+- 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: 110k Playboy Fine!!! - Scottishbloke - 09-11-2011 18:56
Yes the way it works is Ofcom have to get in touch with the Dutch regulator who will then investigate but Ofcom knowing that this is the same regulator that allows Sexysat TV to broadcast who would more or less dismiss the complaint like a crumb that's fallen on your lap out of hand wouldn't even bother with the all the hassle that would be involved and that's exactly why Babestation to my knowledge do not have Ofcom on their backs and have remained hassle free for some time now, I urge Playboy to change their licence to a Dutch one in order to escape the Ofcom persecution
RE: 110k Playboy Fine!!! - shylok - 09-11-2011 19:00
(09-11-2011 18:56 )Scottishbloke Wrote: Yes the way it works is Ofcom have to get in touch with the Dutch regulator who will then investigate but Ofcom knowing that this is the same regulator that allows Sexysat TV to broadcast who would more or less dismiss the complaint like a crumb that's fallen on your lap out of hand wouldn't even bother with the all the hassle that would be involved and that's exactly why Babestation to my knowledge do not have Ofcom on their backs and have remained hassle free for some time now, I urge Playboy to change their licence to a Dutch one in order to escape the Ofcom persecution
100% with you Scottishbloke. This seems like a no brainer which begs the question why hasn't it happened so far??? Must be a catch? Think of the extra business they could do!
RE: 110k Playboy Fine!!! - mr mystery - 09-11-2011 19:06
(09-11-2011 18:49 )StanTheMan Wrote:(09-11-2011 18:46 )mr mystery Wrote: It makes a hell of a lot of difference if you don't have a Ofcom licence , even if you have to adhere to the same regs Ofcom can't give you a 110k fine , Ofcom can't hand out fines to channels that don't use their licence .
But that doesn't make much sense. If a channel with a foreign license can't be fined by Ofcom, why would they need to bother adhering to their regs?
Because according to the BS rep it doesn't matter what licence you use it doesn't pay to draw attention to yourself , in other words if a babe channel operator with a overseas license started showing more explicit material than a Ofcom licence allowed it could well open up a whole can of worms , other channels would complain about the unfair restricted Ofcom rules that they have to operate under whereas competitors could get away with more , so it wouldn't be a level playing field so to speak . Ofcom could then always bring out some new rules or other restricting overseas licence holders , it just doesn't pay to rock the boat , Cellcast are quite happy to adhere loosely to Ofcom regs , but don't forget the Dutch licence's BS have prevents them from fines and allows them to start 2 hours earlier than Ofcom regs allow babe channels to start on freeview .
RE: 110k Playboy Fine!!! - mr mystery - 09-11-2011 19:33
A couple of quotes here from BS , they give a few hints of the relationship they have with Ofcom and their Dutch licence
(05-10-2011 15:07 )babestation
I don't think it matters what licensing laws we broadcast under; sometimes it's just good to not bring an extra attention on yourself. I'm not saying 100% that's the reason, it's mere speculation by me, but probably has something to do with it.
[/quote' Wrote:(09-11-2011 01:03 )babestation Wrote: [quote='Scottishbloke' pid='937658' dateline='1320800475']
Aye well when the money drys up no doubt you'll change your policy, same applies to any of you lot attempting to bring down Ofcom either
we don't need to try and "bring Ofcom down"
I believe Playboy by the fact that they already broadcast in Europe could use a oversees licence to transmit in the UK in the same way that BS does , content would probably be the same as Babestations , but it would largely render them immune from Ofcom fines .
RE: 110k Playboy Fine!!! - shylok - 09-11-2011 19:40
My guess is that under a Dutch licence both RLTV and Elite would 'turn the wick up'. Only hope one day...
RE: 110k Playboy Fine!!! - StanTheMan - 09-11-2011 20:09
(09-11-2011 19:06 )mr mystery Wrote: Because according to the BS rep it doesn't matter what licence you use it doesn't pay to draw attention to yourself , in other words if a babe channel operator with a overseas license started showing more explicit material than a Ofcom licence allowed it could well open up a whole can of worms , other channels would complain about the unfair restricted Ofcom rules that they have to operate under whereas competitors could get away with more , so it wouldn't be a level playing field so to speak .
I think it's fairly safe to assume, from the vast number of conflicting views we get on this subject, that no one really know the ins and outs of this - not in any great detail.
I cannot accept that simply having a Dutch license means your output can't be monitored or interfered with by Ofcom. If it was this simple, do you not think that someone would have seen the potential market by now and exploited the 'loophole' (if one exists) to the max?
My belief is that if you chose to occupy a slot on Sky's EPG, you simply have to go by Ofcom's rules, regardless of where your license was obtained.
Now, given that a Sky box is essentially nothing more than a fta receiver, I see no reason why one of these channels couldn't obtain a Dutch license and branch off into the fta market (as shylok suggests). So long as they have the appropriate license and don't occupy a slot on the Sky platform, then I would accept that Ofcom couldn't touch them.
RE: 110k Playboy Fine!!! - mr mystery - 09-11-2011 20:18
Well if you have to adhere to Ofcom rules on Sky even with a Dutch adult non teleshopping licence you definitely don't have to abide by Ofcom's rules on freeview , Ofcom's Freeview babe channel rules state that free to air babe channels can't start before 12am , Babestation ignore this Ofcom UK licence rule and start their babe channel at 10pm .
RE: 110k Playboy Fine!!! - shylok - 09-11-2011 20:32
This whole area needs testing me thinks. Just need a channel with enough resource to try it...
RE: 110k Playboy Fine!!! - StanTheMan - 09-11-2011 20:50
(09-11-2011 20:18 )mr mystery Wrote: ...you definitely don't have to abide by Ofcom's rules on freeview...
So do I take it from that the freeview girls are sticking dildos and various vegetables up themselves?? They either do or they don't abide. You can't abide slightly.
RE: 110k Playboy Fine!!! - mr mystery - 09-11-2011 21:19
(09-11-2011 20:50 )StanTheMan Wrote:(09-11-2011 20:18 )mr mystery Wrote: ...you definitely don't have to abide by Ofcom's rules on freeview...
So do I take it from that the freeview girls are sticking dildos and various vegetables up themselves?? They either do or they don't abide. You can't abide slightly.
All i know is that Ofcom themselves have said they do not regulate Babstation because the channel is licenced in Holland , when new rules were brought in last year the babe channels were redefined as advertising/teleshopping programs, babe channels had to apply for new licences and adhere to new rules , Ofcom said in one of their bulletins that the new rules wouldn't apply to Babesation because they were exempt from Ofcom regulations because they had a oversees licence . Like BS posted , it's not good to draw extra attention to yourself . If Ofcom state themselves they do not regulate the BS channels on Sky or freeview with the Dutch licence then that's good enough for me .
{edit} just i quick edit in reference to what StanTheMan says about girls on freeview "sticking dildos and various vegetables up themselves" (i know he wasn't being serious) don't forget the channels are still regulated and have rules to adhere to , do girls on unencrypted live Dutch tv stick dildos and vegetables up themselves ?? , do girls on eUrotic tv and BS 24 dildo and stick vegetables up themselves ?? , the answer is probably not , just because Ofcom say themselves that they do not regulate BS doesn't mean it a free for all were anything goes .