I'm not sure but i don't think that the channels can challenge the rules, the reason being that when a channel is granted a licence by Ofcom the companies must sign something agreeing to abide by the licence conditions, so the channels have no grounds to challenge the rules when they have already accepted the rules and paid for their licence.
But i should think if Ofcom then change the rules of the licence that the company originally paid for then they could then mount a challenge, especially if the rule changes results in a fall in revenue. If a company lays out a lot of money and buys a licence, air time and TV EPG slots etc and does OK revenue wise using one set of rules then Ofcom change the rules in some way or other that results in the channels suffering a loss of revenue then surely this is in some way could possibly be illegal and the channels could then challenge the new rule changes.
(20-08-2012 11:36 )shankey! Wrote: [ -> ] (20-08-2012 10:22 )rj242 Wrote: [ -> ]The cost of any challenge is more than most channels could afford (even if they banded together - and do you think they will agree to split the costs equally?). Even if Ofcom lost they could tie the whole process up in appeals for years while the outcry from Daily Mail readers, Mumsnet etc would ensure that the government would simply tighten the legislation as 'saving children from porn' is an easy vote winner. The channels are content to fly under the radar and will continue to do so as long as they remain profitable.
i wouldnt have thought any of them would consider it, but maybe a mediation meeting with ofcom and reps from the channels could be a step forward , at the very least they would be able to find out exactly what the rules are and maybe challenge them across a meeting table , reasonable discussion never did any harm
I think they've already done that, I'm sure I read somewhere that they all went into a meeting together, I'm sure this is how we found out the no tits before ten, no nude before 11 guidelines
^^^^ Yep, Ofcom had a meeting with all the adult channels after the regulator decided to revoke the four TV broadcast licences owned by Bang Media. Think it was towards the end of 2010 that this happened.
That's correct. It was just after BangBabes had gone under. Ofcom called in all the babe show channel owners and read them the riot act.
The rules were certainly tightened up at this point, as gazfc mentions, including the stipulation that day girls must be fully-clothed. Part of the problem which caused BangBabes to lose their licences was the fact that they'd started having their day girls in thong underwear, which was certainly a step too far for Ofcom.
I'm sure I read the minutes of this meeting as they were published on Ofcom's site. I'll have a look for a link.
I'm pretty sure that under most business agreements that from time to time they are up for review, renegotiation between ofcom and the channels is definately the way forward. I'm sure if they had a meeting with the tv regulators they could even ask for a trial run into allowing what most european countries allow to be seen to see if ofcom's view on widespread moral objections and harm is really true or is just a lie which they have fabricated because of their own prejudices towards this type of entertainment.
A strong argument has to be presented to the tv regulators that the terms which all the channels have to operate under brings absolutely no benefit to anybody. If this type of show offends you then you are just as likely to be offended by topless action as you are with viewing the vagina. A meeting and change in the rules and regulations is long overdue.
(20-08-2012 14:51 )Scottishbloke Wrote: [ -> ]I'm pretty sure that under most business agreements that from time to time they are up for review, renegotiation between ofcom and the channels is definately the way forward. I'm sure if they had a meeting with the tv regulators they could even ask for a trial run into allowing what most european countries allow to be seen to see if ofcom's view on widespread moral objections and harm is really true or is just a lie which they have fabricated because of their own prejudices towards this type of entertainment.
A strong argument has to be presented to the tv regulators that the terms which all the channels have to operate under brings absolutely no benefit to anybody. If this type of show offends you then you are just as likely to be offended by topless action as you are with viewing the vagina. A meeting and change in the rules and regulations is long overdue.
A meeting isn't long overdue at all. Everybody knows what Ofcom's stance is and as has been pointed out elsewhere there have been a number of meetings where babeshows have stated their case. What exactly can the shows say that hasn't been said many times before?
Indeed the dialogue between both parties appears to have led to the bland rubbish we now have. It would appear that the channels have agreed to tone things down in return for Ofcom not jumping on every complaint they get.
Quite frankly this is going to be about as good as you get from the channels now. Some have started to head towards the direction they were always likely to have to go at some point and started doing harder stuff online, though it looks like that's bringing it's own rip offs with it.
But anyone continually watching the channels hoping "this will be the night" is going to be constantly disappointed and frustrated I'm afraid.
Marcee I'm so glad to see you're an optimist. Like I said rules get written, changed and rewritten all of the time and the babe channels are not different from any other business operating out there in the real world.
The current rules and regulations are far too harsh, what is deemed acceptable to be shown on the sexstation websteam should also be the same when on the tv.
A minor is just as likely to view an internet stream in the same manner that they would be for a late night babe show. Infact sexstation has been doing the live web show now for a number of years and porn has been readily available 24 hours a day since the very birth of the internet so why then should ofcom give a fuck about protecting the minors when the stuff thats been shown on the net has allready proved the point that the widespread harm that ofcom go on about simply does not exist other than in the minds of those at ofcom HQ.
Change in needed and can be achieved with the correct approach. This saga is far from over.
(20-08-2012 19:11 )Scottishbloke Wrote: [ -> ]Marcee I'm so glad to see you're an optimist. Like I said rules get written, changed and rewritten all of the time and the babe channels are not different from any other business operating out there in the real world.
The current rules and regulations are far too harsh, what is deemed acceptable to be shown on the sexstation websteam should also be the same when on the tv.
A minor is just as likely to view an internet stream in the same manner that they would be for a late night babe show. Infact sexstation has been doing the live web show now for a number of years and porn has been readily available 24 hours a day since the very birth of the internet so why then should ofcom give a fuck about protecting the minors when the stuff thats been shown on the net has allready proved the point that the widespread harm that ofcom go on about simply does not exist other than in the minds of those at ofcom HQ.
Change in needed and can be achieved with the correct approach. This saga is far from over.
Scottishbloke you're not as naive as that post has made you out to be. Ofcom can't do anything about what is shown on the net......for now.
Take a look around you, more people are concerned about what minors can see on the internet than aren't bothered by it. There are plans afoot to sort that out.
And you're right rules and regulations are rewritten. In this case they have been constantly tightened up. Why on earth do you think that another meeting stating exactly what has been said before will suddenly make Ofcom see the light you want them to see?
It's not about optimism or pessimism, it's about realism and your constant calls for the channels to just do what they like and say fuck Ofcom is not realistic!
Marcee what you are reading into here is media and government propaganda, I have yet to meet anybody who gives 2 shits about what is broadcast on the telly or shown on the internet, the majority of people worldwide are only interested in things that effect them personally and directly.
Most people accept the watershed and accept what the world presents to them. I hold absolutely no objections to extra safety measures in place to protect the minors of this world. So long as it doesn't have a knock on effect to what us grown ups like to view.
Alcohol for example you have to be over 18 to drink it. How would you like it if you were told tommorow that this was now forbidden because they needed to protect the minor's of this world.
We need common sense to prevail which ofcom show none of. To expect change to happen is not being unrealistic, to say otherwise is just being defeatist. Widespread harm and offence is a myth and is just some bullshit red tape which ofcom uses to justify it's role. This is reality and this is fact.
(20-08-2012 23:09 )Scottishbloke Wrote: [ -> ]Marcee what you are reading into here is media and government propaganda, I have yet to meet anybody who gives 2 shits about what is broadcast on the telly or shown on the internet, the majority of people worldwide are only interested in things that effect them personally and directly.
Most people accept the watershed and accept what the world presents to them. I hold absolutely no objections to extra safety measures in place to protect the minors of this world. So long as it doesn't have a knock on effect to what us grown ups like to view.
Alcohol for example you have to be over 18 to drink it. How would you like it if you were told tommorow that this was now forbidden because they needed to protect the minor's of this world.
We need common sense to prevail which ofcom show none of. To expect change to happen is not being unrealistic, to say otherwise is just being defeatist. Widespread harm and offence is a myth and is just some bullshit red tape which ofcom uses to justify it's role. This is reality and this is fact.
http://www.metro.co.uk/tech/898231-david...g-controls
This doesn't happen when people don't give 2 shits. And the fact is people do see this as affecting them directly because many of them are parents. The simple fact is the most vocal people with regards to this subject are the ones who want it heavily controlled both on tv and the internet. The government doesn't consider measures like that unless they think it's a possible vote winner. The people who don't give 2 shits either way are less likely to be vocal and are also not going to see it as a reason to vote against any party that brings in the measures.
And I know all that about alcohol and the rest of it. I've posted enough times on various threads about the situation.
What I have actually said is that change isn't going to happen from the channels having yet another meeting with Ofcom. In fact, based on previous history, the outcome of any further meetings with Ofcom is the likelihood of further restrictions! And the channels have argued all the points about harm and offence etc. Exactly what new information do you think they can add?
Change can happen but for it to happen the general public have to see the situation for what it is i.e. a restriction on their rights. And whilst the babe channel situation doesn't directly affect them if more and more people see the possible wider consequences then change could happen.
But it's not going to come about from the channels having another meeting nor is it going to change as a result of girls whipping off their knickers and pressing fannies up against the camera I'm afraid to say.