+- 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 - HenryF - 08-02-2011 01:07
(07-02-2011 23:44 )eccles Wrote: No, Playboy muffined up and put it out unencrypted.
Yes, but: A it was shit; B no way was it equivalent to R18; C since when has implied urination been R18.
It is as nonsensical as the ruling against Asian Babes, which claimed skin toned underwear when seen from a distance left a complainant sure that the model was not wearing underwear.
There is plenty of material on the net. If these service providers are not prepared to grow a pair and work in the interest of their customer base, they should be shunned and deprived of revenue.
And just to emphasize the hypocrisy of this investigation, I've just watched Bear Grylls pull two hand-fulls of camel shit from a dead animal and squeeze the juice into his mouth, before promptly removing his tea shirt and pissing on it - definitely not implied.
RE: Ofcom Discussion - Gold Plated Pension - 08-02-2011 02:42
(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.
The backbone of the response by the Adult Industry Trades Association back in 2004 to Ofc@m was about inadequate pin protection and that broadcasters would have an unfair advantage both financially and legislatively over licensed sex shops.
The full response can be found here
http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/consultations/Broadcasting_code/responses/aita.pdf
Now i do not know what weight Ofc@m gave this response in relation to keeping R18 material off our screens but personally the claims made lack detail and evidence.
From the AITA response
'Since our launch AITA has concentrated on two main areas. Firstly, the restrictions local councils impose on sex shop licenses. At present there are only 250 sex shops nationwide. We are due to meet with the Local Government Association and the Home Office in November to discuss this in further detail.'
The stated restrictions relate to the number of licensed sex shops that local authorities allow within certain locations as permitted under Part 2 schedule 3 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982. If that number has already been granted or an application is deemed inappropriate considering the character of the area, the nature of other premises in the area, or the premises themselves then there is no appeal against this decision.
Representations by the AITA to the Home Office and the LGA have not changed this restriction nor is it likely too.
'Secondly, the restrictions governing the sale of British Board of Film Classification (BBFC) R18 certificated material. We have entered into dialogue with the Department of Culture, Media and Sport asking them to review current legislation and to provide effective enforcement against those companies trading in non classified material in order to stem the tide of grey imports from overseas. In short, we are seeking fairer trading conditions for adult retailers.'
Enforcement of the provisions of the Act lies entirely with the local authority. The greatest concentration of premises in the UK is in Soho licensed by Westminster City Council. They have a dedicated team of four officers who are constantly raiding and confiscating both classified and un-classified video's from un-licensed premises.
There is very little contact between the enforcement team and the licensed premises as their operation causes little concern in relation to nuisance, crime or harm.
Three licenses are currently available and with an annual turnover of between 1.5 to 3 million pounds per shop, depending on its location, its little wonder these operators have formed a responsible body to represent and protect their interests.
'AITA has examined OFCOM's consultation paper and paid particular interest to the section outlining the possibility of R18 movies being broadcast in UK. The committee is wholeheartedly against hardcore being broadcast on television, even through encrypted services. The Video Recordings Act (1984) restricts the sale of R18 movies from licensed sex shops ONLY and the transaction must take place, face to face, in store to ensure the customer is over the age of 18. If OFCOM were to allow R18 movies to be broadcast directly into homes with only a PIN code safeguard, we feel that this would not provide adequate
protection for minors. Furthermore, if R18 material were to be transmitted through encrypted services, broadcasters would have an unfair-advantage both financially and legislatively over licensed sex shops.'
Whether its an R18 video or a pint of beer, you have to be 18 or over to purchase such items.
There is no stated evidence that R18 pornography causes harm to minors but there is plenty of health related evidence on the physical, psychological and physiological harm relating to consumption of excess alcohol.
If under 18's can purchase alcohol due to their visual maturity, physical characteristics etc then they can also purchase an R18 video. Licensed sex shops have no additional safeguards in place over those in licensed pubs or off-licenses to minimise such purchases.
The current pin protection facility on all receiver equipment is more than adequate to block either individual channels or a block of channels. This facility could be made more secure, if the evidence was there to prove real harm to children, to pre-block these channels prior to delivery so that households have to consent to receive them. The AITA have not provided any proof to back up their claim regarding pin protection, it is just a throw away statement.
The Police no longer have any concern with licensed sex shops and do not raid such premises but are constantly working with trading standards officers to entrap alcohol licensed premises to sell to under 18's and revoke licenses.
The same as their statement concerning 'unfair advantage', it has no material relevance and is probably illegal under european law.
The Video Recordings Act (1984) restricts the sale of R18 movies from licensed sex shops ONLY and the transaction must take place, face to face, in store to ensure the customer is over the age of 18.
The same companies that the AITA represent and on whose behalf they made the above statement have also been penalised by trading standards officers for supplying R18 content through the post in breach of the VRA and also advertising mail order R18 and then supplying 18 rated content. They currently supply mail order (R18 equivalent or stronger) content through a third party from overseas (Customs and Excise prevailing) even though the financial transaction is carried out in the UK. So yeh they realy have the protection of the under 18's to heart. Get real Ofc@m.
If this organisation, through their consultation representation swayed Ofc@m in maintaining their stance on the prohibition of R18 material on encrypted TV without a shred of stated evidence then Ofc@m seriously need to listen and act upon the own consultants recommendations.
http://www.babeshows.co.uk/showthread.php?tid=14756&page=48
It's time for change.
RE: Ofcom Discussion - nailpouchofmine - 08-02-2011 02:45
(08-02-2011 01:07 )HenryF Wrote:You know what realy intrigues me guys,is why the fuck the complaining wankers had to sit through all the half hour of this slip up.(07-02-2011 23:44 )eccles Wrote: No, Playboy muffined up and put it out unencrypted.
Yes, but: A it was shit; B no way was it equivalent to R18; C since when has implied urination been R18.
It is as nonsensical as the ruling against Asian Babes, which claimed skin toned underwear when seen from a distance left a complainant sure that the model was not wearing underwear.
There is plenty of material on the net. If these service providers are not prepared to grow a pair and work in the interest of their customer base, they should be shunned and deprived of revenue.
And just to emphasize the hypocrisy of this investigation, I've just watched Bear Grylls pull two hand-fulls of camel shit from a dead animal and squeeze the juice into his mouth, before promptly removing his tea shirt and pissing on it - definitely not implied.
If they were so shocked [1 ] why were they in the adult 900 section in the first place, [ 2 ] why couldn`t they bring themselves to pressing a button on the remote,
These people that complain imo should all be named,because we don`t know if there are any real people complaining ,
or if it is just Ofcom people watching for and hoping for something that will enable them to winge at and change the rules once again.
RE: Ofcom Discussion - blackjaques - 08-02-2011 05:18
(08-02-2011 02:45 )nailpouchofmine Wrote: You know what realy intrigues me guys,is why the fuck the complaining wankers had to sit through all the half hour of this slip up.
If they were so shocked [1 ] why were they in the adult 900 section in the first place, [ 2 ] why couldn`t they bring themselves to pressing a button on the remote,
These people that complain imo should all be named,because we don`t know if there are any real people complaining ,
or if it is just Ofcom people watching for and hoping for something that will enable them to winge at and change the rules once again.
....and keep Ofcon employees in a job maybe?
RE: Ofcom Discussion - Charlemagne - 08-02-2011 16:01
Ofcom are busy with other matters this week.
They have received hundreds of complaints about rude judge Jason Gardiner from Dancing on Ice.
RE: Ofcom Discussion - RCTV - 08-02-2011 19:45
(08-02-2011 01:07 )HenryF Wrote: Yes, but: A it was shit; B no way was it equivalent to R18; C since when has implied urination been R18.
It is as nonsensical as the ruling against Asian Babes, which claimed skin toned underwear when seen from a distance left a complainant sure that the model was not wearing underwear.
There is plenty of material on the net. If these service providers are not prepared to grow a pair and work in the interest of their customer base, they should be shunned and deprived of revenue.
And just to emphasize the hypocrisy of this investigation, I've just watched Bear Grylls pull two hand-fulls of camel shit from a dead animal and squeeze the juice into his mouth, before promptly removing his tea shirt and pissing on it - definitely not implied.
who are you to judge what the content is? that's ofcoms job, they know what is and what isn't, they've broken the rules, they should pay for it, simple as. it don't matter if it was shit it was R18 material
RE: Ofcom Discussion - mrmann - 08-02-2011 20:55
(08-02-2011 19:45 )RCTV Wrote: who are you to judge what the content is? that's ofcoms job, they know what is and what isn't, they've broken the rules, they should pay for it, simple as. it don't matter if it was shit it was R18 material
Who are ofcon to judge the content for us? Can you answer that? Why should their views matter more than the huge number of people who enjoy these shows and dislike the silly censorship? Why did ofcon do a survey, only to reject it when they didn't get the answers they wanted?
RE: Ofcom Discussion - Scottishbloke - 08-02-2011 21:28
Ofcom should be stripped of their right to govern all TV and Media and should only serve in the interest of the consumer part of things only. All censorship should be banned, ofcom are an unelected bunch of fuck wits living in their own illusion of half baked conclusions. I couldn't give 2 flying fucks what is broadcast on the telly because with as many channels to choose from if I don't like something I don't watch it. Television is classed as entertainment for all as should be taken with a pinch of salt. The world we live in is fucked up something bad. There are real everyday issues which should and have to be addressed. Television on the other hand well it's simply a means of escape and the only things that cause any kind of harm is in the real world and not on the telly. I've said this before if you don't like porn then don't watch it, block it from your EPG using a little technology such as your pin number. Rules for Adult Channels, nothing short of fucking ridiculous.
RE: Ofcom Discussion - eccles - 08-02-2011 21:50
(08-02-2011 02:45 )nailpouchofmine Wrote: You know what realy intrigues me guys,is why the fuck the complaining wankers had to sit through all the half hour of this slip up.
If they were so shocked [1 ] why were they in the adult 900 section in the first place, [ 2 ] why couldn`t they bring themselves to pressing a button on the remote,
What struck me was that this was on an encrypted channel. So the complainant must have deliberately tuned into the freeview in the hope to seeing strong stuff. Normally these are tape loops that last a few minutes and get stale quickly.
What are the chances of someone who would be offended by adult material tuning into an adult channel at exactly the same time the channel broadcasts the wrong tape? I blame wikileaks.
RE: Ofcom Discussion - Gold Plated Pension - 08-02-2011 21:59
(08-02-2011 02:42 )Gold Plated Pension Wrote:(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.
The backbone of the response by the Adult Industry Trades Association back in 2004 to Ofc@m was about inadequate pin protection and that broadcasters would have an unfair advantage both financially and legislatively over licensed sex shops.
The full response can be found here
http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/consultations/Broadcasting_code/responses/aita.pdf
..................
The Video Recordings Act (1984) restricts the sale of R18 movies from licensed sex shops ONLY and the transaction must take place, face to face, in store to ensure the customer is over the age of 18.
The same companies that the AITA represent and on whose behalf they made the above statement have also been penalised by trading standards officers for supplying R18 content through the post in breach of the VRA and also advertising mail order R18 and then supplying 18 rated content. They currently supply mail order (R18 equivalent or stronger) content through a third party from overseas (Customs and Excise prevailing) even though the financial transaction is carried out in the UK. So yeh they realy have the protection of the under 18's to heart. Get real Ofc@m.
If this organisation, through their consultation representation swayed Ofc@m in maintaining their stance on the prohibition of R18 material on encrypted TV without a shred of stated evidence then Ofc@m seriously need to listen and act upon the own consultants recommendations.
http://www.babeshows.co.uk/showthread.php?tid=14756&page=48
It's time for change.
There have been many prosecutions, more than 1600, since the Video Recording Act 1984 was placed on the statute list by Leon Brittan, Conservative Home Secretary. Unfortunately in his haste to rush through this Act to address the so called 'video nasty' certain provisions of the 1984 Act should have been notified in draft to the European Commission.
This notification should have happened before that Act was passed in 1984 in accordance with the Council Directive 83/189/EEC of 29th March 1983 (the technical standards directive).
Failure to notify provisions in accordance with the Technical Standards Directive had the effect that the provisions were not enforceable against individuals.
The reason why the act should have been referred to the European commission is because it constitutes a restraint on intra-EU trade, in that it entails that videos or DVDs which have not been certificated by the British Board of Film Classification (BBFC) cannot legally be imported from another EU country and then sold or rented in the UK.
So 1600+ successful prosecutions against individuals using an Act that was not legally enforceable, the majority of these carried out in Central London.
The effect of this government error not only allowed persons to sell unclassified DVD’s etc to persons of any age but any proposed prosecution or ongoing enforcement against premises concerning the sale of unclassified DVD’s had to be withdrawn and stopped.
I contacted a Senior Trading Standards Officer from Westminster City Council today regarding this situation and he confirmed that any summons served or ongoing actions against individuals had to be withdrawn.
All raids on unlicensed premises to confiscate unclassified DVD’s also had to be stopped as officer authorisations under the Act were no longer valid until legal opinion was obtained to get a work around this government error.
The work around was prior to a raid the team had to obtain a premises specific entry warrant from a magistrate under part 2, schedule 3 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982. This allowed entry and inspection power to team members into premises and any unclassified DVD’s on the premises could be confiscated but it did not permit them forced entry, so if the door was locked but the premises was operating they could not force their way in, or if the stock room door was locked they could not force entry to check stock for unclassified DVD's.
The error was finally realised in September 2009 when the government was consulting on the classification of computer games under the Digital Economy Act, some 25 years later.
This matter has now been rectified with the introduction of the Video Recording Act 2010 which received royal accent in January 2010 and repealed and revived the VRA 1984 AND has been notified to the European Commission.
So lesson learned that Authorities and the Government are not always acting within the law, and this can be said of Ofc@m when introducing new guidance that is in conflict with existing codes especially hours in addition to the watershed hour without proper consultation or reflecting public opinion.
Hopefully a broadcaster will grow some balls and confront Ofc@m face to face.