TVX got the biggest fine for transmitting R18 material unencrypted for a few days on their TelevisionX freeview shows, previewing Antonia Backstage live, last year.
I was lucky enough to record them, and they were my first video uploads after joining the forum, nearly a year ago. Well worth a look for anyone who has not seen them.
http://www.babeshows.co.uk/showthread.php?tid=1211
(09-11-2009 21:24 )TheWatcher Wrote: [ -> ]TVX got the biggest fine for transmitting R18 material unencrypted for a few days on their TelevisionX freeview shows, previewing Antonia Backstage live, last year.
I was lucky enough to record them, and they were my first video uploads after joining the forum, nearly a year ago. Well worth a look for anyone who has not seen them.
http://www.babeshows.co.uk/showthread.php?tid=1211
I remember that well. And thanks for the upload TheWatcher.
On a side note, the complaint against "Antonia Backstage live" which led to the Ofcom sanction, came from a "rival Broadcaster" yet again!
(11-10-2009 02:10 )DanVox Wrote: [ -> ]I don't believe it, I don't check my email for one single day, or the OfCom site, and that's the day they send me an email too and make an announcement.
A bad sign is that almost all the published responses, even where the name is confidential, are from people opposed to adult content. I haven't counted, but there don't seem to be many gaps in the document numbers, which suggests there aren't many unpublished responses, which I'd guess would be from out and out fans of babeshows.
By the way, Vostok1's links dont work for me, and I haven't seen the Participant Show Association response published, so perhaps that is one of the confidential ones.
The vast majority of the responses seem to have cut and pasted wording direct from the website of a religious group. It's easy to spot them, they all quote the AVCS Directive, and clearly haven't got a clue what it is. (50% of content must be EU made, one country can ban content aimed at them from from another, children have to be protected from harmful content).
OK, what is "harmful content" ? It is NOT defined as two consenting adults doing what consenting adult do all over the country in large numbers, in all religions, and have been doing for centuries.
But SAW IV might be harmful to children. Or Lord of the Flies. Or that Channel 4 documentary where a bunch of kids were left alone on a farm. Or the Texas Chainsaw Massacre. Or Audition. Or genuine live cage fighting.
So why Mr OfCom is sex banned, but the strongest horror films are available free on non-subscription channels ? Gambling ? Cage fighting ?
The consultation seemed to suggest greater tolerance for sexual material, particularly after 10:30 and particularly if on babe channels that could be blocked out. The clip people objected to most was from a mid-afternoon chatshow hosted by Alan Titchmarsh. Lets be clear about that - OfCom's own consultation said that the Alan Titchmarsh show was more objectionable than a Playboy show apparently containing real sex, a shagging scene from the BBC series Rome, or a trailer for an encrypted fetish channel, again showing what looked like real sex.
But I'm not holding my breath. OfCom might find a way to interpret the consultation. And the big factor in the past few years has been fear - broadcaster fear that OfCom will suddenly announce that something that happened 5 1/2 months ago has been complained about. They fined Playboy for a show 2 years after it was transmitted.
And they will take "mandatory access control" to mean PIN protection, otherwise the Vicar might accidentially tap the wrong channel number in.
how do you go about getting ofcom to send you their announcements via email??
(09-11-2009 21:00 )TheDarkKnight Wrote: [ -> ]1 miserable assed prick complains and they get fined for 2 breaches.
Were they actually fined?
Quote:In view of the serious and repeated nature of these contraventions of the Code, Ofcom reviewed carefully whether they should be considered for referral to the Content Sanctions Committee. On balance Ofcom decided not to do so on this occasion.
(06-11-2009 02:49 )IanG Wrote: [ -> ]HenryF, I was just in touch with Paul who ran the Ofwatch R18 campaign (he's moved on to pastures new I'm sorry to say - and who can blame him...).
You're absolutely correct. All we (i.e. Ofwatch) got of the minutes from the meeting when R18 was suddenly banned were almost completely blacked out "to protect people's identities and sensitive information". In essence we (the general public that pay for Ofcom's existence) are not allowed (i.e. deemed unworthy) to know who wanted R18 banned or indeed, why or on what basis/evidence/'reasoning'. Of course, if this info is so 'sensitive' then we can only assume that there was no real reason or evidence at all but simply some little Hitler's dictatorial wish (and with so many moral guardians and God botherers in Parliament you can probably draw up quite a list of fuckwit suspects).
On a similar note to the 'rival broadcaster' syndrome:
Did the legible parts of the minutes confirm that some of the strongest objectors to allowing R18 content were the producers of such material themselves? (Including one individual who is not exactly unknown to the babe channels.) I have seen this claim in print but unfortunately can’t recall exactly where.
Their reason was allegedly that they thought the availability of R18 on tv would cause fatal damage to their video sales. They seemed to overlook the revenue opportunities the tv market would have offered.
(09-11-2009 23:47 )vila Wrote: [ -> ]Were they actually fined?
hmmm...I guess not.
...But at least I got the chance to call that dude a 'miserable assed prick'
(09-11-2009 23:47 )vila Wrote: [ -> ]SNIP
On a similar note to the 'rival broadcaster' syndrome:
Did the legible parts of the minutes confirm that some of the strongest objectors to allowing R18 content were the producers of such material themselves? (Including one individual who is not exactly unknown to the babe channels.) I have seen this claim in print but unfortunately can’t recall exactly where.
Their reason was allegedly that they thought the availability of R18 on tv would cause fatal damage to their video sales. They seemed to overlook the revenue opportunities the tv market would have offered.
A.I.T.A's (Adult Industry Trade Association) submission, to Ofcon's so-called consultation prior to the orignal release of their censorship code, supported continuation of R18 censorship on broadcast television, for obvious, self serving, commercial reasons.
BTW, I notice that Ofcon has found another babe channel in breach of its censorship rules in its latest broadcast bulletin
:-
http://www.ofcom.org.uk/tv/obb/prog_cb/o...sue145.pdf
Good points from IanG, Cobblers and Winston Wolfe. A point I made in the previous Participation Shows consultation was that babe shows are quite clearly a different category to teleshopping channels. They make money by people phoning up to talk dirty to erotic models, 1-on-1, and related erotic advertising. Teleshopping channels advertise non-erotic tangible goods for home delivery.
Lumping the two into the same category is like saying the Dixons and a Pole Dancing pub are the same. Try getting that past the local licencing committee. Or Harriet Harman.
It would be completely inappropriate for someone advertising DIY gadgets or kitchen equipment to use nude models to sell them. The nudity would be non-product related, but active parts of the male brain that encourage us to say yes. For similar reasons casino operators the world over are banned from having topless croupiers.*
So surely Ofcom should recognise reality as it is, not as they want it, stop trying to cram square pegs into round holes (did anyone mention Amanda?), and create a separate, relevant category. Neither Euro rules nor UK law tell Ofcom what categories to use.
It makes my blood boil, by the way, that some quiz shows were blatantly fixing quizzes - changing prizes so early callers did not win the top prize for example - but were not prosecuted for blatant breeches of the Gambling Acts that would have landed a village tombola in court. Or phone-in votes where the winner was changed. Money changed hands. The contract was deliberately broken by not abiding to the competition/vote rules. That's obtaining money under false pretences, more commonly known as Fraud. A fine against the broadcaster isn't enough. None of the individuals that deliberately mislead people handing over money have recieved a criminal record.
The babe channels on the other hand deliver exactly what they say they will. The only exceptions are that sometimes, yes, you don't get through to the on-screen babe.
Ofcom found a community channel MATV in breech for blatant sustained advertising of a law firm. MATV had also been found in breech in Sept 2008, so they should have known better. Ofcom also found religious channel "Peace TV" in breech for a broadcast advocating that men "beat" their wives. Worryingly the channel argued in mitigation that they said "But beat her – it doesn’t mean to break her ribs. Beat her, tap her on her shoulder", and then only as the 3rd of a 3 step warning process. Both channels were basically let off with warnings. These are mild compared with breeches reported in other Ofcom bulletins - religious channels urging people to send money in, quack medicines, even broadcasts promoting banned terrorist organisations. The "foreign advert" in a regular theme. Are these channels ever fined, suspened for a week or banned ? Of course not.
* Some clever sod will come up with an exception, no doubt.
I seriously have to stop reading these Ofcom bulletins because they just make me almost irrationally angry.
The latest one sees more Ofcom balderdash being spouted.
Their current campaign seems to be centred around the "not justified by context" argument. Well maybe I'm missing something here but the prime objective of these channels is to get blokes, and some women for that matter, off. Of course the actions are justified by freaking context!! In fact, the stuff shown on the babe channels is far more justified in it's context than just about any nude scene in any mainstream movie you could ever care to mention.
It also seems to me that the channels are penalised on the basis of "what might happen" more than any other broadcasting station out there. For example "someone MAY come across the channels unawares and MAY be offended by what they see." Well that's an awful lot of supposition there for a start.
In reality, you would really have to struggle to find a viewing group anywhere out there who are less likely to be offended by what they're shown than regular babe channel viewers. And whilst we're on the "what might happen" argument, have Ofcom never considered the fact that someone stumbling across Life Class one afternoon may have decided to knock one out over some of the not unattractive fully nude models on that daytime programme? Would that then alter the status of the programme from being seen as educational and art to being seen for sexual arousal purposes? After all, that scenario is a "what if" firmly in line with their "what if someone stumbles across a babe channel unawares" scenarios.
Last night was a case in point. For around 45 minutes on one of the Sport channels, Tammy Lee was fully nude but spent most of that time just lying there and you saw a number of fairly brief glimpses of her pubic hair. In short, doing exactly the same as the models on Life Class were doing. That couldn't have been seen as likely to cause offence you would have thought but seemingly it is seen that way because later on during the show, she remained fully nude but with sticking plaster over her pussy.
Let's be honest, with the greatest will in the world, is anyone "who MAY stumble across that unawares"seriously likely to find great offence, or be done great harm in seeing a naked woman, for the most part in non sexual positions, at that time of night?
The whole Ofcom stance on these shows becomes more farcical every time they cast their judgements on them to a point where I'm almost becoming embarrassed for them when I read that stuff.