BabestationX - the webshow

it says not using R18 MATERIAL...which I take to mean not using shots/videos of cocks in pussys, pissing in the actual ADVERT..otherwise how can daily papers advertise R18 videos for sale when kids read it? they show pics of clothed glamour babes...not dildos in cunts

From Ofcom's website : Advertising of pornographic content is not suitable for broadcast at any time on any interactive "Adult Chat"service available free to air regardless of the type of images broadcast as part of the advertising content .
The phone in babe channels aren't supposed to be promoting R18 web shows, they are licensed for adult chat phone services, maybe BS could get away with advertising hard core BSX web shows on TV because they do not have a Ofcom adult chat licence ? .

Dionne seems to be really turning up the heat in this section. It looks like we're now going beyond what we used to get on freeview. I still say it's similar to freeview 174, but now with naughtier bits thrown in.

Well I think that's the "is it hardcore or not" argument put to bed

Well shes showing dildo penetration at least

http://imgur.com/YBs3CcT

http://imgur.com/HSc8Awh

Dionne is just getting hotter and hotter. It's been intriguing tonight to see how she's gradually stepped things up as she's gone along. She keeps finding another level and we're definitely beyond freeview now.

Awesome show! We now have got what we wanted, full penetration show from Dionne and very hot she is tonight. Good work!

(27-07-2013 23:42 )cwpussylover Wrote:  it says not using R18 MATERIAL...which I take to mean not using shots/videos of cocks in pussys, pissing in the actual ADVERT..otherwise how can daily papers advertise R18 videos for sale when kids read it? they show pics of clothed glamour babes...not dildos in cunts

Read the main part of the code again, in summary it says that porn or porn related products cannot be advertised on television unless it is on an encrypted channel. The R-18 content applies to those ads that are allowed, i.e those on an encrypted channel.

The reason newspapers can get away with it, is because they are newspapers! This code is for broadcasters, tv and radio, newspapers have a different set of rules governed by a different body.

So as I see it, BS should NOT be advertising the website on the free-to-air channels, simple as that, but as suggested, they may get away with it, for now at least, because of the dutch license.
Ofcom has stated that they can't touch BS because of the dutch licenses (even where they also broadcast on UK licenses as well), but at the same time, they and their sister body ATVOD have been quite strict with web related content recently.Particularly if they were in some way involved in getting BSX removed (personally I still find that idea dubious), then this could be seen as a provocative move that they may just decide to take issue with. Let's face it, if they take this issue up with BS, they are likely to get strong support from above given the move Cameron has made on porn filters this week, it's kind of the ideal time for Ofcom to go to war over such an issue and score a small, and rare, victory over BS, and maybe use it as an excuse to clamp down on all the channels a little more as well.

All advertising in the UK or directed at the UK through whatever media is governed by the CAP and BCAP codes enforced by the ASA.
The ASA is a self-regulatory body financed by the media (independent of government) who decide and make rulings on complaints. They cannot enforce against their rulings but use the Office of Fair Trading (Trading Standards) to carryout enforcement for non-compliance.

http://www.asa.org.uk/Consumers/What-we-cover.aspx

OFCOM has general regulatory responsibility for broadcasting content standards in the UK. It has contracted out, (through a Memorandum of Understanding) the regulation of most aspects of broadcast advertising to the ASA, but retains responsibility for the advertising of telecommunications-based sexual entertainment services and all other ‘Participation TV’ services, BCAP Code.

The BCAP Code applies to all advertisements (including teleshopping, content on self-promotional television channels, television text and interactive television advertisements) and programme sponsorship credits on radio and television services licensed by Ofcom.

SKY channel 906 is operated under a licence issued to Game Network B.V by the dutch regulator Commissariaat voor de Media with content compliant with the dutch Kijkwijzer classification system administered by NICAM.

So the operator of channel 906 is compliant with their own licence restrictions. The strongest sexual content is classified 16.

I an aware (fact) that Game Network BV found themselves in a dispute with BSkyB many years ago, who sought to impose a contractural condition on carrying the client's channel (Cellcast), that its content comply with Ofcom standards. This action would have resulted in a restraint of trade (illegal) by the imposition of an unfair contract term. Such action is readily defended through the issue of a High Court judicial order(injuction). Game Network BV defended their position.

We also know that Ofcom tried to bring Game Network BV in line with the broadcasting hours in the BCAP code for freeview tv through complaint to the commission and as far as i can see from committee minutes from european meetings this failed, although the french authorities are now questioning the regulatory jurisdiction over satellite uplinks. Something for the future.

So in relation to the withdrawal of BSX from the freeview platform, whilst there might have been pressure from the platform providers, who themselves may have been under pressure from a third party (Ofcom) there is much legal recourse available to protect their licence including Human Rights.

There is well established case law under HRA Protocol 1 of Article 1 Protection of Property. A key European authority 'Tre Traktorer' confirms that Article 6(1) is applicable because a licence confers a right on a licensee, in accordance with the conditions of the licence, and the legislation. Therefore a licensee has a 'civil right' to run a business under the licence unless it contravenes the conditions laid down therein, or gives rise to any of the statutory grounds for revocation. So if the dutch media regulator is satisfied with the way Game Network BV operates under it's licence then that should suffice.

If the freeview channel BSX was worth protecting then it would still be operating, like channel 906 So i can only guess that it wasn't financially viable to protect.

Ofcom have just released a revised version of their guidance. Ofcom guidance on the advertising of telecommunications-based sexual entertainment services and PRS daytime chat services.

http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binarie...idance.pdf

Haven't checked it for any further restrictions (or relaxations).

Dont see why they need to advertise on TV anyway. They have 28,000+ followers on twitter not to mention all of the Followers the girls have