Ofcom Discussion

(11-10-2019 15:58 )Wardjackson Wrote:  

(11-10-2019 15:04 )Dave_A Wrote:  

(11-10-2019 10:55 )Wardjackson Wrote:  I really cannot understand the mentality of anyone wanting to spend their time making complaints such as these. The channels are locked by default on a new Sky box, so can only be watched if the subscriber overrides this. They are complaining about a bit too much thigh or buttock, not that anything might be described as pornographic. What on earth do they get out of it?

I would hazard a guess and say the majority of the complaints made to Ofcom about the babe channels, aren't by the general public offended by what they see , but are made by people connected to rival channels. or by fanboy's of one particular channel (sawboss)trying to grass up a rival channel (Babestation) of their beloved channel (S66)

Ofcom once released information that one unnamed babe channel had been recording breaches by a rival channel(Bang Babes), and offered to send DVD's of the incidents to Ofcom by courier .
Also there has been incidents of producers saying they had sent complaints to Ofcom about girls from rival channels.
Babe channel Girls themselves have also taken to social media in order to complain about and highlight girls from rival channels breaking the rules .

I wouldn't be surprised if some complaints are made vindictively by girls or producers etc that have been lot go or sacked in order to get back at their former employer .

That is really sad. Are there really “fanboys of one particular channel”? As someone who, for example, used to really look forward to nipslips on Fernanda’s shows, I would not have dreamt about complaining about anything on BS if it might lead to a tightening of rules. I also have to say that I cannot understand how anyone could be offended by the content currently being complained of. There was more flesh on show in the womens’ athletics championships (in a strict Muslim country) than you can see some days on the Babeshows TV channels!!

I used to enjoy nipslips too but increasingly if a babe has a fresh outfit my first thought is does it comply followed by is she web only now because I don't want to have to think about a group of people being hounded by officialdom when they were just trying to entertain me (whether they make money or not).
I couldn't agree more with your comment about double standards. I don't see the distinction related it being supposedly an advert.

When I read the bulletin I did notice that S66 didn't defend themselves much. Maybe they couldn't. So and so wore this top. It's fact, but all they said was that they're in the adult section of the EPG, it would be unlikely to be seen by a child and that it was an isolated incident. Ofcom didn't agree.

Presumably S66 feel that they can't do anymore than they have done already to comply with the law without lessening our enjoyment.
Turning to the remark about rival licensees telling tales. I do recall a message on the Firestorm chatroom a couple of years ago written, I would say by James McCann, that suggested that there was (is) a gentleman's agreement in place to prevent this.

(11-10-2019 15:58 )Wardjackson Wrote:  

(11-10-2019 15:04 )Dave_A Wrote:  [quote='Wardjackson' pid='2367149' dateline='1570791336']

That is really sad. Are there really “fanboys of one particular channel”? As someone who, for example, used to really look forward to nipslips on Fernanda’s shows, I would not have dreamt about complaining about anything on BS if it might lead to a tightening of rules. I also have to say that I cannot understand how anyone could be offended by the content currently being complained of. There was more flesh on show in the womens’ athletics championships (in a strict Muslim country) than you can see some days on the Babeshows TV channels!!

Check out why this guy reported Babestation to Ofcom https://www.babeshows.co.uk/showthread.p...pid2342746

Just petty to put it very very politely totally vindictive to put it accurately on behalf of one (or two) poster(s)

(11-10-2019 16:54 )Chrisst Wrote:  Turning to the remark about rival licensees telling tales. I do recall a message on the Firestorm chatroom a couple of years ago written, I would say by James McCann, that suggested that there was (is) a gentleman's agreement in place to prevent this.

I would take with a pinch of salt what Jamie say's, there is a long history of the babe channels grassing one-another up .

As i posted, i rival channel grassed up Bang Babes many times, this is a fact, see this post https://www.babeshows.co.uk/showthread.p...pid1157227

If i remember correctly admin once said a channel boss or rep had told him that they had reported a rival channel to Ofcom. (sorry admin if a remember that wrong)

I still believe the channels or people working for the channels are up to dirty tricks concerning reporting rivals to Ofcom

The regulations seem to envisage the daytime shows as being completely non-sexual in nature and until the channels meet that threshold I can't see how they would ever be in compliance.

It seems therefore that all the channels can do is mitigate the breaches as best they can and pay fines etc when levied (which is not very often it would seem).

Whether rival parties are informing on each other I don't know, as it seems like a dangerous game to play and could bring more attention to themselves going forward.

Maybe disgruntled former colleagues etc are responsible for the complaints, but we will probably never know.

It does seem that some of the girls continue to push the boundaries of daytime a lot more than others and indeed I have heard them be told to behave better by some of the producers when on the phone, but they feel that they must do more to get the calls and more importantly the cammers. Not sure what the answer is going to be as Ofcom are not going anywhere and the rules only seem to be getting tighter these days.

Hello all (long time reader and first time poster)

This thread always interests me as I specialise in broadcast/advertisement law.

The Babestation channels could show more explicit nudity on free to air but they would have to change how they go about it. Current regulations are more complex than they need to be because the channels are more complex than the need to be. The gaming (gambling industry) used to have the same problem. They had be to very careful about jackpots, how many times they "told" people to phone in, use of on screen information and a bunch of other things but they adapted. Now you get late night Roulette and so forth on free to air.

The main problem with the BS channels is that they fall under the "advertisement" licence and NOT the "entertainment" category. They would have to apply for a different class of licence and change their programing to do this.

If they did what Playboy TV used to do with documentaries like "Sexcetra" and daytime shows that was informative and not just "phone girls" 24/7 they could do this. You might be asking what difference this makes? It makes a lot of difference as the rules of sexualised nudity under entertainment are FAR different to the rules of the same under advertisement. For example an accidental slip of vagina (say wardrobe or technical malfunction as opposed to a deliberate flash) on daytime TV, would perhaps be reported and investigated but the outcome (and possible reputations) would be much less than if it was to happen currently.

They could show softcore movies free to air after 10/11pm if that movie had a BBFC certificate of 18 and not higher. Plenty of these movies have full frontal nudity more explicit than the channels currently show.

The problem is that channels are making money, so why would they want to change. I do agree that Studio 66 does seem to be somewhat targeted by those seeking to get it in trouble. They could take legal action against OFCOM for any enforcement if they feel they are being unfairly treated but its a bit of a mine field.

Anyway good to finally get around to posting to say "hi" after viewing these forms for ages as a guest.

You mean they would become TVX and Playboy showing movies and without the interactivity instead of Babechannels?
how would that help us

Seems that the Government are scrapping the Porn block act ( pretty much unworkable) that’s according to Tech minister Nicky Morgan. Sky news in last hour.

(16-10-2019 06:58 )grantorino Wrote:  You mean they would become TVX and Playboy showing movies and without the interactivity instead of Babechannels?
how would that help us

Yes - they would have to change their format and not be a channel that offers 24/7 phone girls and interaction. However there is no reason why they can not show "live phone babes" under an entertainment license.

To clarify they could scrap the morning daytime shows with the girls onscreen (say 6am until midday). Replace them with suitable programming - or even teleshopping (bare with me). In the afternoon they could keep the daytime show intact as they are now (Babestation Daytime). In the evening they would have to split between the current format as it stands now and pre-recorded (even old live shows) or movies (think softcore porn but more explicit that what is currently shown on night time free to air).

Why?

With a entertainment license as opposed to just advertisement / shopping licence. They would have more freedom to show more explicit content at night time (but they can not do this as an teleshopping channel as it stands for reasons I've happy to go into but others have already in this thread).

I'm not talking about hardcore porn, but full frontal shots and more explicit shots would be permitted as long as it kept within the limits of BBFC18 and timeslots.

Any complains would not be as harmful to their pockets and would be investigated differently by OFCOM. For example Channel 5 can show an erect penis at 10pm without any repercussions if the show is meant to be EIE formatted (educational, informative or entertainment.)

An on-screen girl at 11pm could flash full frontal (like flash the gash in the older days) PROVIDING that when she does there is no entitlement or encouragement or pressure to phone in or pay at that time.

It would be much easier to explain in person than by text. I mean that a babestation girl (say Atlanta) could be onscreen live from 10pm to 11pm. Then at 11pm she would be able to do a short striptease where she could flash her pussy and so forth on screen PROVIDING at that time there is no on-screen graphics and NO option to phone in or pay or interact for that short period. Then she would go back to normal live on screen view where you could call.

I understand that some may feel if they lost the 24/7 live girls the channels would not be as good or be more like TVX or whatever. However there is middle ground here. The channels could show better quality free to air and live material. The girls could show more nudity without the fear of OFCOM jumping on them.

(8.1.1.5: Under ENTS FTA programming may show strong nudity in a sexual context providing IUUR is complied.)

The above basically means that if Babestation had a Entertainment license, the live onscreen girls would be permitted to show more explicit nudity. Providing it is not beyond BBFC 18 and not shown at an inappropriate time.

While an entertainment licence would actually be cheaper for Babestation to hold, the cost of producing programing other than live babes 24/7 could be more expensive. The upside would be they would always receive far less investigations and much lower fines should OFCOM receive complaints).

Sorry if I've ranted lol - I just wanted to try and explain why and how the channels could change (maybe for the better).

^ So they could be more explicit but not make money whilst being so? Mmm I think wankers might wait for the “free to air explicit stuff” and not bother phoning at all.

Sounds like a business model for lunatics so S66 will no doubt do it