+- The UK Babe Channels Forum (https://www.babeshows.co.uk)
+-- Forum: Channels (/forumdisplay.php?fid=8)
+--- Forum: UK Babe Channels (/forumdisplay.php?fid=9)
+---- Forum: Broadcasting Regulations (/forumdisplay.php?fid=138)
+---- Thread: Changes ahead - new code for babe channels (/showthread.php?tid=20839)
RE: Changes ahead - new code for babe channels - mr mystery - 04-06-2010 14:41
(04-06-2010 14:07 )mrmann Wrote: Do you know which channels are registered in The Netherlands? I've heard Babestation was, and haven't seen any warnings or complaints against them, yet they still censor the shows.
I think all of Cellcast's/Babestation Sky channels are registered in Holland , and all Cellcast's bar one (Partyland) on freeview have a Dutch license . OFCOM have stated them selves that any new form of registration for the babe shows will not include the Cellcast shows that are registered in HOLLAND as they have no jurisdiction over the registration requirements of other country's
RE: Changes ahead - new code for babe channels - mrmann - 04-06-2010 15:03
(04-06-2010 14:41 )mr mystery Wrote:(04-06-2010 14:07 )mrmann Wrote: Do you know which channels are registered in The Netherlands? I've heard Babestation was, and haven't seen any warnings or complaints against them, yet they still censor the shows.
I think all of Cellcast's/Babestation Sky channels are registered in Holland , and all Cellcast's bar one (Partyland) on freeview have a Dutch license . OFCOM have stated them selves that any new form of registration for the babe shows will not include the Cellcast shows that are registered in HOLLAND as they have no jurisdiction over the registration requirements of other country's
Interesting. Partyland seems to have a no bum clause these days, but does this mean the other Babestation channels can show more than they think? The shows seem to be very tame lately unless Camilla, Stevie and Jada are on, and maybe Karina. Tammy went fully nude a few weeks back, and I think that was on Partyland, or maybe BS2 before it changed to Partyland. Are these channels still under Offcom's censorship?
OK, no more questions from me
RE: Changes ahead - new code for babe channels - mr mystery - 04-06-2010 15:43
(04-06-2010 15:03 )mrmann Wrote:I think OFCOM are to a certain degree in charge of the content shown by channels registered in other country's , but there powers are limited .This is what the "BLUEBIRD OFFICIAL" said on this forum when answering a question about how far their girls would be allowed to go on their future free to air shows , "for legal reasons we can't go into details but OFCOM'S powers are limited by the territoriality of the licence holder" , so there you have , it is still rather confusing to me .(04-06-2010 14:41 )mr mystery Wrote:(04-06-2010 14:07 )mrmann Wrote: Do you know which channels are registered in The Netherlands? I've heard Babestation was, and haven't seen any warnings or complaints against them, yet they still censor the shows.
I think all of Cellcast's/Babestation Sky channels are registered in Holland , and all Cellcast's bar one (Partyland) on freeview have a Dutch license . OFCOM have stated them selves that any new form of registration for the babe shows will not include the Cellcast shows that are registered in HOLLAND as they have no jurisdiction over the registration requirements of other country's
Interesting. Partyland seems to have a no bum clause these days, but does this mean the other Babestation channels can show more than they think? The shows seem to be very tame lately unless Camilla, Stevie and Jada are on, and maybe Karina. Tammy went fully nude a few weeks back, and I think that was on Partyland, or maybe BS2 before it changed to Partyland. Are these channels still under Offcom's censorship?
OK, no more questions from me
RE: Changes ahead - new code for babe channels - mrmann - 04-06-2010 16:56
Haha, thanks!
Ofcom statement on new censorship rules for babe channels - Scottishbloke - 14-06-2010 18:20
With reference to the new broadcasting code it appears to be a lot stricter come the 1st September 2010 than we thought with a new starting time slot of midnight which for me is totally unaceptable and has turned this country into a nanny state. Its a fucking joke. Heres the statement in full. http://www.melonfarmers.co.uk/ow.htm
RE: Ofcom statement on new censorship rules for babe channels - Grawth - 14-06-2010 22:56
(14-06-2010 18:20 )Scottishbloke Wrote: With reference to the new broadcasting code it appears to be a lot stricter come the 1st September 2010 than we thought with a new starting time slot of midnight which for me is totally unaceptable and has turned this country into a nanny state. Its a fucking joke. Heres the statement in full. http://www.melonfarmers.co.uk/ow.htm
I read the statement - it seems to me that the midnight timeslot only applies to digital Freeview, not to Cable or Satellite. So sky channels can start as they usually do.
RE: Changes ahead - new code for babe channels - HEX!T - 15-06-2010 10:46
going by that link the rules are gonna be tightened across all formats, both time and content on freeview and content on satellite.
RE: Changes ahead - new code for babe channels - Scottishbloke - 15-06-2010 16:54
If its only freeview and not sky thats affected by the new midnight timeslot then its not too bad, but what I failed to understand in that statement was that content should not be in any way sexually arousing, well fuck me but isn't that the reason why we bother to watch them. Its about as ludicrous as saying that the god channels should in no way promote religion. Ofcom don't have a fucking clue and how dare they preach to grown ups on what they deem as inappropriate material on a fucking sexline babe channel.
RE: Changes ahead - new code for babe channels - eccles - 15-06-2010 21:56
Anyone remember when the first sex shops opened? They weren't allowed to sell anything stronger than the local newsagent, just more of it.
RE: Changes ahead - new code for babe channels - TheDarkKnight - 15-06-2010 23:09
This entire episode has been a total waste of taxpayers money.
Ofcom's intent was to reclassify the babe channels into a category that would not allow for the continued broadcast of these channels. To do so, they arbitrarily decided that these shows offer no content on their own and they are there to soley sell a service. Ofcom came to this conclusion without consulting either the channels themselves, nor the actual viewers of these shows. It's quite clear to anyone who takes even a cursory look at the situation, that that is NOT the case. Many people view the shows for the stuff they see on the screen and don't ever bother to ring in, that fact alone should have given Ofcom reason to investigate further, if they were as impartial as we (the taxpayers) PAY them to be. Instead, they ignore the obvious as it gets in the way of their hidden agenda and they simply pushedahead with their plans to ban the stations altogether.
This obviously unlawful act would have succeeded had it not been for the formation of the paticipation TV group and them then paying shit loads of money to a bunch of lawyers to point out the obvious to ofcom in legal terms.
That prompted Ofcom to launch a consultation into viewers opinions on these shows. The results of which were very unsettling to Ofcom as the overwhelming majority of the people of Britain couldn't give a flying fuck about these shows being on. In fact, they even LIED about the survey results in their next consultation document and fudged the fugures to indicate their own preferences instead of those expressed by the public. (according to them, a majority of a minority is THE majority of people!)
The net result of this reclassification should have been the banning of the babe shows as they would fall under the old advertiseing standards code which simply does not allow sex in adverts. Instead, Ofcom were told that this was unlawful and if they insisted on reclassifying the shows (on the subject of which, many, many valid objections were raised but completely ignored by Ofcom as if the people saying it didn't even exist) then they would have to redo the advertiseing standards code to cater far this kind of show.
So Ofcom failed, badly. They wasted (and are still wasting) fuck loads of cash (our cash) to do essentially....nothing, nothing at all.
The bunch of cunts.
But that's not all, the whole process highlited the percieved difference between freeview and satelite broadcasts and showed it up for what it was...completely false. There IS no difference, essentially. So, what happens? Babestation launches babestation extreme on freeview and Britain has it's very first (and I'm sure not the last) softcore porn on 'normal' tele.
Way to go Ofcom, pissups a breweries spring to mind.
On another note, the consultation/survey used a selection of people that were a cross section of society, probably at the insistance of the lawyers involved. They got results which they simply did not expect and certainly which they did not like. I notice from the papers lately that the survey they recently conducted on viewers attitudes towards sex, violence, swearing and the watershed was conducted on a 'select' group of volunteers and was NOT a cross representation of British society. In other words, they asked a bunch of grannies and grandads what they thought of the swearing on mainstream TV and got the result that they expected and wanted. 'There's too much and the watershed should be pushed back to 10 or 11 o'clock' was the consencus of opinion.
I also noted that the fact that this survey was not a proper selection of society was pointed out by the press and they also pointed out that no changes would be made until a proper, representative survey was carried out. It just begs the question, why conduct a meaningless survey at taxpayers expense if its fucking useless anyway?
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Come the revolution...