris minor being driven through a carwash "falls within Ofcom rules" but I wouldn't pay to watch it!