Pornography to be allowed on TV

(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????

Sauna/Massage parlours in London are in fact licensed by the local authority under part ii of the London Local Authorities Act 1991 and whilst the legislation is not specific with regard to sex it does talk about the premises have been or are being improperly conducted
The majority of them in locations like Camden/Shoreditch etc are fronts for a quick handjob, blowjob, assisted shower, full on sex etc but very few, if any, complaints are made so it would be a waste of resource for the local authority or Police to carryout covert investigations. It would be cost prohibitive to secure a successful prosecution. The Police would generally be interested if money laundering or human trafficking for sexual exploitation was being carried out.
These are still two such establishments in central london but they now operate a membership scheme, not to get around the law but to make it more difficult for either the Police or LA officers to get 'offers' from the girls.
I am not aware of any specific law that prevents strippers from giving 'friction' dances. In London a specific condition on individual premises licence prevents dancers from being within 'three feet' of the punter or having prolonged contact when receiving a tip.

Back on topic

I believe the wording of the BCAP rules are clear and in plain english. R18 content or equivalent cannot be shown at anytime within advertisements, this means both still and moving images.
As Aceman65 states it will allow encrypted channels to promote their websites, DVD's etc.

No doubt the channels themselves will be looking at the requirements but if R18 content is not allowed in adverts then say goodbye to Ofcom relaxing their code for broadcasts.

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...?

(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.ph...#pid133495

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

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. 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. The more people that get involved the more are likely to let their beliefs be known when there is any consultation by a government agency on freedom of expression etc. As you say Stan 'power to the people'.

This sounds good

(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.

The thread title does indeed draw forum members to the thread...

(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.

The very first reply details the confusion the thread title caused:

(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?

And it was further confused:

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

Which led to going round in circles:

(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.

And so on:

(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.

And you have a member describe the situation perfectly:

(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.

Yet you have still have replies like this:

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

This forum isn't the Melon Farmers, to gain the true opinion of many members here you need to spell things out very clearly, for all to understand.

As it was discovered in IanG's Viewer Expectations : Audience Survey thread, things can be misinterpreted, many members became confused and thought that a change in regulation would equal their favourite Glamour model being forced into doing things that were repugnant to them:

(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.

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.

This is the view of the main player in the industry today.
He owns the largest adult film co. in the UK, he owns one of the largest adult film companies in the US:

(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'.

I will quote Aceman once again for anyone new to the thread:

(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.

I have to say i didnt understand 95% of the posts on this thread and whilst
i dont think im brain of britain i dont consider myself to be thick either but
acemans was perhaps the first one to spell it out in plain English...

Thanks for the clarification aceman and Vostock...phew that was hard reading

So Ofcon are now going to allow specific website addresses for hardcore sites to be broadcast on the encrypted channels; something that they fined at least one of the channels a hefty sum fairly recently for doing.

Why are they allowing this? From where have they got the evidence that the children who see these addresses and subsequently look them up on the web are now not likely to be in danger whereas a couple of months ago they were issuing draconian penalties on the grounds of child protection?
Who told Ofcon that there is now NO harm in publishing hardcore web addresses?

Brilliant post Vostok1!

Your quotes illustrate the classic response - that some people see what they want to see, irrespective of the clear meaning of the words in front of them.

(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.

Good case for a referral to the Competition Commission then.

(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...?

You seem if I may say so to have an unhealthy interest in this topic. Why are you so desperate to see hardcore material on t.v? There are so many places these days to watch this material; online, dvds, downloads, streaming, why is there such a necessity for it to be on television?

Everyone enjoys the Babe Channels on here, but just accept them for what they are. I am not sure why you are so passionate about such a trivial issue but just imagine if you harnessed that passion in a positive direction. No offense mate just my opinion.