+- 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 - eccles - 17-06-2011 22:36
Thanks to GPP for the detailed EU rules defining which country has responsibility for a broadcaster. I have said several times it is where a broadcast was uplinked from. In fact that is only the fallback position for broadcasts from outside the EU. In most cases, as GPP points out, the main factors are where a broadcaster has its HQ and where editorial decisions are made.
When it comes to Babestation it makes no sense to simulcast on Dutch and UK licences. Ownership, HQ, editorial decisions and production have to be the same for both. Meaning a strict application of the rules would mean both channels falling under the same country. (Unless the simulcast was parttime, in which case it could be argued that it was a bought in feed with separate editorial decisions).
That depends on strict application of the rules. If the UK Babecast channel is authorised Ofcom has nothing to gain by wasting £000s on demanding a Dutch doppelgander into UK regulation. And if the content is tame by Dutch standards does anyone think the Dutch would give a toss?
It only becomes an issue if Ofcom fine a channel (what is the qualifying revenue?) or ban one.
So a broadcaster with a sense of self preservation would abide by UK rules, but might not waste money reregistering an inherited channel. And it could be useful to keep Dutch registration in reserve just in case the UK channel ever does get banned.
With a bit of thought the channels could be juggled and BSExtreme put out on a purely Dutch licence, perhaps even on both Freeview and Sky, and Dutch strength hardcore shown. The big question is why this step has not been taken. It could be linked to annual subscriptions, trying viewers into spending at least £120 a year. £5.99 for just one night is expensive by comparison, but it may be that there are more people who will shell out £5.99 several times a month on a casual basis than will sign up for a year. BS now has (short) encrypted live shows 7 days a week which suggests they are not exactly struggling to find paying customers.
And that could be crux of it. They already have enough paying customers to make lice shows 7 nights a week worthwhile. What incentive do they have to incur the wrath of the Daily Mail, Ofcom and RentAQuote MPs and be targetted by inventive new regulations in 6 months time? Ofcom might not be able to touch them directly but BCAP or ICTIS might.
RE: Ofcom Discussion - Scottishbloke - 17-06-2011 23:08
Well if you think that the UK is bad for censorship, think again the USA is even worse. The recent Queen documentary on the BBC is to be screened across the pond however in an edited manner, ie censored
http://www.queenonline.com/en/news-archive/days-our-lives-us-airing/
RE: Ofcom Discussion - eccles - 17-06-2011 23:44
(17-06-2011 23:08 )Scottishbloke Wrote: Well if you think that the UK is bad for censorship, think again the USA is even worse. The recent Queen documentary on the BBC is to be screened across the pond however in an edited manner, ie censored
http://www.queenonline.com/en/news-archive/days-our-lives-us-airing/
For what I hear TV broadcast by TV signals is very tame and is regulated by the FCC, but cable is treated as buyers risk and pretty much unregulated. The argument is that the buyer has made an informed choice. I suspect it is more complex with graduations. Does anyone have first hand knowledge?
RE: Ofcom Discussion - Scottishbloke - 17-06-2011 23:51
That's actually a good argument eccles that the babe channels on SKY could use, no babe channels are on cable in this country so yes it is a buyers market and with the babe channels being on SKY, easy solution if you don't want them get cable instead but seeing as they can be blocked via the parental control button they should be immune to ofcom regulating seeing as all safety measures are currently in place anyway.
RE: Ofcom Discussion - StanTheMan - 18-06-2011 22:45
(17-06-2011 22:29 )sophia knight so sexy Wrote: i dont know why ofcom bothers with the babechannels because none of us would be offended if they showed more
Except Cellcast, of course, cos then they wouldn't be able to charge people £5 a night
RE: Ofcom Discussion - operoc25 - 27-06-2011 20:13
Thanks to Ofcom the girls on Elite cant be sexual. I can under stand this being the case of the 9-10 slot with is rated 15+ on TV but after 10 its rated 18+. Because of this the girls on elite are not as energetic or lively anymore, this also excludes the 2-4-1s being very sexy as the would be if it wasnt for ofcoms stupid/reduiculus reglations and rules, this makes the girls very boring to watch.
Argue with me if you will but thats my outlook on the situation.
RE: Ofcom Discussion - skully - 29-06-2011 15:51
Quote:Channel 5 faces Ofcom investigation over risqué daytime promos
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/jun/29/channel-5-ofcom-candy-bar-girls
Have Ofcom gone mad
In this case I see their point. I was watching erm...neighbours (shut it) and the advert came on, it was 'lesbian, lesbian, lesbian, but not what you think'. Nothing wrong with lesbians (I like their movies), but in this case it's kinda hinting something sexual...or maybe I've just got a dirty mind. Anyway, I like lesbians, they're good peeps
RE: Ofcom Discussion - Scottishbloke - 29-06-2011 15:58
(29-06-2011 15:51 )skully Wrote: In this case I see their point. I was watching erm...neighbours (shut it) and the advert came on, it was 'lesbian, lesbian, lesbian, but not what you think'. Nothing wrong with lesbians (I like their movies), but in this case it's kinda hinting something sexual...or maybe I've just got a dirty mind. Anyway, I like lesbians, they're good peeps
Watching Neighbours
I haven't watched watched that in years, but when I did used to watch soaps I was allways more of a home and away man myself, an episode that springs to mind is when the summerbay babes decided to raise some money for charity so they decided to do a spot of bikini car wash's 
and that is still more than the babe channels are allowed to show at 9PM, another programme that springs to mind is Baywatch back in the Pamela Anderson era and it was broadcast at 1705 on a Saturday and that never had any complaints also to think of it, certainly not from me, thank fuck when I was growing up the TV was no way near as censored as it currently is now.
RE: Ofcom Discussion - eccles - 30-06-2011 02:25
Guardian Wrote:Each of the on-air promos for the new reality show feature teasing close-up images that appear to be of two women engaged in sexual activity, intercut with lines such as 'Red... hot... lesbians' and 'Pussy... loving... ladies'.
Wider shots then reveal the women to be engaged in more innocent activities, such as a gym workout and a woman stroking a toy cat in another's lap, with the voiceover stating, "Well, what were you expecting?", before a plug for Candy Bar Girls.
The promos could be seen as a humorous take on the sort of content that appears on Desmond's adult pay-TV channels, which include Red Hot and Fantasy.
If only the content was like that.
[split] Elite TV - General Chat & Discussion - derek purcell28 - 06-07-2011 00:10
ofcom are fucking stupid tightend up rules on night shows no wounder the girls are not suppose to do much but the that take the risk are the brave ones
before long bastard ofcom may tightning the rules up even more than we be seeing girl lying down all the time not that enjoyable.
Do these girls flash her pussy`s in front of the camera do they wank themsleves off in front of camera on these shows NO THEY DONT OFCOM HOPE UR READING THIS GET A FUCKING LIFE AND LIFT SOME OF NIGHT TIME RULES