(25-06-2010 14:15 )mrmann Wrote:  

(25-06-2010 07:41 )sweetsugar007 Wrote:  

(25-06-2010 00:04 )chrislatimer Wrote:  interesting development.

oh and prostetution or however u spell it is illegal dude.

Well speaking legally prostitution isn't actually illegal its the solicitation of sexual servercies which is!!!

Not to drift off topic, but I've walked past quite a few massage parlors in London, that say sauna etc, but are clearly brothels as well. I don't recall seeing these saunas in central London, as most of those places are just strip clubs, but I've seen saunas in Camden, Shoreditch and even drove past one near Euston Station. Are far as I can tell, those places are still in business, so obviously it's something that the government is overlooking, probably because they are making money off of it. The same can be said for strip clubs that aren't allowed to have women actually sit on your laps, because they don't have a license. For the license, you have to pay money to the government. It's all about money. Also, I know for a fact that there are escort services all around London, that haven't been shut down. All of this stuff except for the strip clubs is a form of prostitution. The sad truth, is that the reason street prostitution is illegal, is because the government can't make money off of it! There's also more of a risk for disease, I would think, than that of an escort agency. I find all forms of prostitution to be a bit morally wrong in general, but it doesn't bother me that escort services exist. Some people have it so bad in life, that they'll never find an attractive woman to be with them, so as long as they aren't bad people, I can't really judge them for wanting to pay for sex with a beautiful woman.

So midnight is the new watershed. OK, so can we now finally see full frontal please????

(27-06-2010 20:31 )vostok 1 Wrote:  

(27-06-2010 20:25 )StanTheMan Wrote:  So the thread title is more than a little misleading then?

Absolutely!

Worth reading this thread: http://www.babeshows.co.uk/showthread.php?tid=7367&pid=133495#pid133495

It details TVX receiving a fine for broadcasting the URL's to Hardcore websites.

(28-06-2010 15:47 )Gold Plated Pension Wrote:  Doesn't breach the advertising rules either in spirit or to the letter of the code, lol. What it does do is get peoples attention to a topic and expectation that i believe the majority of forum members want.

(28-06-2010 15:47 )Gold Plated Pension Wrote:  It then also get's certain members to research the topic and give their interpretations either rightly or wrongly, but it's their thoughts and then we have debate. Stimulia for the forum.

(24-06-2010 23:46 )mrmann Wrote:  Wow, a lot of information!

So encrypted channels will be allowed to show porn? That makes sense, but how do the rest of the babe channels fair?

(25-06-2010 01:25 )eccles Wrote:  YES this does mean R18 porn shows will be allowed under paid-for encryption.

(25-06-2010 23:13 )eccles Wrote:  As far as I can see, Encrypted shows will be allowed to go hardcore, but FreeToAir channels won't change one bit. Encrypted shows can show porn between 10pm and 5:30am on Sky, midnight to 5:30am on Freeview.

(26-06-2010 03:56 )johnm Wrote:  I dont see anywhere in the new code that says r18 material can be broadcast, all it says is that it can be advertised meaning a web address, magazine or film title, the r18 material itself will not be allowed to be broadcast on tv.

(26-06-2010 07:19 )aaron Wrote:  Exactly. That's what everyone's been saying.

(26-06-2010 11:50 )johnm Wrote:  It isnt a few have been saying the babechannels will be allowed to go hardcore as it says at the top of the post i replyed to.

(26-06-2010 22:46 )kasone Wrote:  We need to get this clarified, if someone from bluebird or another channel that surf this forum could ask their lawyers or someone with knowledge in this field, to see what can and cant be shown under these rules, we are all making claims what can and cant be shown on encrypted channel and unencrypted channels.

(27-06-2010 07:49 )aaron Wrote:  The rules seem to be written in plain English. I'm not sure why anyone would need expert knowledge to understand them.

(27-06-2010 20:50 )aceman65 Wrote:  It basically means, that channels such as TVX can advertise there hardcore website address on screen. BabeStation Extreme can advertise SexStation TV. Playboy can advertise SpiceXXX. BlueBird will be able to advertise it's R18 DVD's plus it's HardBlue web address.

But there will be no change at all in the basic programming, or the unencrypted channels.

(28-06-2010 16:55 )steven6 Wrote:  This sounds good

(18-03-2010 18:43 )vostok 1 Wrote:  It would seem that there is a danger that the "anti ofcom" voice is becoming synonymous with forcing the performers on these channels into levels of explicitness that they do not want to work to.

These channels have always had a rich mixture of glamour and adult stars. My personal belief is that Bang Babes on air content in the last few months has achieved a perfect level of explicitness for an unencrypted channel. (Obviously Ofcom do not share that opinion) While there has been certain performers who have veered into the more explicit territory on air, the more glamour orientated models such as Lilly Roma have remained at previous levels, which has given a good balance.

So just to clarify, not everyone who is critical of Ofcom is wishing to bring about a regime where Glamour models will be given a choice of "Go hardcore or get fired".

The Babe Channels are what they are, however lets hope Ofcom don't force all channels to work at the levels that TVX Dirty Talk operate at, when things become that tame then it will quite probably affect revenue, which in turn will harm the performers you are looking out for.

(25-05-2010 16:39 )BLUEBIRD OFFICIAL Wrote:  The law is what it is. We can go to court a million times: and lose - because the law is the law is the law.

We all wish it were not the law. It is the law. The Courts do not in this country overturn statutes. The prohibition on R18 is the law, because Ofcom was delegated by Parliament the statutory legal power to censor what appears on TV in this country.

Laws get changed by electing politicians to change the law. You are 1 individual - you have a vote. We are a company. We have no right to vote.

(28-05-2010 21:17 )BLUEBIRD OFFICIAL Wrote:  Ofcom has been delegated the discretion to determine the conditions upon which broadcast licences are granted and renewed. That is 'the law'.

In the exercise of its legally granted discretion, Ofcom has proscribed R18 on linear TV. That is the exercise of a legal power or authority. It is 'the law'.

(27-06-2010 20:50 )aceman65 Wrote:  It basically means, that channels such as TVX can advertise there hardcore website address on screen. BabeStation Extreme can advertise SexStation TV. Playboy can advertise SpiceXXX. BlueBird will be able to advertise it's R18 DVD's plus it's HardBlue web address.

But there will be no change at all in the basic programming, or the unencrypted channels.

(28-06-2010 18:16 )vostok 1 Wrote:  But the main point is that the Broadcasters themselves do not want to show R18 strength Hardcore!

David Sullivan does not want it.
Playboy does not want it.
TVX does not want it.

(28-06-2010 15:46 )IanG Wrote:  GPP, I'm just reading between the lines so take this with a pinch of salt.

As you may know I was involved with the R18 Ofwatch campaign back in 2002-2005/6.

When checking for info on the Comms Act I found the resposes to the Comms Bill consultation. One submission from a law prof. quoted an ECHR statement (by Judge Reinhardt iirc) : "It is undisputed that a broadcast licensing system cannot be used to restrict any legally available material", (Gropper AG v Switzerland, 1990).

As we know this did nothing to stop Ofcom maintaining the ITC R18 ban. How and why they could ignore this has always been a source of intrigue. That was until the VRA problem was uncovered. It then dawned on me that the EC didn't know R18 even existed. The Gov. argued a derrogation from TVWF over a decade ago (20 years probably) on the grounds that hardcore porn was at that time 'obscene' under UK law.

Now the VRA 2010 has gone though and our film ratings are finally recognised by the EC, it seems to me that Groppera precedent will now have to be taken notice of. After all, UK-based broadcasters are not being allowed the 'level playing field' TVFW was intended to create, and all because the info at the EC was 20 years out of date.

If Ofcom claim to be protecting children and under eighteens from some harm then they'll have to show this harm is real because, as the High Court found in 2000, the available evidence points to there being no risk of harm from R18-type material to anyone of any age. In fact what Mr Justice Hooper said was: "Based on the available evidence a reasonable person would conclude that the risk of harm to children from exposure to R18 material was insignificant". Note its what a reasonable person would concluded not an irrational censor.

I've quite literally been saying for the past 6 years that Ofcom have no more evidence of harm than the BBFC had in 2000. If they don't act as reasonable people, if they act like irrational BBFC censors did then, the outcome of a Judicial Review would surely be exactly the same? Once we add-in the HRA, ECHR Case law and all the other wierdness Ofcom have introduced in incorrectly interpreting the Comms Act, I think we can be fairly sure that a Court would not find in their favour.

Like it or not, I strongly believe R18 is now a dead cert. and there's nothing Ofcom can do about it. The only question is when will it arrive...?