Well, feel free to jump in and correct things or put them into better wording.
My only experience in arguing the toss comes from forums and thats not the best background for matters like this :/
TDK, great stuff. Some good points esp. on the channel blocking/selection that's already available on STBs.
I haven't read through all the options analyses - its like wading through treacle. What you generally need to look for is spin. Ofcom will have presented their version of why they believe an option is right or wrong but, of course, not all their reasoning stacks-up (which I think you've spotted).
(09-11-2009 14:50 )TheDarkKnight Wrote: [ -> ]I feel i need to say more here but I also feel I don't completely understand the question...
Question 2a: Do you agree with our analysis of the options available for regulation of the promotion of premium rate services of a sexual nature, and a) that on the basis of options, a change to the existing rules appears merited?
We do not agree that a reclassification of these broadcasts is merited.
We do not agree with the range of options presented.
We certainly don’t agree that the requirements for changes should result in the cessation of broadcasts simply because a change has occurred, as appears to be the case.
I think you could work-in the interpretation of the ECJ judgement. If it was for a quiz channel then this model of 'shopping' hardly applies to adult chat. A quiz channel is actually tele-gambling - they make money by not putting people in the 'you have been selected queue' and, even of those that do get in the queue, only one caller gets selected from the hundreds on hold before the next round of caller-roulette begins. These channels are an outright con and there are NO protections whatsoever to stop children calling the on-screen number (despite the small print) and running up telephone bills in the hundreds of pounds/euros.
Then there are these overtly simple multiple choice 'competitions' that many mainstream TV programmes run that are also a total scam. They generally run for a week or more charging at least 1 pound per entry. These are also usually only limited to the over 16s - i.e. 'children' under 18 can enter them. However, its just one great lottery with one winner from thousands of entries (assuming you submitted the correct answer). How you're supposed to check you're in the draw I don't know. How they stop people under 16 trying to enter the draw I don't know.
The bottom line is, these quizzes/competitions are far more deceptive and open to abuse (and addiction) than calling up an on-screen babe to chat to. Where exactly the 'service' or 'goods' being advertised on these quiz shows exists is anyone's guess - sure, there's a prize to be won but, being the one to win it doesn't necessarily relate to how much you spend trying to win it.
A true tele-shopping channel demonstrates/advertises goods that people call-in to order and which they then receive through the post. There's an additional PAYMENT for the actual goods being bought far and above the cost of the call. Callers are generally not part of the editorial content of the programme.
A babe channel may well be advertising a PRS number much the same as a quiz channel. Unlike a quiz channel, you are guaranteed entry into the service whenever you call that number - its not a money-spinning lottery. Callers have options within the service to wait, chat or listen-in - they pay for the service as they use it (PAYG). Moreover, the callers generally have some influence as to what happens on-screen - they do indeed make an editorial impact on the content of the show (they may well be likened to script writers with regard to the listeners and/or directors with regard to passive viewers).
Some goods points made about the "TV quiz shows"
Here's a couple of articles from 2007:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/6614033.stm
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/...43434.html
I'm not convinced they've clamped down on them enough since... They are the worst offenders by far along with lotteries
Then again, I worked in an industry with its fair share of degenerate gamblers and you can't tell people what to do with their money. People have to be more responsible for their own choices, but you can't have a bunch of cowboys rippin people off either...
There's really no comparison between TV quiz shows & adult shows. Even if customers find it difficult to get through to the most popular girls onscreen, at least the adult channels generally provide some sort of service/entertainment for those who are unable to get through...
The regulators/authorities should focus more on making sure customers aren't getting ripped off than trying to control the content of adult shows too much...
New Bulletin out today from Ofcom, and Babeworld have been reprimanded for the presenter briefly flashing her bits, curiously in a show broadcast way back in May. Apparently, such material "would have exceeded the likely expectation of the audience"....
I wonder if this spells the end of Amanda's current antics.
http://www.ofcom.org.uk/tv/obb/prog_cb/o...sue145.pdf
(09-11-2009 20:05 )Cobblers Wrote: [ -> ]New Bulletin out today from Ofcom, and Babeworld have been reprimanded for the presenter briefly flashing her bits, curiously in a show broadcast way back in May. Apparently, such material "would have exceeded the likely expectation of the audience"....
Perhaps ofcom took issue with them on "flashing" as they were also advertising a R18 strength web address on screen.
The bulletin mentioned that Babe World continued to advertise the url to babeworld.tv. I would have thought after the sanctions against TVX that they would have understood that you can't broadcast the web address of sites that contain R18 strength material.
Isn't this type of compliance issue the type of thing that the PTBA should be providing clear advice to the channels about?
(09-11-2009 19:54 )Winston Wolfe Wrote: [ -> ]There's really no comparison between TV quiz shows & adult shows. Even if customers find it difficult to get through to the most popular girls onscreen, at least the adult channels generally provide some sort of service/entertainment for those who are unable to get through...
The regulators/authorities should focus more on making sure customers aren't getting ripped off than trying to control the content of adult shows too much...
Good points.
One change that I would like to see is a restriction on a certain group of channels that advertise both on screen and via audio that
"you can get straight through to the Girl on-screen", when you can't and find yourself in a queue behind a number of other callers.
One positive change that ofcom made with the Quiz shows was insisting on an on-screen graphic that showed how many callers were on the line and your chance of getting through.
(09-11-2009 20:20 )vostok 1 Wrote: [ -> ]Perhaps ofcom took issue with them on "flashing" as they were also advertising a R18 strength web address on screen.
The bulletin mentioned that Babe World continued to advertise the url to babeworld.tv. I would have thought after the sanctions against TVX that they would have understood that you can't broadcast the web address of sites that contain R18 strength material.
I shouldn't think so, since the program in question was apparently broadcast in May, long before the recent R18 website decision. I think they're simply making it clear that flashing, no matter how brief, is not acceptable on a Babe show.
I myself was thoroughly enjoying myself the other night whilst watching one show and was just about to reach the peak of my pleasure when the presenter displayed her vagina to me. It put me right off my stroke, so it did, completely unacceptable...!
1 miserable assed prick complains and they get fined for 2 breaches.
Ofcom regards a link to an R18 equivalent website as likey to cause significant offence...and yet not a single frickin person on this shithole of an island was offended. Not even the moron who got in a tissy over seeing a girls fanny on a phone in sex show.
Ofcom fail.
(09-11-2009 20:41 )Cobblers Wrote: [ -> ]I shouldn't think so, since the program in question was apparently broadcast in May, long before the recent R18 website decision. I think they're simply making it clear that flashing, no matter how brief, is not acceptable on a Babe show.
It's correct that the "flashing" incident was in May, which makes me think that this was held back and used together with the advertising of the hard-core url by ofcom.
The sanction against TVX was published in
May:
http://www.ofcom.org.uk/media/features/adultfine
It was being discussed on this forum the same day:
http://www.babeshows.co.uk/showthread.ph...367&page=1
Ofcom contacted Babe World about advertising the hardcore url in
July (Twice), two months after the sanction against TVX/Portland.
Babe World didn't respond until
August the 13th.
But even so, those rules (on advertising hard core url's) are part of the 2003 Communication's act. And relatively easy for whoever is in charge of compliance at Babe World to understand.
(09-11-2009 21:00 )TheDarkKnight Wrote: [ -> ]1 miserable assed prick complains and they get fined for 2 breaches.
Ofcom regards a link to an R18 equivalent website as likey to cause significant offence...and yet not a single frickin person on this shithole of an island was offended. Not even the moron who got in a tissy over seeing a girls fanny on a phone in sex show.
Ofcom fail.
The original complaint about TVX advertising R18 websites came from a "rival broadcaster". Like you said before, the broadcasters are in many ways responsible for shambles that exists today.
But I still believe Babe World should have stopped advertising hard-core url's after they saw the sanction against TVX published.
Or if they are unhappy against draconian ofcom "regulations", get their lawyers to challenge the way things are.