+- 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: Babestation on Freeview channel 33 (/showthread.php?tid=7157)
RE: Babestation on Freeview channel 33 - TheWatcher - 04-06-2009 18:17
Just read the latest ofcom bulletin from 26/05/09
http://www.ofcom.org.uk/tv/obb/prog_cb/obb134
Interesting reading.
RHF got fined £25000 for advertising web sites and Portland Enterprises got fined £27500 for transmitting R18-rated material.
RE: Babestation on Freeview channel 33 - Dreamlander - 04-06-2009 18:20
I hate not knowing the truth! I and other people have put forward many well thought out opinions as to why Cellcast's output varies so much over different platforms and channels,past and present.I know Cellcast will never tell and I hope to god that Ofcom don't come on here and give us their thoughts as that can only end badly for our,erm...'viewing pleasure'!
I admit defeat but will continue to read other member's comments with interest.
Dreamlander
RE: Babestation on Freeview channel 33 - Deb x - 04-06-2009 18:30
vila Wrote:The problem is that lawyers are very clever at producing bizarre interpretations of documents.Agreed. If such a thing were ever to be argued in court, it's anyone's guess as to who would win. Probably the side with the most devious lawyers. I don't know the details of any documents, so I couldn't hypothesise...
vila Wrote:I wasn’t suggesting that they have a duty to relay all such material, only that what they do handle should be relayed in its original form.That was one of my points - the broadcasting on Freeview is exactly the same as Sky, simultaneously.
Thanks for the clarification re. the origins of Freeview - I had no idea of Sky's involvement; that actually explains a lot.
vila Wrote:Rather than putting forth their own justification for the rules they might find it more convenient to blame a higher authority.Agreed again. Everyone seems very confused, though. I wonder how clear the 'guidelines' or whatever these channels have to abide by actually are. It could be a matter of BS playing on the safe side because they're not exactly sure, and are worried about interpretations of 'rules' (this links back to the first point about potentially twisty lawyers, I guess?)
Also thanks for the Ofcom clarification - I guess we'll never know for definite why it suddenly became open season on PartyGirls, then; whether it was a maverick producer, or some kind of 'set 'em free' !!!release rule from a higher authority
RE: Babestation on Freeview channel 33 - Jonnieboy - 04-06-2009 18:34
vila Wrote:From the section I quoted: "The location of the channel in the ‘adult’ section of the EPG and late transmission were not sufficient to justify these aspects of the content"Jonnieboy Wrote:Bumhole flash, in other words. And that's on Sky, *in the adult section*. The producers of the Freeview shows must be under even more pressure to "keep it clean".Why?
Right there IMO it's saying that Sky has an 'adult section' which can be used as justification for transmitting more adult content, though it didn't work in that particular case.
RE: Babestation on Freeview channel 33 - Shandy - 04-06-2009 18:56
as for party girls, i think that it was cos it was coming to the end of its license so they thought they would just say "frell it" and see what happens. it was probably done thru a shell company or something so if there was any trouble, they can ditch it and start afresh. who knows, thats just purely speculation on my part
RE: Babestation on Freeview channel 33 - Jonnieboy - 04-06-2009 18:58
TheWatcher Wrote:Just read the latest ofcom bulletin from 26/05/09In the same bulletin Playboy One responds to criticism:
http://www.ofcom.org.uk/tv/obb/prog_cb/obb134
Interesting reading.
RHF got fined £25000 for advertising web sites and Portland Enterprises got fined £27500 for transmitting R18-rated material.
"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."
Sad that they have to defend themselves by arguing that their programme wasn't titilating! The `editorial context` bit, I imagine, is what lets sexetera get away with so much.
RE: Babestation on Freeview channel 33 - Shandy - 04-06-2009 19:04
Jonnieboy Wrote:vila Wrote:From the section I quoted: "The location of the channel in the ‘adult’ section of the EPG and late transmission were not sufficient to justify these aspects of the content"Jonnieboy Wrote:Bumhole flash, in other words. And that's on Sky, *in the adult section*. The producers of the Freeview shows must be under even more pressure to "keep it clean".Why?
Right there IMO it's saying that Sky has an 'adult section' which can be used as justification for transmitting more adult content, though it didn't work in that particular case.
i read it the way you did too about the fact they're in an adult section, i don't think all freeview boxes have that do they? well my freeview doesn't anyway.
RE: Babestation on Freeview channel 33 - Deb x - 04-06-2009 19:04
Jonnieboy Wrote:Sad that they have to defend themselves by arguing that their programme wasn't titilating! The `editorial context` bit, I imagine, is what lets sexetera get away with so much.I wonder if BS could argue that they're educational, then, or instructional, or maybe even aesthetically artistic?
RE: Babestation on Freeview channel 33 - Jonnieboy - 04-06-2009 19:22
Deb x Wrote:I wonder if BS could argue that they're educational, then, or instructional, or maybe even aesthetically artistic?Or maybe commenting on texts counts as editorial
RE: Babestation on Freeview channel 33 - vila - 04-06-2009 20:37
Deb x Wrote:That was one of my points - the broadcasting on Freeview is exactly the same as Sky, simultaneously.I think you’re misunderstanding my point. I said they should neither alter the material nor require it to be altered before they transmit it. BS1 and Partyland are broadcasting material of a certain strength up until the respective times that their Freeview slots commence. At that point the type of material is changed to one of lesser strength. If it is Freeview enforcing that change they are effectively altering the programme content at that point in time and preventing their viewers from seeing the type of material which is freely available to Sky viewers up to that moment. The fact that the Sky content also changes at that time is an inevitable consequence of the fact that it’s all coming from a common source. In fact in one respect this makes it even worse, because they are then not only forcing the programme maker to alter the content before transmission on Freeview, they are also enforcing a change in the content being transmitted on an entirely different platform over which they have no jurisdiction whatsoever.
Jonnieboy Wrote:From the section I quoted: "The location of the channel in the ‘adult’ section of the EPG and late transmission were not sufficient to justify these aspects of the content"But a few posts back it was pointed out that this ‘adult section’ only applies to one method of accessing the channels and that by other methods adult channels can be very close to kids’ channels. On Freeview, Partyland started out topless from day one, but is right next to the kids’ channels. On the other hand, Party People and Babestation 1 are next to the block of subscription channels (on Freeview!) which, as kids are unable to take out subscriptions, could be argued to be ‘adult’ channels.
Right there IMO it's saying that Sky has an 'adult section' which can be used as justification for transmitting more adult content, though it didn't work in that particular case.