+- 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: 'Tamestation' (/showthread.php?tid=12351)
RE: 'Tamestation' - vostok 1 - 14-10-2009 18:38
(14-10-2009 17:37 )vila Wrote: Television X is encrypted and is subject to the same 'no R18' rule but it hasn't folded.
One of the reasons why TVX and the Adult channel continue to be successful could be attributed to ambiguous advertising, (does their freeview ever state the the content broadcast over the air waves is 18 certificate "soft core"?) as well as locking subscribers into 12 month contracts.
Plus TVX have been diversifying into the Babe Show free to air sector at the expense of previously encrypted/subscription based EPG channel slots.
RE: 'Tamestation' - vila - 14-10-2009 18:58
(14-10-2009 18:38 )vostok 1 Wrote:(14-10-2009 17:37 )vila Wrote: Television X is encrypted and is subject to the same 'no R18' rule but it hasn't folded.
One of the reasons why TVX and the Adult channel continue to be successful could be attributed to ambiguous advertising, (does their freeview ever state the the content broadcast over the air waves is 18 certificate "soft core"?) as well as locking subscribers into 12 month contracts.
Plus TVX have been diversifying into the Babe Show free to air sector at the expense of previously encrypted/subscription based EPG channel slots.
I don't know of any ambiguous advertising. I had both channels back in OnDigital days and I was under no illusions about what was on offer. Ditto for the short time I had TVX on FV.
RE: 'Tamestation' - matt38 - 14-10-2009 19:00
Compared to some of the other in depth posts here this is going to seem rather limp and tame. But did anyone see the nude girls, exposed pussy and arse, rubbing their pussies, fingering their bums and showing it all to camera, you probably did'nt because this was being shown on Film4, in the movie Import/Export, the time this was being shown 11.30ish on Freeview. Yet we can't see this stuff clothed after midnight, one word MADNESS.
RE: 'Tamestation' - vostok 1 - 14-10-2009 19:02
(14-10-2009 17:37 )vila Wrote: Edit: If this 'intent to be sexually arousing' concept that Ofcom are so keen on is so important, why do they allow the shows to go out unenrypted at all? Surely this is the sole purpose of all the babe channels?
This is the point myself and IanG have been trying to make: Ofcom inconsistency.
While fines have been issued using 1.24 of the Ofcom broadcast code, it also says that "Adult Sex Material" may be broadcast if "there is a mandatory PIN protected encryption system, or other equivalent protection"
The "other equivalent protection" is highlighted here:
Appendix 2, Article 22 of The Ofcom Broadcast code which incorporates the following Television Without Frontiers Directive:
1. Member States shall take appropriate measures to ensure that television broadcasts by broadcasters under their jurisdiction do not include any programmes which might seriously impair the physical, mental or moral development of minors, in particular programmes that involve pornography or gratuitous violence.
2. The measures provided for in paragraph 1 shall also extend to other programmes which are likely to impair the physical, mental or moral development of minors, except where it is ensured, by selecting the time of the broadcast (post watershed adult sexual content generally after 22.00 hrs , as is the case) by any technical measure (the ability for parents to remove all 900 channels from the Sky Digital EPG and the ability to delete seleted channels from freeview, as the case is) that minors in the area of transmission will not normally hear or see such broadcasts.
3. Furthermore, when such programmes are broadcast in unencoded/Un-encrypted form Member States shall ensure that they are preceded by an acoustic warning or are identified by the presence of a visual symbol throughout their duration."
If Broadcasters follow the rules under the “EU Television Without Frontiers directives they comply with the law. The Law (as recognised by the DCMS and the ECHR) supersedes Ofcom “Guidance”. And Ofcom’s very own Broadcast code incorporates the above TVWF Directive. So no justified and legal reasons for Broadcasters to be fined for showing “Adult Sex Material”.
The Department of Culture Media and Sport states that “In order to encourage free movement of broadcasts, all broadcasting must comply with the European Directive: “Television Without Frontiers” or TVWF.
RE: 'Tamestation' - vila - 14-10-2009 19:10
(14-10-2009 19:00 )matt38 Wrote: Compared to some of the other in depth posts here this is going to seem rather limp and tame. But did anyone see the nude girls, exposed pussy and arse, rubbing their pussies, fingering their bums and showing it all to camera, you probably did'nt because this was being shown on Film4, in the movie Import/Export, the time this was being shown 11.30ish on Freeview. Yet we can't see this stuff clothed after midnight, one word MADNESS.
Spot on Matt! However these things might be dressed up, whether as 'serious' feature films, 'art' (ugh!), light entertaiment magazines (Eurotrash, Sexcetera) or whatever, their intent is to sexually arouse. That Ofcom chooses to ignore this demonstrates the inconsistency and pure hypocrisy of their position.
RE: 'Tamestation' - vostok 1 - 14-10-2009 19:17
(14-10-2009 18:58 )vila Wrote: I don't know of any ambiguous advertising. I had both channels back in OnDigital days and I was under no illusions about what was on offer. Ditto for the short time I had TVX on FV.
The other point I made was that subscribers to TVX and the Adult Channel/Play Boy group channels are tied into 12 month contracts.
The Babe Show channels that previously offered Encrypted premium services did so on a pay per night basis.
If a viewer of a Babe Show was not impressed by the non R18 content on a pay per night basis then the likely hood is that they would not pay again.
RE: 'Tamestation' - vila - 14-10-2009 19:25
So the answer might be encryption but not subscription or ppv. A one-off admin charge could be made to cover the cost of running the system, issuing the card etc, with free access thereafter. Rather like Freesat.
RE: 'Tamestation' - vostok 1 - 14-10-2009 19:37
(14-10-2009 19:25 )vila Wrote: So the answer might be encryption but not subscription or ppv. A one-off admin charge could be made to cover the cost of running the system, issuing the card etc, with free access thereafter. Rather like Freesat.
They don't need to become encrypted Vila. Post 124 (above) from the broadcast code states this.
Plus Sky charge the Broadcasters £1.55 per month, per user who access encrypted services. (This does not include viewers who set parental restriction controls which require a pin to unlock, which is completely free)
RE: 'Tamestation' - vila - 14-10-2009 19:55
Sorry, I missed out the crucial big 'IF'. I meant if encryption was deemed necessary it could be provided for only a reasonable cost. I didn't know about the Sky charge.
RE: 'Tamestation' - Censorship :-( - 14-10-2009 23:23
(14-10-2009 15:42 )vostok 1 Wrote:(14-10-2009 15:03 )sboss Wrote: Basically, we need to open Ofcom's eyes?
The only way for this to be achieved is for the Broadcasters to request a judicial review of Ofcom's illegal policies.
Have a read of IanG's and my posts to see what happened when a small time porn video distributor took his claim to the high court in 2000 (At very little cost). He was up against the home secretary Jack Straw. HM Government could offer no evidence. We now have R18 as it exists today.
Yes, the broadcasters, both mainstream & adult, have just sat back and accepted Ofcon censorship, despite the many, apparent areas of challenge open to them to attack Ofcon’s censorial regime. This is why UK broadcasting is so censorial - Ofcon have made it abundantly clear, during their 'reign of terror', that they are fundamentally pro-censorship, and they will not change unless forced to; that means by legal means, as no Westminster Government, of whatever party, is going to stand up for fundamental rights such as Freedom of Expression, and change Ofcon’s remit e.g by removing the ludicrous notion of ‘offence’ from the Communications Act.
Unbelievably, it seems to be getting worse – The BBC are currently ‘consulting’ on increasing post-watershed censorship, presumably as a result of the media inspired ‘furore’ over the Russell Brand radio show.