+- 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 stuff - ledders69 - 05-11-2010 20:37
Blatant double standards from ofcom, one rule for one and another rule for another. Doesn't make any sense whatsoever and would love to look at Ofcoms faces if they are fired. They need to get a grip fast or be consigned to history. So it's ok for Sexcetra on SKY173 showing womens private parts, but with babe channels it's a different ball game. Ofcom should live in the 21st Century instead of living in the past all of the time. An absolute waste of tax payers money.
RE: Ofcom stuff - Sootbag1 - 06-11-2010 19:55
(05-11-2010 20:37 )ledders69 Wrote: Blatant double standards from ofcom, one rule for one and another rule for another. Doesn't make any sense whatsoever and would love to look at Ofcoms faces if they are fired. They need to get a grip fast or be consigned to history. So it's ok for Sexcetra on SKY173 showing womens private parts, but with babe channels it's a different ball game.
I'm afraid it is a different ball game. Sexcetra is not trying to entice you to call a premium rate telephone number by using sexual imagery as encouragement. The babe channels are. That makes all the difference to Ofcom.
RE: Ofcom stuff - eccles - 06-11-2010 23:49
Stumbled across "Dance Off Pants Off" on MTV Sky 160 last night. Very late, first a celeb version where nothing was shown, then the normal version - a series of "normal" people dance to music and get their kit off. Some do actually show the lot.
Two male dancers first, one young, one old and fat, both showed cock. Then a slightly plump female dancer, bit coy showing her tits but a bit of muff was shown. Then another male dancer, ended up waggling his cock, and finally a fit 19 year old, not at all shy about showing her tits after her bodice came off, but didnt get to see the pants come off.
Basically a series of strips with varying amounts of genital flashes, and no discenable dramatic justification. Only context seems to be that the show is about strpping to music.
RE: Ofcom stuff - Gold Plated Pension - 07-11-2010 12:42
Sootbag1 as the mouthpiece for Ofcom on this forum exactly what is unlawful about using sexual imagery to entice people to use premium rate services.
No doubt you are aware that some years ago Ofcom were trying to close down these free to view channels or make them go encrypted in line with the BCAP advertising standards code. Ofcom stated
'If it is a prohibited advertising category under the BCAP Advertising Code, i.e. adult chat on unencrypted channels it must be taken off air.'
There was also a judgement made by the Eurpeon Court of Justice on 18th October 2007 that stated a quiz show using PRS could be classified as teleshopping. Ofcom believed that the significance of the ECJ’s judgement extended beyond blocks of quiz TV to other genres of Participation TV displaying similar characteristics, for example adult chat TV. This reinforced their position concerning encryption or removal.
Following consultation Ofcom ruled that all adult chat participation tv broadcasts using PRS would be regarded as teleshopping and as such all broadcasters had to reflect this on their licence. Both the Broadcasting Code and Advertising Code were also updated to reflect this and came into effect on the 1st September 2010.
Therefore Adult chat using sexual imagery to entice viewers to phone using PRS is now teleshopping and permitted under the ASA code, section 22 and 23.
Any complaint made concerning a broadcast after the 1st September should strictly be dealt with by the ASA who following a negative decision can request Ofcom to sanction/penalise the broadcaster.
Should Ofcom now need to get involved if the ASA deem an adult broadcast (advert) acceptable, even if a similar broadcast prior to September was deemed to be in breach by Ofcom. No doubt Ofcom will have their way.
RE: Ofcom stuff - lucent-x - 07-11-2010 13:54
(06-11-2010 19:55 )Sootbag1 Wrote: ... Sexcetra is not trying to entice you to call a premium rate telephone number by using sexual imagery as encouragement. The babe channels are. That makes all the difference to Ofcom.
So presumably then Ofcom should have no issue with say BS Extreme broadcast unencrypted and free as there's no advertising or encouragement to call involved?
RE: Ofcom stuff - Sootbag1 - 07-11-2010 14:23
(07-11-2010 12:42 )Gold Plated Pension Wrote: Sootbag1 as the mouthpiece for Ofcom on this forum exactly what is unlawful about using sexual imagery to entice people to use premium rate services.
You know that I'm not the mouthpiece for Ofcom, I just think it helps to understand your opponent and their motivations, rather than us just sitting round here agreeing that the world is shit. If it was up to me, I would clamp down more on the daytime nudety and sexual content (implied or explicit) but allow full nudity on night times. I would also allow hardcore pornography on TV so long as it was behind the firewall of a monthly subscription channel.
I'm not as familiar as Gold Plated Pension helpfully is regarding all the rules and regulations, but his post does raise one question: If the content of babe channels since 1 September is considered advertising (for the premium rate phone lines) and should be dealt with by the ASA, why are complaints still being considered by Ofcom? And what has anyone on here done about asking Ofcom why they are considering complaints that should, in the first instance, be considered by the ASA?
RE: Ofcom stuff - Scottishbloke - 07-11-2010 22:06
I actually think not just the babe channels but for all the channels the watershed rule should actually be abolished and propose that anything of an adult nature before 9 O'clock should be pin protected as these days we all work in a 24 hour society and this has to also reflect on our tv viewing habits. If the watershed rule was abolished I also think that the babe channels would get an easier life from the likes of ofcom who instead should only be fining channels if something of an adult nature is shown before 9 is not pin protected. Its the 21st century and drastic changes are needed.
RE: Ofcom stuff - eccles - 09-11-2010 22:25
Found this on the Ofcom site:
European and international Ofcom activities
Here is the complete list of their European activities:
1) Ofcom guidelines for dealing with regulators of other EU member states in relation to the UK-Licensed television channels (129 kB)Published 09|04|10.
2) Cooperation and Exchange of Information - Memorandum of Understanding - Published 25|10|07.
3) Ofcom Response to EU Consultation on Application of State Aid Rules to Public Service Broadcasting
Er, thats it.
And just one Memorandum of Understanding with another regulator (the Swedish one), so plenty of evidence that Ofcom have a great working relationship with the Dutch who will, of course, just roll over and clamp down on broadcasts aimed at the UK.
RE: Ofcom stuff - ledders69 - 09-11-2010 22:28
More ofcom rubbish as per usual. Time to flush ofcom down the toilet and consign themselves to history
RE: Ofcom stuff - eccles - 10-11-2010 02:14
It gets worse.
Under the Video On Demand regulations anyone wishing to provide an On Demand Programme Service (ODPS) must "retain a recording of all content (both editorial and advertising) for 42 days from the date it was last made available to users of the service"
Imagine an investigation into whether something was suitable or not. Big national broadcaster supplies library tape of show to the ATVOD (Association for Video On Demand, co-regulator). But they come back and ask about adverts. Big broadcaster then supplies the ASA (Advertising Standards Authority, other co-regulator) with library tapes of adverts including those annoying ones at the start of the show and the transparent stuff across the bottonm of YouTube.
The ASA says Yes, but which adverts did you show when this viewer down loaded your show? And where were the advertising breaks placed?
The broadcaster says Dunno, the regulations say we have to give you the bits, not say how they were put together.
The two regulators then say that does not give a fair and accurate picture of the content as seen, and which adverts were shown makes a difference. Imagine a condom ad in the middle a gritty rape scene in Taggart. Or KY jelly in Balamory.
Suddenly the suppliers of Video On Demand are told to keep exact recordings of each download - with overlays - as it leaves their computers, or precise records of combinations of shows and adverts, and their costs go through the roof. What used to be a free ownload costs storage.
http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/broadcasting/tv/video-on-demand/vod-regulation