+- 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!!! - HoneyRocks - 09-11-2011 21:37
The whole thing about Babestation broadcasting with a Dutch license via our terrestrial digital tv transmitters is a bit of a bizarre one as ultimately all uk digital tv multiplex transmitters are responsibilty of Ofcom as per the uk government rules.
You can bet ya bottom dollar the Dutch government would not let you broadcast via their terrestrial transmitter mutiplexes with a uk licence or not conforming to certain very strict rules that all Dutch tv has to conform too.
RE: 110k Playboy Fine!!! - StanTheMan - 09-11-2011 23:07
(09-11-2011 21:19 )mr mystery Wrote: 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 .
I'm sorry, mr mystery, I know you're only reporting things you've heard and read elsewhere - and I don't doubt Ofcom have said the things you say, but all this is complete nonsense.
There is an argument that says the reason Babestation don't take advantage of their Dutch license is because they don't want to outdo their PPV show on Freeview, but that doesn't explain why the cameramen on this channel are constantly cropping and hurriedly cutting away from the girls - in exactly the same way the cameramen on all the other channels do - whenever they accidentally reveal more than they should.
It's one thing them not wanting to outdo their ppv show, but if they didn't have to stick to Ofcom's rules, there's no way they'd be as cautious about accidental slips and flashes as they are.
RE: 110k Playboy Fine!!! - mrmann - 09-11-2011 23:14
I think the channels should designate one channel to be a secret channel that only trusted members know of, where we can punch a code into our TV and it will appear, without censorship. The codes could be given to trusted callers and viewers, and the threat of forum banning could be imposed if anyone reveals what the codes are. That might be a fun way to do a proper adult show for once. The producers of these channels could give the codes to the admins/mods here, and they could give it to those they trust. It wouldn't even have to be all the time, just every once and a while. Power outages would be a nice cover
RE: 110k Playboy Fine!!! - mr mystery - 09-11-2011 23:20
We are going off track a bit from what was supposed to be about Playboy's 110k fine , but the simple answer is that BS are cautious at times because their Dutch licenced channel on Sky shows the same feed as their Ofcom regulated freeview channel and their Dutch licenced freeview channel (BS Xtra) shows the same feed as their Sky Ofcom regulated Sky channel (910) BS Blue is Ofcom licenced on Sky and freeview , so for most of the time what is shown on tv from BS is regulated by Ofcom . Like i said earlier if Playboy/RLC used a oversees licence even if content was the same as Ofcom regulated channels they wouldn't be getting Ofcom fines , also if they ever get a freeview channel like Cathy said they will be getting then a Dutch licence would allow them to broadcast before 12am .
RE: 110k Playboy Fine!!! - shylok - 10-11-2011 18:27
I feel we were completely lied to by the Tories regarding "getting rid of quangos" and "more personal freedoms"! As for the Liberals what a crock, they have just bent over like a good puppies do (prostituted themselves for a minor sniff of political power). What a bunch of fucking terrible liars!!! OFCOM can suck my dick.
[split] 110k Playboy Fine!!! - shylok - 10-11-2011 18:43
BTW as if we're not pissed off enough already! Read this baby:
http://www.ofcom.org.uk/files/2011/05/salary-disclosure-2011.pdf
Fucking greedy pigs with snouts in the trough. The 'best part' of this is WE ARE PAYING THEIR WAGES (checkout your next income tax bill)!!!!!
RE: 110k Playboy Fine!!! - Sootbag1 - 10-11-2011 20:34
The jurisdiction issue seems to be complicated (unsurprisingly!), but I've found two documents that may help shed some light.
The first one is Article 2 of the EU's Audiovisual and Media Policies Directive. This focuses on the subject of 'jurisdiction'. There's a bit to read there, but I think the key point is:
"To avoid cases of double jurisdiction or absence of jurisdiction, each provider of media services comes under the jurisdiction of one and only one EU country for the purposes of the directive. This will depend chiefly on where their central administration is located and where management decisions are taken on programming or selection of content. Further (subsidiary) criteria include the location of the workforce and any satellite uplink, and the use of a country’s satellite capacity."
It may be argued therefore that if a channel's central administration, management and workforce are all based in the UK, then UK (ie. Ofcom) jurisdiction applies.
On Ofcom's website, they provide a PDF document setting out their guidelines for dealing with regulators in other EU member states in relation to UK-licensed TV channels. I accept that this is the other way round than what we're discussing, but it does say at one point:
"Ofcom regularly receives and deals with complaints about services which fall under UK jurisdiction (and therefore hold a licence granted by Ofcom) but which are receivable in other Member States of the European Union. Ofcom believes there are benefits of cooperation with the official regulators of other Member States, to assist each other in the handling of complaints concerning such services. In the same way, should there be complaints from UK audiences concerning services established (and licensed) in other Member States, Ofcom would appreciate the regulators of such services reciprocating, insofar as is possible, the principles set out in this guidance."
Does any of this help move things forward?
RE: 110k Playboy Fine!!! - StanTheMan - 10-11-2011 20:42
(10-11-2011 18:29 )terence Wrote:(10-11-2011 02:17 )StanTheMan Wrote: I hope the cocks of every single Ofcom board member fall off!
including the female members!
No, I hope they get fanny rot.
RE: 110k Playboy Fine!!! - StanTheMan - 10-11-2011 20:47
(10-11-2011 19:45 )BarrieBF Wrote:(09-11-2011 19:40 )MARCCE Wrote: The big clue is in the repeated statement that channels broadcasting as advertisement channels have "less latitude" than channels broadcasting editorial content.
It's worth highlighting this point because it seems to be something that a lot of people here overlook.
It's overlooked because it's ridiculous. If the babe channels are truly categorised as shopping channels, then they're breaking every rule in the book because nudity and overtly provocative behaviour isn't allowed in advertising, therefore Ofcom themselves should be heavily fined for allowing such content on shopping channels.
... now there's a thought.
RE: 110k Playboy Fine!!! - continental19 - 10-11-2011 21:57
I no i mentioned it in one of my earlier posts, but is there any way we could expose ofcom to a european Regulator? The government of the day are doing F**K ALL at this moment in time, i don't no, maybe I'm falling short of some idea's
