+- 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: Ofcom Discussion (/showthread.php?tid=14756)
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394
RE: Ofcom Discussion - eccles - 05-03-2013 00:19
(04-03-2013 23:55 )Grawth Wrote: The report suggested that children sometimes either copied or became obsessed by pornography they had seen. ...
If this were a TV broadcast Ofcom rules would require context and balance.
How many children?
How does this compare with childrens activities before porn was widely available at low cost? How many normal well adjusted adults of today leafed through their Dads porn stash when they were children? How many normal well adjusted... first exposure to porn was from porn mags being circulated at Scout camps or in school locker rooms?
If someone becomes obsessed is it because of external influences or is it because their brains are wired for obsession and sooner or later it will happen regardless?
And lets not forget that the real screen violence in wrestling, boxing and cage fighting can be imitated by kids in school fights, as can assorted film violence. A very large number of urban school suffer from a violent gang culture.
RE: Ofcom Discussion - Digital Dave - 05-03-2013 00:31
Regarding the latest Ofcom onslaught, they seem to be blissfully unaware that SEL is a dormant, non-trading company and has been for some time. How they can still be a licensee is beyond comprehension. They have a bank balance of zero.
Furthermore, their subsidiary Sport TV (currently in liquidation) has a book value of -£794,629. Therefore I wish Ofcom luck in collecting their fine!
SEL info (courtesy of duedil.com):
![[Image: image-AADE_5135394C.jpg]](https://www.tvgirlsgallery.co.uk/image-AADE_5135394C.jpg)
Information from Duedil.com:
Sport Television Limited was founded on 12 Mar 2003 and has its registered office in Leeds. The organisation's status is 'In Liquidation', and they have 6 associated directors - 1 are current, and 5 are former. There are 2 shareholders of the company. The company has no known group companies.
The business has total assets of £652,810 plus total liabilities of £1,447,439. They are due to pay £1,447,439 to creditors and are owed back £641,868 from trade debtors. As of their last financial statement, they had £9,972 in cash reserves. The company's current book value is £-794,629, and the value of their shareholders' fund is £-794,629.
RE: Ofcom Discussion - BarrieBF - 05-03-2013 01:35
(05-03-2013 00:31 )Digital Dave Wrote: Regarding the latest Ofcom onslaught, they seem to be blissfully unaware that SEL is a dormant, non-trading company and has been for some time. How they can still be a licensee is beyond comprehension.
I agree, it makes no sense whatever. I assume you're right and that Ofcom are unaware of the situation.
RE: Ofcom Discussion - eccles - 05-03-2013 01:48
And yet SEL replied to Ofcom and defended the case. Very puzzling.
RE: Ofcom Discussion - admiral decker - 05-03-2013 12:04
(05-03-2013 01:48 )eccles Wrote: And yet SEL replied to Ofcom and defended the case. Very puzzling.
A dormant company still has directors, shareholders, contact details etc. It may not be trading but it still exists.
RE: Ofcom Discussion - mr mystery - 05-03-2013 12:49
(05-03-2013 12:04 )admiral decker Wrote:(05-03-2013 01:48 )eccles Wrote: And yet SEL replied to Ofcom and defended the case. Very puzzling.
A dormant company still has directors, shareholders, contact details etc. It may not be trading but it still exists.
True but how can a non trading dormant company pay the licences fees of 4 tv channels, Sky air time and EPG slots also have to be paid for separately for these 4 channels as well , also how can a non trading dormant company pay any Ofcom fines ? . The licence holder under Ofcom rules is the company responsible for all content and services broadcast on the channels it is the licence holder of, if Ofcom think it isn't then Ofcom can revoke a channels licence for loosing control of the channels, this happened to the Babeworld channels. So i ask how can a dormant non trading company purchase Ofcom licences, Sky EPG slots, air time and be in control of these channels if it is non trading and dormant ? , money is bound to be changing hands between Sky, SEL and Ofcom, how can this be if SEL the licence holder of the channels is dormant and non trading ?, it's totally baffled me .
RE: Ofcom Discussion - Digital Dave - 05-03-2013 13:39
It is baffling. By merely purchasing services such as the Sky epg fee, and paying for the Ofcom licence fee, SEL is effectively trading. This means that it's declared itself falsely to Companies House, which is an offence (not sure if it's a criminal or civil offence).
That in itself would make them 'unfit for purpose' as licensees. I can only assume that Ofcom don't know about SEL's status, but what a joke if that's true!
RE: Ofcom Discussion - RCTV - 05-03-2013 18:41
But who is actually paying the money, doesn't need to be SEL, could be another company owned by the directors that is trading. They could then 'give' the licence to SEL and put it in their name, so the other company pays on their behalf. not sure how legal that is with SEL not trading.
I would say it is a criminal offense.
RE: Ofcom Discussion - BarrieBF - 05-03-2013 19:05
(05-03-2013 18:41 )RCTV Wrote: But who is actually paying the money, doesn't need to be SEL,
I was thinking along those lines. Maybe before it became dormant SEL gave power of attorney to someone else to act on it's behalf, pay bills etc. For example, some people who trade as a sole trader may register a dormant company, just to prevent anyone else registering a company with that name, but they continue to carry on their business as a sole trader. SEL may exist for the sole purpose of maintaining the Ofcom licences, with any trading that is done being taken care of by another party, i.e. the company may have assigned it's rights to profit from the licenses to someone else.
RE: Ofcom Discussion - mr mystery - 06-03-2013 00:20
(05-03-2013 19:05 )BarrieBF Wrote: I was thinking along those lines. Maybe before it became dormant SEL gave power of attorney to someone else to act on it's behalf, pay bills etc. For example, some people who trade as a sole trader may register a dormant company, just to prevent anyone else registering a company with that name, but they continue to carry on their business as a sole trader. SEL may exist for the sole purpose of maintaining the Ofcom licences, with any trading that is done being taken care of by another party, i.e. the company may have assigned it's rights to profit from the licenses to someone else.
I think that sort of set up would probably be against Ofcom licence condition rules, as far as i can gather Ofcom state that the licence holder must be the company that is actively in charge of the channels it owns the licence of, they have to be actively in control the broadcast of the material shown on their channels, , you cannot keep a Ofcom licence if you are not the company that is in control of what is being broadcast on the channels that you are the licence holder of, SEL is the company that owns the licence and under Ofcom rules must be the ones in charge of content and programming show on it's channels , you cannot sublet so to speak your licence and channels to someone else, any company that took over the running and control of the channels would have to apply for a licence it's self, the channels have to pay yearly fees for their licences and submit financial statements etc to Ofcom every year (i think) to maintain their licence, if they are not thought to be in control of their licence or are in a bad financial state Ofcom may refuse to grant them a further licence, as i posted previously the Babeworld channels licence holders had their licences revoked because Ofcom thought they were not in control of their licence .
Ofcom must think that SEL is still active and in control of the programming shown on it's channels or they would have revoked their licence by know . SEL is the company that Ofcom have been dealing with concerning the in breach ruling and is the company that will be given any fines .
I still can't understand how a non trading company can still be in control of channels and have a Ofcom licence .