+- 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 - Gold Plated Pension - 06-02-2011 04:31
Following the 2009 survey this is what was proposed before Ofc@m choose to take a cautionary approach against all evidence.
RULE CHANGES
The following rule changes are proposed, as well as others stated or implied in other sections of this document:
• Material up to and including BBFC 18 certificate strength can be transmitted after the watershed, subject to additional controls for strong sexual content.
• Strong sexual content up to cert 18 can be transmitted after the watershed provided there is a genuine educational justification.
• Brief accidental breeches, for example genitalia visible in long shot for a second while changing position, shall be tolerated.
• Strong sexual content up to cert 18 but without a genuine educational justification, including sex themed entertainment, can be transmitted after 10:30pm provided it is flagged as “18” and voluntary settings can block this.
• Strong sexual content up to cert 18 including material intended for sexual gratification or arousal can be transmitted after 10:30pm in the Adult section of an Electronic Programme Guide, such that voluntary means exist to block access to the entire Adult section.
• Strong sexual material equivalent to BBFC R18 strength can be transmitted after 10:30pm on PIN protected channels with adult verification.
• Material stronger than BBFC R18 may not be transmitted.
• Where ambiguity exists, material shall be regarded as BBFC 18 equivalent rather than BBFC R18. Material shall only be considered BBFC R18 strength if there is a prolonged clear view of genital contact. A small distant view shall not be regarded as clear.
• Being in the Adult section of an Electronic Guide shall be regarded as editorial justification for sexual content including nudity, gestures, and language, subject to access restrictions defined above.
All the controls to block channels already exist and probably can be improved to make them more secure. Other than having a permanent sign of '18' on prominent display on the screen all the requirements to allow stronger content on FTA/FTV channels exist as well as R18 on encrypted channels.
Regarding R18 material
When The Government drafted the Communications Act 2003 it had every opportunity to include a clause specifically banning the broadcast of R18 material. It is probable that the theoretical ability to do so had been pointed out by both the previous regulators and by civil servants with expertise in broadcasting.
Indeed the BBC’s long-standing right to transmit any sexual content it saw fit was well known, and the introduction of external regulation was widely commented on.
Likewise Parliament had every opportunity to introduce an amendment banning transmission of R18-strength material. Not only did Parliament not pass such an amendment, so far as is know, there was not even a serious minority call in the house to do so that was defeated. It is therefore arguable that by specifically banning R18 material, OfC@m has exceeded what Parliament intended.
R18 is not banned by criminal law but by a regulator not wanting to bring the wrath of the moralistic minority onto their heads.
It has always been subject to challenge but no 'adult' broadcaster has either had the money, inclination or desire to tread that path even though the ECHR would support such a position.
I am currently looking into the ECHR case studies regarding licenses and administrative law decisions and will post soon.
RE: Ofcom Discussion - Tonywauk - 06-02-2011 10:06
(06-02-2011 04:31 )Gold Plated Pension Wrote: Following the 2009 survey this is what was proposed before Ofc@m choose to take a cautionary approach against all evidence.
RULE CHANGES
The following rule changes are proposed, as well as others stated or implied in other sections of this document:
All most interesting and i doubt that any of us would argue with the majority of the points. However the question arises as to who proposed the listed rule changes and to whom?
RE: Ofcom Discussion - StanTheMan - 07-02-2011 00:38
(06-02-2011 10:06 )Tonywauk Wrote:(06-02-2011 04:31 )Gold Plated Pension Wrote: Following the 2009 survey this is what was proposed before Ofc@m choose to take a cautionary approach against all evidence.
RULE CHANGES
The following rule changes are proposed, as well as others stated or implied in other sections of this document:
However the question arises as to who proposed the listed rule changes and to whom?
Indeed! That was going to be my question. Whoever it was had their heads screwed on much firmer than Ofcom do.
RE: Ofcom Discussion - Scottishbloke - 07-02-2011 02:39
I believe in time we will see a more gradual move towards proper R18 material as it is achievable. Other countries in Europe have questioned the censorship rules and have won. To defeat Ofcom you have to take a stand and exhaust every revenue that is possible, which none of them have so far done. If the babe channels and subscription ones did this then I think a lot of the nonsense and persistent bullying methods used by those at Ofcom will be stopped. Ofcom I don't think will go and are probably here to stay for the time being, however a high court ruling could order them not to target Adult Channels anymore, so long as they are all in the correct section of the EPG'S. Instead Ofcom will only be responsible for monitoring channels outside of the Adult Sector. Yes the likes of Babestation are still making a healthy profit even with the restrictions in place but still face the every day danger of Ofcom without notice closing them down just like they did to Bangbabes. The closure of Bangbabes should have been enough of a warning for the rest to sit up and take notice but they all appear to be perfectly happy and continuing on as if nothing has ever happened.
RE: Ofcom Discussion - vostok 1 - 07-02-2011 03:07
(07-02-2011 02:39 )Scottishbloke Wrote: I believe in time we will see a more gradual move towards proper R18 material as it is achievable. Other countries in Europe have questioned the censorship rules and have won. To defeat Ofcom you have to take a stand and exhaust every revenue that is possible, which none of them have so far done.
There is a gentleman's agreement between Benelux Ltd (Playboy/Adult channel) and Northern and Shell (TVX). Both Broadcasters have agreed to stick to a fair game and not show hardcore. Northern and Shell (TVX) did play dirty and briefly show hardcore to entice new subscribers, Benelux Ltd cried to Ofcom: a record fine.
The biggest critic of allowing Hardcore subscription TV? Not the religious nutters or the Mary Whitehouse brigade or Ofcom but the AITA, the trade body that represents licensed sex shops. They were the ones who publicly claimed that encrypted/subscription based R18 on TV is harmful, yet a hardcore DVD from a sex shop is safe.
RE: Ofcom Discussion - Gold Plated Pension - 07-02-2011 23:22
(07-02-2011 03:07 )vostok 1 Wrote:(07-02-2011 02:39 )Scottishbloke Wrote: I believe in time we will see a more gradual move towards proper R18 material as it is achievable. Other countries in Europe have questioned the censorship rules and have won. To defeat Ofcom you have to take a stand and exhaust every revenue that is possible, which none of them have so far done.
There is a gentleman's agreement between Benelux Ltd (Playboy/Adult channel) and Northern and Shell (TVX). Both Broadcasters have agreed to stick to a fair game and not show hardcore. Northern and Shell (TVX) did play dirty and briefly show hardcore to entice new subscribers, Benelux Ltd cried to Ofcom: a record fine.
The biggest critic of allowing Hardcore subscription TV? Not the religious nutters or the Mary Whitehouse brigade or Ofcom but the AITA, the trade body that represents licensed sex shops. They were the ones who publicly claimed that encrypted/subscription based R18 on TV is harmful, yet a hardcore DVD from a sex shop is safe.
Playboy TV have just been found 'In Breach' for showing R18 equivalent content during the freeview section of it's Climax 3-3 encrypted service.
Three scenes were depicted
The first scene showed two actresses‟ in a bar setting. This scene included the depiction of the insertion of a bottle, a straw, a dildo and a hand-held soft drink dispenser gun. The second scene showed what appeared to be a lone woman urinating in a barn. The third scene showed three actresses‟ in a barn who appeared to be inserting fingers and dildos into themselves and each other.
What amazes me is that when this occurred no reference was made on this forum about these scenes broadcast on the 1st July 2010. Yet some time later a complaint was received by a viewer even though Playboy themselves had contacted Ofc@m the following day about the slipup.
Anyway Ofc@m have found them in breach of
Rule 1.17 “Material equivalent to the British board of Film Classification (BBFC) R18-rating must not be broadcast at any time”.
Expect Playboy to be hung out to dry by the regulator once it finishes it's outstanding investigations.
RE: Ofcom Discussion - eccles - 07-02-2011 23:23
Todays Broadcast Bulletin has 2 interesting cases:
Hoppr Entertainment / Live 360 - Notice of Direction
Seems that Ofcom have not really known who owns/controls Hoppr since July last year, perhaps longer. Using anti-competition powers designed to prevent control of the broadcasting industry, or cross-media control of a newspaper and TV empire, Ofcom have ordered Hoppr to supply a signed document saying Regent Nominees Limited is the ultimate owner/shareholding company.
Thats right, Ofcom want to be told what they already know.
Climax 3 gets found in breach for broadcasting 30 minutes of unencrypted material back on 1 July last year. Not clear why it has taken 7 months to reach a decision when Playboy, the licence owners, admitted the offence and reported themselves.
Quote:The first scene showed two actresses' in a bar setting. This scene included the depiction of the insertion of a bottle, a straw, a dildo and a hand-held soft drink dispenser gun. The second scene showed what appeared to be a lone woman urinating in a barn. The third scene showed three actresses' in a barn who appeared to be inserting fingers and dildos into themselves and each other.
My emphasis on the second scene.
Ofcom seem to be saying that they have their own definition of R18
Quote:Various Ofcom decisions have clarified what Ofcom has regarded as content equivalent to R18-rated material
Not clear why Ofcom do not use BBFC guidelines instead of having to work out "what [they] regard as ...R18".
Quote:Ofcom first examined a scene during this broadcast which included what appeared to be a lone actress urinating. Ofcom considered that this scene had a clear focus on the act of urination and that, as with other material in this programme, was broadcast for the primary purpose of sexual arousal. In the circumstances, Ofcom considered that this particular content was of an equivalent standard to R18-rated material and its broadcast was therefore a breach of Rule 1.17.
I find it hard to belive that there was a clear shot of urine leaving the vagina, as opposed to a stream of yellow liquid between the knees that might - or might not - have been urine. Ofcom does not say that it could be seen leaving the vagina, just that the scene focussed on the act, and thats a major difference. BBFC guidelines state that R18 contains "clear images of sexual activity".
Yet again, Ofcom confuses implied and explicit.
In a yah-boo-sucks note, Ofcom go on to say
Quote:In any event, this material clearly constituted at the very least 'adult sex material' – i.e. images of a strong sexual nature that were broadcast for the primary purpose of sexual arousal and should not therefore have been broadcast without mandatory restricted access.
They might get fined for broadcasting R18.
If they do, the people who fine them will be colleagues of the people who wrote the rules, investigated the case, decided to bring the case, and then decided they had broken the rules. Under Human Rights Legislation (and Magna Carta) legal decisions should be taken by people who are impartial, not mates of the prosecution.
Thread about the broadcast here Climax3-3 Possible broadcast error! - Full frontal nudity/sextoys on 10pm Free View
RE: Ofcom Discussion - eccles - 07-02-2011 23:25
Great minds think alike.
RE: Ofcom Discussion - mrmann - 07-02-2011 23:41
This stuff was shown on ENCRYPTED tv!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
ENCRYPTED!!!!
Get a life, ofcon minions.
RE: Ofcom Discussion - eccles - 07-02-2011 23:44
(07-02-2011 23:41 )mrmann Wrote: This stuff was shown on ENCRYPTED tv!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
ENCRYPTED!!!!
Get a life, ofcon minions.
No, Playboy muffined up and put it out unencrypted.