Anyone else losing interest?

Great post IanG.

However the broadcasters themselves have to be happy with ofcom "rules", since no legal challenge has ever taken place and the directives of the EU's Television without Frontiers policy has never been used as a defence.

A month or so away from Ofcom's consultation on the "Babe Shows" and take a look at Cellcast's current output, it would be categorised as BBFC 15 certificate. Are Cellcast giving us a glimpse into the future of all "Babe Shows"?

Would Cellcast want to make a legal challenge against the unspecified and unwritten Ofcom rules? Not while they continue to make money by the truck load. Sure, they will fight to the death to continue to be allowed to operate premium rate telephony, but I can't see them even being bothered to even ask for clarification on what they can show and what they can't show.

Just a quick comment, just to clear up all the misconceptions:

1. The four major Babeshow Broadcasters (Babeworld, Cellcast, Bang Media, and Sport) spend an inordinate amount of time, energy, effot and money chalanging OFCOM. But its like banging your head against a brick wall. Many people are unawair that last May all the channels were hours away from being taken off air because one man in OFCOM "Didnt Like Them" - Fortunately our Barrister was bigger than theirs.

2. There are no 'Truck loads of Cash' in this business - and anything that could be called a profit is chewed up in legal fees challenging OFCOM. The broadcasters dont like the situation, the performers don't like the situation, and the viewers dont like the situation.

3. OFCOM's perception of acceptable standards is based on oppion polls, and apparently nobody in this country wants to admit to watching adult content - therefore there is no need for our channels.

4. We tried to convince SKY to add PIN encryption to the channels, to appease OFCOM - They didn't want to do it, and it became very apparent that OFCOM held very little power over Sky to force them to do it.

Summary: The channels (with a few exceptions) DO care VERY much about the services they provide. We just need some of you to start making your views known to OFCOM... Because as far as they are concerned YOU don't exist or matter!!

Poor show then from SKY, and Ofcom. If Ofcom REALLY ARE protecting our children then why can't they force broadcasters to conform if they wish to broadcast content of an adult nature (ie: after 10pm). That's not my issue though. I want to know why we can't see penetration ect. on the encrypted channels. Am I NOT an Adult, can I not make my own choices? I pay for the F*cking Sky, I set the F*cking PIN, why can't I see some hardcore, as that is what you imply in your F*cking teasers...!

Calm down Steve,
Counting to 10...

(17-09-2009 01:19 )Hofmiester Wrote:  Just a quick comment, just to clear up all the misconceptions:

1. The four major Babeshow Broadcasters (Babeworld, Cellcast, Bang Media, and Sport) spend an inordinate amount of time, energy, effot and money chalanging OFCOM. But its like banging your head against a brick wall. Many people are unawair that last May all the channels were hours away from being taken off air because one man in OFCOM "Didnt Like Them" - Fortunately our Barrister was bigger than theirs..

Thats interesting. Can you provide any more info on this?

Quote:2. There are no 'Truck loads of Cash' in this business - and anything that could be called a profit is chewed up in legal fees challenging OFCOM. The broadcasters dont like the situation, the performers don't like the situation, and the viewers dont like the situation.

The publicly available figures for Cellcast would say otherwise. Can I also ask what legal challenges have been made against ofcom, other than the formation of the Participation Broadcasters association?

Quote:3. OFCOM's perception of acceptable standards is based on oppion polls, and apparently nobody in this country wants to admit to watching adult content - therefore there is no need for our channels.

4. We tried to convince SKY to add PIN encryption to the channels, to appease OFCOM - They didn't want to do it, and it became very apparent that OFCOM held very little power over Sky to force them to do it.

Was the pin protection suggestion a Babe World idea, or was it shared by others?

Quote:Summary: The channels (with a few exceptions) DO care VERY much about the services they provide. We just need some of you to start making your views known to OFCOM... Because as far as they are concerned YOU don't exist or matter!!

This forum has been going for over a year now, I always wondered why the broadcasters never asked for the support of the viewers. I'm sure many here would be more than happy to help. Perhaps you could ask a rep from the PTBA to sign up prior to the upcoming consultation and let us know what we could do.

Vostock I totally agree, I've answered the consultation on the Ofcom website regarding the channels so I would like to see what sort of response you get from your post. If they are challenging Ofcom then surely they should make some form of head way using european law directives.

Hofmiester: I am currently drafting a letter to Ofcom, it would be a big help if you could ask your bosses to ask their Lawyers these three questions and let me know.

1) Is it correct to say that the Ofcom Code has never been laid before Parliament and therefore is not law and can only be used as a guide and should comply to current legislation, specifically the EU Television Without Frontiers directive?

2) Is the Ofcom Code simply a set of guidelines to current broadcasting law and nothing more as it is not on the Statute Books and has not been laid before Parliament?

3) If you follow the guidance under the Television Without Frontiers directives you would comply with the law, so why have you been fined for broadcasting what Ofcom call "Adult sex material"?

Since The Department of Culture Media and Sport states that “In order to encourage free movement of broadcasts, all broadcasting must comply with the European Directive, “Television Without Frontiers” or TVWF.

Broadcasting matters covered by the Directive include sports rights, right of reply, advertising, sponsorship and protection of minors.” The key word there is MUST. All broadcasting MUST be compatible with the TVWF Directive.

Article 22 of TVWF:

1. Member States shall take appropriate measures to ensure that television broadcasts by broadcasters under their jurisdiction do not include any programmes which might seriously impair the physical, mental or moral development of minors, in particular programmes that involve pornography or gratuitous violence.

2. The measures provided for in paragraph 1 shall also extend to other programmes which are likely to impair the physical, mental or moral development of minors, except where it is ensured, by selecting the time of the broadcast (post watershed topless content, as you do) by any technical measure (the ability for parents to remove all 900 channels from the Sky Digital EPG and the ability to delete seleted channels from freeview, as you do) that minors in the area of transmission will not normally hear or see such broadcasts.

3. Furthermore, when such programmes are broadcast in unencoded/Un-encrypted form Member States shall ensure that they are preceded by an acoustic warning or are identified by the presence of a visual symbol throughout their duration.
________________________________________________________________​________________________________________________________________​__________


So, the way I see it by explicit instruction from the Department of Culture Media and Sport, the above, from the TVWF Directive, must comply with the Ofcom Broadcast Code and current Broadcast Law.

It follows then that Ofcom cannot have applied the TVWF rules correctly. This quite obviously goes against the stated objectives of TVWF to create a single market and, affects those `fundamental public interests` such as Freedom of Expression with regard to TV broadcasting.

So if the Babe Channels were to continue to show a warning message (as has already been done with the PTBA advert), and show a small “18” certificate after 10pm then the broadcast would be compatible with TVWF Directives as recognised by The Department of Culture Media and Sport.

Perhaps all those (unjustified) fines were illegal?

Thanks.

Youre all missing the point. Its simply not as good as it was,cos they havent got the quality girls they used to have. And ALL the prettiest girls with the best bodies are on in the day now, for some crazy reason!

im a bit happier now syren sexton is on,what a cutie

Have to say, channels dont have the same appeal as they use too. Some are very bland now. Dont get me wrong there are some great girls on the channels, Delta,Victoria,Jada,Foxy,Daryl etc plus my fav Summer Lee!!! but with all these rules and regulations everyone holding back. PIN on the channels must be the way forward, surprised SKY not backing this to the hilt.Things will change,lets hope its for the better.

Firstly Vostok, appologies, sorry I missed this post - thanks for hilighting it in another forum. You have some VERY valid points, and if you dont mind I would like to take some time to post a considerd reply.

Most of these issues have been taken up with OFCOM, and you would be asstounded to hear some of their replies and excuses. I will point out that the TWF directive has now been superceaded by the "Audiovisual Media Services Directive" AVMD, which frightingly now gives OFCOM the additional power to regulate the Internet (And they already have started , you will have noticed that many of the stations no longer promote a web address)

I very much applaud your effots in writing to OFCOM, this is actualy what the industry needs, as OFCOM's claime that there is no consumer demand for these types of stations. They base this on studies and 'Consumer Focus Groups', but if you were stuck in a room at OFCOM with 11 other people you had never met before, would you admit you jerk off to a TV babe nightly. Their data is flawed by its own nature, and they use that against us.

You may be interested to know that most of the Adult Stations are members of a Trade Organisation called the PTVBA (Participation TV Broadcasters Association) - there are a couple of stations who arnt members, and you can tell who they are because they have no interest in the long term viability of the industry, and will proberbly be the next to have their knuckles wrapped - but we are all tared with the same brush.

Sorry about spelling/typos - im Lisdexlic at the best of times, and tonight half the keys on my keyboard are gumed down... Denni Taylor must be on Babeworld (LOL Sorry Denni if you read this.. The Boss)

Thanks for your Post Vos

HOF

P.S we know OFCOM read these forums, it seems to be how they find out if there has been a slip up. Post somthing on here, and within 24 hours we get one of those dreaed demands for a complience tape.