+- The UK Babe Channels Forum (https://www.babeshows.co.uk)
+-- Forum: Night Shows (/forumdisplay.php?fid=1)
+--- Forum: Babestation (/forumdisplay.php?fid=99)
+---- Forum: BABESTATION TV (/forumdisplay.php?fid=2)
+---- Thread: The Freeview vs Sky content debate (/showthread.php?tid=8266)
RE: The Freeview vs Sky content debate - Bunna - 16-06-2009 02:24
Looking at it from cellcasts point of view 'it is better to be safe than sorry'
RE: The Freeview vs Sky content debate - Jonnieboy - 16-06-2009 10:03
vostok 1 Wrote:New proposals on revising the ofcom broadcasting code were published today.And on page 27 footnote 19 we learn that 'adult sexual entertainment', where the primary purpose is to generate income through adult chat lines, will be subject to a separate review in the autumn.
http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/bcode09/main.pdf
Presumably, then, the babeshows will be subject to the restrictions of The Broadcast Code AND whatever is thrown up by the review of Participation Television.
RE: The Freeview vs Sky content debate - DrGrumpyPants - 16-06-2009 11:40
having seen that theres a review being carried out in the autum i can understand why theres a major curtailment in transgressions.
As cellcast is the only provider of this entertainment on freeview they have the most to lose from any bad verdict
RE: The Freeview vs Sky content debate - matt38 - 16-06-2009 21:17
having just had a quick read of the proposals from Ofcom for the new regulations in the sexual content section unless Cellcast are going to broadcast hardcore porn, I can not see were there is likely to be any problem with how the show is know, of course someone else will probably prove me wrong.
RE: The Freeview vs Sky content debate - vostok 1 - 16-06-2009 22:12
matt38 Wrote:having just had a quick read of the proposals from Ofcom for the new regulations in the sexual content section unless Cellcast are going to broadcast hardcore porn, I can not see were there is likely to be any problem with how the show is know, of course someone else will probably prove me wrong.
As you said, aside from the proposal that R18 strength material (hardcore) is still prohibited, section 4 of the proposal brings up these issues:
Taken from the proposal:
Material of a strong sexual nature which is not broadcast for the primary purpose of sexual arousal and therefore not subject to mandatory access restrictions (The new name for encryption) may be broadcast after the watershed provided there is strong contextual justification. i.e movies/drama that feature a sex scene and educational/documentary programming.
Adult sex material which is broadcast for the purpose of sexual arousal must not be broadcast unless there are mandatory access restritions in place (Pin protection) and then only between the hours of 2200 and 0530 and only with mandatory restrictions in place.
There are also the proposals detailed in section 6 concerning the use of PRS services (premium rate numbers) in programming. This part has the potential to have the greatest impact on the Babe Shows, but as previously said, this will be subject to an additional consultation in the autumn.
RE: The Freeview vs Sky content debate - Jonnieboy - 16-06-2009 22:49
vostok 1 Wrote:Adult sex material which is broadcast for the purpose of sexual arousal must not be broadcast unless there are mandatory access restritions in place (Pin protection) and then only between the hours of 2200 and 0530 and only with mandatory restrictions in place.As I understand it that is the case right now, which is why in this ofcom bulletin: http://www.ofcom.org.uk/tv/obb/prog_cb/obb134 Playboy One defended themselves: "the nudity or sexual activity placed in an appropriate editorial context. In no case was the primary purpose sexual arousal or stimulation and therefore none contained ‘adult-sex’ material as defined by Rule 1.24 of the Code."
Except in Rule 1.24 there is no definition of 'adult sex material', so that does need to be clarified.
vostok 1 Wrote:There are also the proposals detailed in section 6 concerning the use of PRS services (premium rate numbers) in programming. This part has the potential to have the greatest impact on the Babe Shows, but as previously said, this will be subject to an additional consultation in the autumn.
Yeah. And I bet this is where they move from protecting the under 18s to protecting callers from themselves :-(
RE: The Freeview vs Sky content debate - TheWatcher - 17-06-2009 10:02
vostok 1 Wrote:Taken from the proposal:Since this would seem to be the main purpose of the BS night time show, it would pose a problem for freeview viewers if encryption was introduced. I suspect that the simple parental control pin number function on existing freeview boxes/tvs would not satisfy ofcom.
Adult sex material which is broadcast for the purpose of sexual arousal must not be broadcast unless there are mandatory access restritions in place (Pin protection) and then only between the hours of 2200 and 0530 and only with mandatory restrictions in place.
RE: The Freeview vs Sky content debate - vila - 17-06-2009 13:44
Jonnieboy Wrote:vostok 1 Wrote:New proposals on revising the ofcom broadcasting code were published today.And on page 27 footnote 19 we learn that 'adult sexual entertainment', where the primary purpose is to generate income through adult chat lines, will be subject to a separate review in the autumn.
http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/bcode09/main.pdf
Presumably, then, the babeshows will be subject to the restrictions of The Broadcast Code AND whatever is thrown up by the review of Participation Television.
TheWatcher Wrote:vostok 1 Wrote:Taken from the proposal:Since this would seem to be the main purpose of the BS night time show, it would pose a problem for freeview viewers if encryption was introduced. I suspect that the simple parental control pin number function on existing freeview boxes/tvs would not satisfy ofcom.
Adult sex material which is broadcast for the purpose of sexual arousal must not be broadcast unless there are mandatory access restritions in place (Pin protection) and then only between the hours of 2200 and 0530 and only with mandatory restrictions in place.
No. Read the footnote:
19 ‘Adult-sex’ material is distinct from ‘adult entertainment’ and ‘adult sexual entertainment’ material where the primary purpose is revenue generation through invitations to call adult chat lines. This material is the subject of a separate Ofcom consultation on Participation Television planned for autumn 2009.
This is saying that the type of programming provided by Cellcast is ‘distinct from’ the material affected by the rule amendments in the document (i.e. in a different category). That can only mean that the new rules would not apply to Cellcast’s product, which will be the subject of a separate review as stated.
RE: The Freeview vs Sky content debate - vostok 1 - 18-06-2009 02:10
StanTheMan Wrote:But Chatback (like Babestar before it) can hold their heads high because they weren't prepared to bow down to Ofcunt. They catered for more than just the Loaded and Nuts market.
Babestar can't hold their head high because they held an incorrect broadcast licence and by definition were not entitled to show a "Babe Show".
It was the ASA that went after BabeStar and the ASA passed the matter onto OFCOM.
Look for Love (the home of BabeStar) held a licence as a teleshopping channel. A Premium rate telephone service of a sexual nature was used, which goes against the CAP TV Advertising standards code. They didn’t have the correct licence to show a Babe Show. And they didn’t care.
Babe Star also stated that the whole show was live. It wasn’t. Babestar continued to advertise that you could speak to the Girl on screen. You couldn't. The callers were being defrauded.
The rolling t&c’s banner was too small, they were given ample opportunity to change this. They didn't.
OFCOM and the ASA gave them a chance to rectify the problems. They chose not to.
Thats why the licence was pulled. I don't know why ChatBack no longer show a live show.
CellCast may be tame, but they are not crooks.
RE: The Freeview vs Sky content debate - samcooke - 18-06-2009 03:03
cellcast are crooks. they just know how to con people legally.