Attention all show producers!

As a point of reference, here are all upheld complaints since this forum started:

Babeworld TV,
28 May 2009, 23:30

Ofcom received a complaint that at around 23:30 on 28 May 2009 a female presenter, wearing only skimpy underwear including a G-string, showed clear and close-up images of anal and vaginal detail to camera.

Breach of Rules 2.1 and 2.3

Promotion of the http://www.babeworld.tv website address.
When accessed by Ofcom, this website featured sexually explicit R18 equivalent material which could be readily viewed without registration to the website.

Breach of Rules 2.1 and 2.3

Bang Babes
Tease Me, 18 March 2009, 21:00

Ofcom received a complaint about content broadcast, soon after 21:00, on Tease Me on 18 March 2009. The complainant said that the programme showed the presenters simulating masturbation and included close up screen images of the presenters’ anal areas.

Breach of Rules 2.1 and 2.3

The Pad
Tease Me 2, 20 March 2009, 12:30

Ofcom received a complaint that material broadcast at lunchtime featured a presenter in a black PVC basque and fishnet tights lying in various positions such as on her side and back with her legs intermittently opening. In addition, she stroked her legs, thighs and buttocks throughout the broadcast. The presenter’s outfit was skimpy revealing a low cleavage, and whilst lying on her back one of her nipples was visible for a short period of time.

Whilst showing a bare breast and nipple before the watershed is not a breach of the Code where it is justified by context, in this case the sexual nature of this material in addition to the visibility of the presenter’s breast and nipple meant this partial nudity was shown in a clearly sexual context. This in Ofcom’s view was not acceptable for a daytime broadcast.

Breach of Rules 1.3 and 2.3


Sport TV
Lucky Star, 10 March 2009, 22:00

A viewer was concerned that throughout the programme the Daily Sport newspaper was frequently referred to both visually and verbally and that its website was promoted.

10.3 – Products and services must not be promoted in programmes. This rule does not apply to programme-related material.
10.4 – No undue prominence may be given in any programme to a product or service.

Breach of Rules 10.3 and 10.4


Sex Station
Lucky Star, 21 May 2009, 21:00

Ofcom noted that during content broadcast on the channel after 21:00, the website URL http://www.sexstationtv.com (“the Website URL”) was broadcast at intervals, in scrolling form across the screen.
Ofcom noted that on visiting the website, to which the Website URL led, there were no mandatory forms of age verification in place to enter the website.

Breach of 2.1 and 2.3

Bang Babes
Tease Me TV 3 20 June 2009 and 23 June 2009

Exceeding viewer expectations, sexual content.
Full details: http://www.ofcom.org.uk/tv/obb/prog_cb/o...sue144.pdf

Breach of 2.1 and 2.3

Elite Days
Elite TV 10 July 2009 11:30

Advertising the url to elietetvonline.com

Breach of rules 1.2 1.3 2.1 2.3

Live 960
Live 960 11 September 2009 21:00

Breach of Licence condition 11 (retention and production of recordings)

To summarise:

4 upheld complaints for showing vaginal and anal detail on nights.
3 upheld complaints for advertising the url to an adult website.
1 upheld complaint for a daytime slip.
1 upheld complaint for advertising a product.
1 upheld complaint for not keeping compliance recordings.

(07-12-2009 20:49 )sm© Wrote:  

(07-12-2009 20:19 )perana68 Wrote:  It wouldn't surprise me one bit if the "complainers" were competitor babe channels trying to get their rivals fined

At last! Someone has worked it out.

It should be noted that Cellcast, Bang Babes/Tease Me TV, Sport and Babe World are all part of the same trade association, The Participation Television Broadcasters Association: The P.T.B.A. They are represented by the same Lawyers.

(08-10-2009 00:31 )Hofmiester Wrote:  You may be interested to know that most of the Adult Stations are members of a Trade Organisation called the PTVBA (Participation TV Broadcasters Association) - there are a couple of stations who arnt members, and you can tell who they are because they have no interest in the long term viability of the industry, and will proberbly be the next to have their knuckles wrapped - but we are all tared with the same brush.

http://www.babeshows.co.uk/showthread.ph...#pid224046

(07-12-2009 20:49 )jackthemanc Wrote:  The point of the babe channels/shows is clearly to make money from phone calls. Why, in that case, do we need to see the girls at all? As far as callers are concerned, they don't care who they're talking to while they wank, as long as they sound sexy and talk dirty. The draw is talking to the sexy girl on screen. The caller can see the girl, tell the girl what to do. The girl, and their resulting fanbases discussions, is far and away the greatest advertising feature at the producers disposal. In this case the move to define this type of programming as teleshopping is a prudent one. The girl has now become the advert and the product.

The girl onscreen has always been the "advert" for this type of show... Only 1 caller at a time can get through, and it's mainly fanboys who waste money queuing to speak with the object of their affections (and quite often they don't get through). Nobody in the right mind is gonna keep doing that...

As you implied though, most callers can chat to offscreen girls or listen in and get the desired effect... Nothing wrong with that, but there's a lot of things wrong with the way these channels are run (pricing structure and marketing being the main problems). For a start it's the same price to listen in or chat to offscreen girls as onscreen girls... From a business point of view that just makes no sense!

It's estimated these channels have several hundred thousand viewers overall... I wonder what percentage are actually customers? The same applies with the websites...

(07-12-2009 20:49 )jackthemanc Wrote:  As far as callers are concerned, they don't care who they're talking to while they wank

Is this what you really think?

(08-12-2009 09:55 )admiral decker Wrote:  

(07-12-2009 20:49 )jackthemanc Wrote:  As far as callers are concerned, they don't care who they're talking to while they wank

Is this what you really think?

There are only a few girls that I am ever tempted to call.

(08-12-2009 12:43 )trevor format Wrote:  

(08-12-2009 09:55 )admiral decker Wrote:  

(07-12-2009 20:49 )jackthemanc Wrote:  As far as callers are concerned, they don't care who they're talking to while they wank

Is this what you really think?

There are only a few girls that I am ever tempted to call.

Should clarify that, this comment was meant in relation to generic sex chat lines, not specifically Babestation et al. I was using it to support the statement that the girl on-screen is the draw, advert and product. I also appreciate that calling the girls products is insensitive and shouldn't be misinterpreted.

Having read

"Bang Babes
Tease Me TV 3 20 June 2009 and 23 June 2009

Exceeding viewer expectations, sexual content.
Full details: http://www.ofcom.org.uk/tv/obb/prog_cb/o...sue144.pdf

Breach of 2.1 and 2.3"

(thanks Vostok1)

it is interesting to note that the Ofcom report clearly states (well as clearly as Ofcom can) that the broadcast was NOT considered strong enough to be classed as adult-sex material, and therefore require a mandatory PIN to be entered.

They DID however find it too strong for FTA viewing, even though the broadcast was after midnight in the adult section of the EPG (both of which Ofcom say are effectively irrelevant, so why have them at all?).

In other words, there is a certain strength of material that is too strong for FTA, but not strong enough to need a PIN. How is this possible? What possible universe do you have to live in to be able to see this stuff. What can you do in between having a PIN and NOT having a PIN?

Daft!

(08-12-2009 16:09 )Grawth Wrote:  Having read

"Bang Babes
Tease Me TV 3 20 June 2009 and 23 June 2009

Exceeding viewer expectations, sexual content.
Full details: http://www.ofcom.org.uk/tv/obb/prog_cb/o...sue144.pdf

Breach of 2.1 and 2.3"

(thanks Vostok1)

it is interesting to note that the Ofcom report clearly states (well as clearly as Ofcom can) that the broadcast was NOT considered strong enough to be classed as adult-sex material, and therefore require a mandatory PIN to be entered.

They DID however find it too strong for FTA viewing, even though the broadcast was after midnight in the adult section of the EPG (both of which Ofcom say are effectively irrelevant, so why have them at all?).

In other words, there is a certain strength of material that is too strong for FTA, but not strong enough to need a PIN. How is this possible? What possible universe do you have to live in to be able to see this stuff. What can you do in between having a PIN and NOT having a PIN?

Daft!

Which is what I keep saying about Ofcom applying rules to these channels that they don't even remotely apply elsewhere.

The channels are constantly being pulled up for things that "may" cause offence and what "may" be stumbled upon by some unsuspecting viewer or worse still a minor. Therefore, Ofcom decree that full frontal nudity isn't allowed.

Meanwhile, mainstream channels, Sky Movies etc can show 18 certificate films after the watershed in their entirety. Just imagine if they applied the same rules as they do for the babe channels across the board.

The infamous Sharon Stone scene from Basic Instinct would be cut out in case a minor was watching. All the violence from blockbusters such as Pulp Fiction would be cut out in case someone saw it and was offended and just think of the harm it could do to kids. At the age of 10, I saw Don't Look Now on BBC 2. There was no warning broadcast before and during the film to tell me I shouldn't have been watching it, just as there wouldn't be for any similarly notorious films broadcast these days. Why should the babe channels keep having to enforce that point when they appear in the adult section of the listings and can be blocked out by pin protection if the viewer wishes to do so?

Sky have Movies for Men that often show some pretty appalling soft porn films late at night. Why are scenes of sexual intercourse and full frontal male and female nudity allowed there and not on the babe channels? Is there not the same degree of risk that someone will unsuspectingly land on one of those channels and be offended by what they see? Is everyone watching those films of a legal age to do so?

Presumably Ofcom will come back to the editorial content argument with that stuff. Of course, anyone offended by male and female nudity clearly doesn't have their offence lessened in any way due to that nudity being "part of the story" or "educational." They object to bare tits and pussies being shown in any context at all.

And you know what? Just say Ofcom did wake up to their double standards and decide to use the same restrictions on all channels as they do for the babe channels, the majority of people in this country and the media would be absolutely livid at the removal of freedom of choice and it wouldn't last a week.

(07-12-2009 18:46 )MARCCE Wrote:  In fact, I'm almost incredulous at some of the complaints they act upon with someone deeply offended sitting there for more than half an hour or more logging stuff they are supposedly totally disgusted by.

Remember the scene with Alan Partridge, when he accidently booked the film Bangkok Ladyboys during his stay at the Travel Tavern? Maybe these complainers should get the same treatment he did;

"So, when you wanted to watch Only Fools and Horses, you must have entered the channel number 912..."

"Uuum, yeah."

"Do you want me to come round and show you how to enter the channel number 110 ?"

Blimey Vostok1, I thought I was obsessive. Thanks for listing all the upheld complaints. That's 25 free channels broadcasting up to 7 hours post-watershed material a night against 4 upheld complaints for showing vaginal and anal detail on nights.. Doesn't Channel 4 get that many complaints on a quiet day, let alone over 6 months and 25 channels?

It doesn't help that when "helpfully" setting the scene Ofcom describe lots of permitted detail such as "wearing stockings" or "simulating masturbation" (with fingers well away from the cherry pie). All this does it to contribute to an atmosphere of paranoia and fear that these activities might also be banned. And please don't let Daily M**l readers let their imaginations feed on "simulated masturbation".

The current rules, in Ofcom fantasy land, is that sex is only allowed on TV in exceptional cases, when the script would not work without it. That is what is meant by "context". In Ofcom land Page 3 of the Sun would banned because the newspaper still works as a newspaper without it. It's as if a Black or Asian character could not be used in a TV show unless there was a specific racial angle to the script. (Actually that's what seems to happen anyway. I can't believe how White Eastenders is. Woops, straying into deep waters...)

So, Ofcom currently say that just enjoying the sight of a naked woman is not "context". A stripper can be shown in crime drama because we all know robbers spend their time in strip pubs. But the camera cannot linger too much. Wan Gok can strip women naked because, er, that's what he does. Naked Office can have ordinary members of the public go to work naked because it is central to "building their confidence and trust". And shagging in film is permitted because it demonstrates the trust that two lead characters have for each other. [Hmm, must watch Betty Blue again with it's length opening shag scene].

So the current rule - and I'm trying very hard not to say it's stupid - is that babe channels can only show sexual content up to BBFC cert 15 strength. That seem's to mean no pussy, no clear sex, no dildo sucking, no crotch rubbing and no explicit talk either.

Beyond that it has to either be essential to the script. If it looks as if it for sexual pleasure then Ofcom say it has to be encrypted because "viewer expectations" are that sex is only ever allowed as a special concession because it's essential to the script.

I'd like to know who this viewer is.

BTW "viewer expectations" is supposedly based on independent public attitude surveys. Groups of 12-20 people watch film clips in a meeting room somewhere then openly discuss attitudes before marking forms to say how acceptable or unacceptable they found each clip. The gist of the conversations is summarised - as well as the ticks on the forms - and used for the basis of assertions like "most men thought X had a place a broadcasting, though they would never watch it themselves, but felt that Y was going too far". Great, but how honest would you be in a room full of people you have been doing Trust Exercises with, some the same age as your Mum or Dad, some male or female youngsters, publically admitting that you enjoy jizz films?

A couple of elections ago it was widely predicted that Labour had won by a clear margin. Instead John Major and thee Tories had been re-elected. Turned out the general public systematically lied to polling organisations because they were too embarresed to admin voting Tory. The polling agencies realised that if they wanted accurate poll results they had to do their surveys differently.

Those are the current rules. The new public attitude survey behind the latest Ofcom Code consultation suggests that there might actually be some acceptance that being on a 900 channel late at night is context. Or perhaps that's just wishful thinking. Should know by the 31st.