playboy, ofcom, and complaints!!

Nice one, Scottishbloke. That reply exposes Ofcon for the bunch of hypocrites they are. PIN protection is there to adequately protect children, they say. So, why is there no full R18 on the subscription channels? Ofcon say the PIN system isn't good enough.
They really are a bunch of arseholes but, unfortunately, they do what they like as the broadcasters just wave the white flag all the time. ( If there are any broadcasters out there who disagree with my view, please give us your version).

who saw naked women as kids and what damage did it ever do to anyone anywhere ever?

In regards to the ongoing dispute about the Playboy channels being pin protected, its clear to see from both sides that somebody is lieing, ofcom are saying its nothing to do with them and that its a commercial decision on Playboys part whilst they'll continue to say its ofcom. This case should be investigated by a separate organisation as the whole thing from my point of view is corrupt and is fucking ripping off the customer.

Scottishbloke, you're correct, either someone is deliberately lying or Ofcom simply do not know what the fuck it is they've published in their own stinking 'guidance'.

http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binarie...1_2009.pdf

Ofcom stakeholder guidance 1.18 Adult Sex Material Wrote:Ofcom considers that ‘adult sex material’ is material that includes strong images and/or language of a sexual nature, which is broadcast for the primary purpose of sexual arousal or stimulation. For example, if the narrative of a drama or documentary is principally a vehicle for material whose primary purpose is sexual arousal or stimulation, it is likely to be ‘adult sex material’ because the strength of the material is unlikely to be editorially justified by context.

You got that folks? Ofcom's guidance says quite clearly that 'adult sex material' isn't necessarily going to be justified by context. Their own Rule 2.3 is thus null and void in this instance because they openly state in their opinion 'adult sex material' is unlikely to be justified by context. It is FRAUDULENT to demand someone do something like "justify 'offensive' content by context" (rule 2.3) when you, the judge, jury and sanction committee - i.e. Ofcom - are perfectly aware it is IMPOSSIBLE to do so and have stated as much in your supposed 'guidance' to broadcasters.

Quote:Mandatory restricted access

We consider that those viewers that subscribe to premium subscription services have accepted a greater share of responsibility for what is broadcast into the home (and therefore have particular responsibility to oversee children’s access to material in this area).

Services broadcasting material subject to this rule must provide mandatory restricted access as the default, rather than requiring PIN setting by the viewer. A mandatory PIN requires a viewer to input a PIN before accessing the material, irrespective of whether the viewer has set up any domestic security mechanisms, i.e. it is set by the broadcaster/platform provider.

Now, as this type of material cannot be broadcast before 21:00, their previous statement in that email about PIN not being required after 21:00 is utterly wrong. Moreover, Ofcom openly admit in the vast majority of households there are no under eighteens thus, the requirement for any enforced PIN entry is utterly pointless and, indeed, means Ofcom have chosen to play parent to all sex channel users/subscribers.

There's no mandatory PIN on any of the full-strength R18's I own and watch - how come ANYONE needs mandatory PIN on the softcore 18-rated tripe Ofcom condescend to permit us to watch on TV?

I'll just remind everyone that R18 is available to buy and take into your home BECAUSE the High Court could find no evidence of a significant risk to children that might be exposed to explicit consensual adult sex in R18. What it is Ofcom believe they're protecting the under eighteens from is thus unknown and very likely NON-EXISTENT or, at the very most, INSIGNIFICANT. Clearly, something that's insignificant needs NO special consideration/sanction/protection whatsoever.

alls it boils down to really is thaT
a WOMANS BODY IS NOT OFFENSIVE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Thats me cancelled my Playboy Tv subscription as of now and I urge everybody else to do likewise. The channels are nothing but a fucking rip off and so long as they have customers they'll continue to treat you like shit, its a shame because this channel is nothing but a shadow of its former self. £15.99 a month for this treatment with the continuing ongoing pin requirement away and get fucked its nothing but a piss take.

(30-07-2010 19:05 )Scottishbloke Wrote:  Thats me cancelled my Playboy Tv subscription as of now and I urge everybody else to do likewise. The channels are nothing but a fucking rip off and so long as they have customers they'll continue to treat you like shit, its a shame because this channel is nothing but a shadow of its former self. £15.99 a month for this treatment with the continuing ongoing pin requirement away and get fucked its nothing but a piss take.

Playboy actually welcomed one of the sanctions findings against free channels claiming it would help sales of their encrypted shows. That comment didn't make me more likely to give them money.

The only thing that might temp me would be if they brought back full strength live shows - remember NightCalls?

Do they really charge £15.99 for just one channel? Lol.

Do Playboy actually run the channel, or is it a concession?

You actually get 3 channels which are Playboy Tv, Adult Channel and Top Shelf Tv and guess what they're all fucking shite also if you try to record half way through a movie or programme at the good bit it doesn't alllow you to as all you get is a message saying for your information this programme was allready ordered and cannot be recorded at this time, fuck this thats just taking the piss so I cancelled via the bank as I wouldn't even trust the bastards to cancel it properly for me.

(31-07-2010 17:42 )Scottishbloke Wrote:  You actually get 3 channels which are Playboy Tv, Adult Channel and Top Shelf Tv and guess what they're all fucking shite also if you try to record half way through a movie or programme at the good bit it doesn't alllow you to as all you get is a message saying for your information this programme was allready ordered and cannot be recorded at this time, fuck this thats just taking the piss so I cancelled via the bank as I wouldn't even trust the bastards to cancel it properly for me.

Thanks, hadn't realised The Adult Channel and Top Shelf were in the Playboy stable - mistakenly believed TAC was a Portland channel, and Top Shelf was an independent owned by Paul Raymond Publications. But everythings part of a bigger corporation these days isn't it.

Playboy also seem to be licence holders for Climax2 and 3. They are currently advertising 6 TV channels for £9.99 a month, so if you were paying £15.99 for 3 channels you were being ripped off.

They also seem to be the licence holder for Elite (http://www.ofcom.org.uk/static/tvlicensing/cs/1452.htm)
And ChatGirl TV2 (http://www.ofcom.org.uk/static/tvlicensing/cs/1979.htm)
Fresh TV (don't recognise the name) (http://www.ofcom.org.uk/static/tvlicensing/cs/1778.htm)
Tease Me TV 2 (http://www.ofcom.org.uk/static/tvlicensing/cs/581.htm)
XXX Gay (http://www.ofcom.org.uk/static/tvlicensing/cs/979.htm)
and encrypted channel Adult XXX Mums (http://www.ofcom.org.uk/static/tvlicensi...1598.htm).

Yes the TVX plus red hot channels which is also £15.99 a month is much better value plus you also get a hot encrypted show each night on 905. Happy days.