New Ofcom Rules

Hooking up is a lame thing to do you should have a good product in the first place and not just get away with having a rubbish product and thinking it's ok because a certain few special clients will ring in.

EU rules say that the country a channel is uplinked from is the deciding factor when deciding which regulator has authority BUT that is the rule of last resort if other rules do not apply. This would be the case for non-EU channels with little or no EU presence such as Al Jazera.

In more routine cases the deciding factor is where a channel has its main operations and where management decisions are taken, usually where it has its headquarters, assuming the headquaters are real and not just a PO Box.

Having said that the authorities are probably not worried as long as channels behave themselves. Does Big L broadcast anything that would excite Ofcom? Incitement to riot? Too many ad breaks? Quack medicine? No? Difficult to motive the pen pushers to stop harassing babe channels.

As for hooking up with callers, it sounds fun and if there is genuine chemistry between a babe and a phone friend that is one thing, but the last thing a channel needs is to get a reputation as a knocking shop.

(15-08-2011 00:54 )mrmann Wrote:  

(15-08-2011 00:43 )SYBORG666 Wrote:  The only problem is, we're talking about channels that are too shit scared to spend money to tackle the Ofcom issue. So, they won't have the balls to take a gamble and spend money to get a foreign license, whether they will increase their profit margin or not.
I actually think that the babeshows days are now numbered because their bending over and letting Ofcom royally shaft them.

Yeah, but if the women keep hooking up with their best callers, then it might not be the end of it

(15-08-2011 20:54 )eccles Wrote:  Having said that the authorities are probably not worried as long as channels behave themselves. Does Big L broadcast anything that would excite Ofcom? Incitement to riot? Too many ad breaks? Quack medicine? No? Difficult to motive the pen pushers to stop harassing babe channels.

As for hooking up with callers, it sounds fun and if there is genuine chemistry between a babe and a phone friend that is one thing, but the last thing a channel needs is to get a reputation as a knocking shop.

Remember how authorities work - if they can't get you one way, you can be sure they'll try and catch you another way...

In 2009, OFCOM really wanted to pull the plug on these channels. Legally, at the time, they were unable to do so.

Even though escorting is technically legal, if channels used the current format on TV as some kind of "secret shop window" for certain girls to escort on the side - then that would be illegal. It would go well beyond what they are licensed to provide. Make no mistake - if this became common knowledge, or some other proof came to the surface, then the plug really would get pulled on them.

This is one of the reasons why I've previously mentioned that any girls and channels publicly linked to escorting/prostitution should disassociate themselves from it. It brings negative attention.

(14-09-2011 19:43 )Winston Wolfe Wrote:  

(15-08-2011 00:54 )mrmann Wrote:  

(15-08-2011 00:43 )SYBORG666 Wrote:  The only problem is, we're talking about channels that are too shit scared to spend money to tackle the Ofcom issue. So, they won't have the balls to take a gamble and spend money to get a foreign license, whether they will increase their profit margin or not.
I actually think that the babeshows days are now numbered because their bending over and letting Ofcom royally shaft them.

Yeah, but if the women keep hooking up with their best callers, then it might not be the end of it

(15-08-2011 20:54 )eccles Wrote:  Having said that the authorities are probably not worried as long as channels behave themselves. Does Big L broadcast anything that would excite Ofcom? Incitement to riot? Too many ad breaks? Quack medicine? No? Difficult to motive the pen pushers to stop harassing babe channels.

As for hooking up with callers, it sounds fun and if there is genuine chemistry between a babe and a phone friend that is one thing, but the last thing a channel needs is to get a reputation as a knocking shop.

Remember how authorities work - if they can't get you one way, you can be sure they'll try and catch you another way...

In 2009, OFCOM really wanted to pull the plug on these channels. Legally, at the time, they were unable to do so.

Even though escorting is technically legal, if channels used the current format on TV as some kind of "secret shop window" for certain girls to escort on the side - then that would be illegal. It would go well beyond what they are licensed to provide. Make no mistake - if this became common knowledge, or some other proof came to the surface, then the plug really would get pulled on them.

This is one of the reasons why I've previously mentioned that any girls and channels publicly linked to escorting/prostitution should disassociate themselves from it. It brings negative attention.

i am pretty sure none of the girls would need to use the channels as a shop window if they are escorting ,there are many high class reputable agencies who would offer free discreet contacts as well a the girls regulars

(14-09-2011 20:26 )shankey! Wrote:  i am pretty sure none of the girls would need to use the channels as a shop window if they are escorting ,there are many high class reputable agencies who would offer free discreet contacts as well a the girls regulars

I think you've misunderstood some of the points made in that previous reply...

Certain people on this forum have continued to speculate publicly about girls on the channels escorting. As I said, it brings negative attention - even when girls are indirectly linked to an agency that has nothing to do with the channels they work on. If they were directly linked to the channels, keyword being if, I was explaining what could happen.

If it's anything the authorities disapprove of (and I'm not just talking about OFCOM here), then you can be sure they'll stick their noses in and make life difficult.

As eccles pointed out, the last thing these channels need is a reputation as some sort of knocking shop. They have enough heat on them as it is. Capiche?

There have been no posts in this thread for a month, I think the point has been taken. My own view is that this was just wishful thinking, but care needs to be taken to avoid reputational damage as Winston says.

Radio stations to get new guidance on avoiding sexually explicit songs
Ofcom move over lyrics that are inappropriate for children follows warning to TV broadcasters over pre-watershed videos
Ben Dowell guardian.co.uk, Monday 31 October 2011

Radio 1 was criticised for airing an expletive-strewn concert by the Black Eyed Peas in May. Photograph: Cheryl Ravelo/Reuters

The BBC and commercial radio broadcasters will have to take more care with sexually explicit lyrics, particularly in songs by rap artists, as part of a continuing crackdown by Ofcom on content that is inappropriate for children.

UK radio broadcasters are to be issued with new guidance by the media regulator to address the problem of broadcasting sexually explicit lyrics at times when children are listening.

Following a meeting last week between representatives from the commercial sector as well as the BBC's editorial policy unit, Ofcom has promised to issue new and detailed guidance by the end of the year.

Of particular concern to Ofcom are offensive lyrics aired at times in the morning and early evenings when children are often in cars with the radio on as they are being taken to and from school.

This follows the issuing of stricter guidance to TV broadcasters last month on airing such material before the 9pm watershed.

Current rules enshrined in the Ofcom broadcasting code prohibit the broadcast of inappropriate or offensive material when children may be listening. But Ofcom says the rules are flouted too often, particularly in the playing of rap music, and that it has run out of patience.

Among recent examples of breaches of these rules was the airing by Scottish community radio station Brick FM of the song More Punany by reggae artist Dr Evil at 3pm. It contained the lyrics "last night I had a crazy threesome" and "I like to see the girls in the sexy bikini ni ni/Want to take my chilli and push it between ni ni", as well as "I like pun-na-na-na-ni even if it's a virgin".

The broadcaster claimed that "punany" referred to a sandwich – a panini, a claim that was roundly dismissed by the regulator, which said it was slang for a woman's genitalia.

In May Radio 1 broadcast an expletive-strewn concert by the Black Eyed Peas at the station's Big Weekend event in Carlisle. During the broadcast the lead singer shouted "What the fuck's going down" and introduced the band's second song with the words "This song's for all the fucking crazy people".

An Ofcom spokeswoman said: "Ofcom takes its role in protecting children from offensive language on the radio very seriously. We are concerned that there have been a number of recent cases where offensive language was broadcast, some at times when children were particularly likely to have been listening. That is why we held a meeting with the radio industry this week to discuss the issues. We intend to publish guidance by the end of the year to clarify the rules in the broadcasting code."

A BBC spokesman added: "The BBC, along with all radio broadcasters, sent a representative to discuss the matter and, while we have had no complaints upheld for bad language for more than three years, we will work with Ofcom to ensure we continue to deal with language in a responsible way."

^^ I don't really have much of a problem with Ofcom targeting non-adult, pre-watershed broadcasters that air risque material, but after 9pm, on adult channels, they should keep their moralising snouts out of the picture!

Well first of all welcome back to the forum Stan, I believe you were absent for a wee while for being a naughty boy on the topic of the Ofcom rules I seriously think they need to be reevaluated, anybody watching the shows these days and tonight especially must realise that unless big changes to the rules are made that many of these channels could face potential bankruptcy having to operate under such tight regulations and strict rules, fair enough have some rules but the banning of showing the vagina is just prejedice, if we could get the type of shows they do on Eurotic TV for example in the not to near future then I'd be happy, I'm not expecting anything as explicit as Sexysat TV material to be shown just something that makes these shows watchable again as with the boredom they channel these days it surely couldn't be outwith the realms of possibiltys to see about Ofcom perhaps relaxing the rules to a certain degree, many could argue to Ofcom that it is necessary in order for them to run their business or face closure, afterall it is getting near Christmas now and I think Ofcom are due to do them a kind turn for once in their life after all the years they've spent fucking them over

Whatever the rules are the majority of channels are running scared. The current content is pathetic, both PIN and no PIN.....more and more clothes, no flashes and girls wedged solidly to the floor. We are going down the US route towards super safe tv. Remember when Al Gore's ex wife Tipper (named after an ERF truck and an arse just as wide) went mad on explicit rock lyrics in the 1980s?
Amazing then you can watch people beat the living shit out of eachother, on MMA, without a hint of censorship....