The UK Babe Channels Forum

(19-02-2013 00:50 )RCTV Wrote: [ -> ]I've worked for ofcom and been on the committee, so I know exactly how it works.

Now I find it very interesting that you have stated you used to work for ofcom. Part of me thinks maybe you made that statement to get a reaction purely out of shock. I will however give you the benefit of the doubt. I find it facinating and slightly worrying then that you'd join a forum such as this if perhaps you are partly to blame and responsible over the OTT censorship when it comes to this type of entertainment.

You have also stated that it's purely a committee decision when it comes to making big decisions. Such as revoking the licence of Babestar TV at the start of 2007 and doing likewise to Bangbabes at the start of 2011. Which part did you play in all of this or was your stay on the committee a very brief one.

I look foward to your reply on this one

(19-02-2013 01:30 )eccles Wrote: [ -> ]...
Two things leap out from the Studio 66 cases.

No channel can advertise explicit pics or clips for mobile phones.
None of them.
That will hurt the revenues of every channel.

This is despite it being common practice for years. How come Ofcom never noticed before?
...

A couple of things that occur to me.

Firstly, Ofcom made it's initial ruling on the pics/vid issue last month. The first incident it looked at dated back to 15 July 2012. Of course, until Ofcom had investigated and made this ruling, S66 and indeed other channels, could not have been aware that they were doing wrong. As S66 stated, they believed that the age verification on the phones was sufficient. So, from 15 July 2012 until last months ruling, they will have continued to broadcast those ads believing them to be OK.
It seems unfair then for Ofcom to make a ruling on something over 5 months ago, and then to make further punishments on other incidents which happened in the meantime, how could they know until last month that they were doing wrong?

Secondly, I previously mentioned babestation and their pics/vids. As already mentioned, there is a tendency for the BS pics/vids to not live up to advertised levels of content, but I wonder if Ofcom has jumped on this issue after all this time as a possible way of getting it's claws into BS. They have had little joy going through Nicam, but this is something they can pursue BS for directly themselves at least on the Ofcom regulated channels.
As previously stated, the whole issue of what constitutes pornographic content is open to interpretation, so even if BS is actually delivering relatively soft content, Ofcom could call it pornographic and clobber them for it. Maybe they have been looking for something, and have finally hit on it with this issue.

(19-02-2013 04:59 )Scottishbloke Wrote: [ -> ]

(19-02-2013 00:50 )RCTV Wrote: [ -> ]I've worked for ofcom and been on the committee, so I know exactly how it works.

Now I find it very interesting that you have stated you used to work for ofcom. Part of me thinks maybe you made that statement to get a reaction purely out of shock. I will however give you the benefit of the doubt. I find it facinating and slightly worrying then that you'd join a forum such as this if perhaps you are partly to blame and responsible over the OTT censorship when it comes to this type of entertainment.

You have also stated that it's purely a committee decision when it comes to making big decisions. Such as revoking the licence of Babestar TV at the start of 2007 and doing likewise to Bangbabes at the start of 2011. Which part did you play in all of this or was your stay on the committee a very brief one.

I look foward to your reply on this one

I was sat on several of the committees 04-08 as a co-opted member and advisor. I was involved in Babestar yes, but had no power to vote.

(19-02-2013 01:30 )eccles Wrote: [ -> ]Expect to see encrypted channels stop showing adult-sex content next.

I thought that was the case already.

(19-02-2013 01:30 )eccles Wrote: [ -> ]STUDIO 66
Two things leap out from the Studio 66 cases.

No channel can advertise explicit pics or clips for mobile phones.
None of them.
That will hurt the revenues of every channel.

S66 are now advertising Dionne Daniels pics for £3.50 a pop (no chance of that being anywhere near pornographic in Ofcom's eyes) So now safe.

And "send us a pic of your c*ck" for £3.50 (I doubt Ofcom would want to test this service by snapping pics of their money makers) So now safe.

(19-02-2013 11:53 )admiral decker Wrote: [ -> ]

(19-02-2013 01:30 )eccles Wrote: [ -> ]Expect to see encrypted channels stop showing adult-sex content next.

I thought that was the case already.

TVX still advertise (on Sky) that a subscription to their television services gives the subscriber full access to uncensored-uncut content online via the TVX website.

(19-02-2013 08:06 )munch1917 Wrote: [ -> ]

(19-02-2013 01:30 )eccles Wrote: [ -> ]...
Two things leap out from the Studio 66 cases.

No channel can advertise explicit pics or clips for mobile phones.
None of them.
That will hurt the revenues of every channel.

This is despite it being common practice for years. How come Ofcom never noticed before?
...

A couple of things that occur to me.

Firstly, Ofcom made it's initial ruling on the pics/vid issue last month. The first incident it looked at dated back to 15 July 2012. Of course, until Ofcom had investigated and made this ruling, S66 and indeed other channels, could not have been aware that they were doing wrong. As S66 stated, they believed that the age verification on the phones was sufficient. So, from 15 July 2012 until last months ruling, they will have continued to broadcast those ads believing them to be OK.
It seems unfair then for Ofcom to make a ruling on something over 5 months ago, and then to make further punishments on other incidents which happened in the meantime, how could they know until last month that they were doing wrong?

From what i can make out Ofcom actually notified Studio 66 before last September/October that they were launching a investigation into the pic/vid downloads i believe, Studio 66 have said all along that it was a genuine error, Studio 66 told Ofcom that they were suspending the service while the investigations were taking place, they admitted to making a error and that the service was not suspended after Ofcom had notified them of their investigation, Studio 66 said that they hadn't had time to suspend the service for the October the 10th in breach ruling but admitted to human error as the reason why they still hadn't suspended the service by the October the 25 ruling . So if Studio 66 were notified by Ofcom before these October rulings/investigations were first launched and told Ofcom that they had suspended the service but hadn't actually done so then they have been bloody stupid and incompetent imo .
The in beach ruling for the October the 10th decision was also for showing full screen adverts of topless girls from somewhere not long after 9pm to 9.30pm, as we know boobs aren't allowed to be shown before 10pm, also in the 25th of October in breach ruling Studio 66 were also found guilty of broadcasting a girl live showing her boobs before 10pm , whoever is in charge at Studio 66 at present seems to be totally incompetent imo and seems to know less about the rules than we do .
Also they haven't been punished for anything other than the incidents that took place last October . Studio 66 were well aware at that time they were under investigation and shouldn't have been advertising and sending viewers hard core sex vids, they have admitted to human errors as being the reason they were still doing this this at that time .

{edit} Just thought i'd mention that no complaints were made to Ofcom about the pic/vid downloads, Ofcom were investigating Studio 66 for different complaints originally, Ofcom themselves noticed the pic/vid adverts when already investigating the original complaint, only then did they decide to investigate the pic/vids , maybe if Studio 66 hadn't been advertising the pic/vids so graphically in their wording then Ofcom may not have bothered to investigate and no one would be any wiser .

(19-02-2013 11:53 )admiral decker Wrote: [ -> ]

(19-02-2013 01:30 )eccles Wrote: [ -> ]Expect to see encrypted channels stop showing adult-sex content next.

I thought that was the case already.

This is what Ofcom say in their words, Ofcom state that "premium subscription services and pay per view/night services may broadcast "Adult Sex Material" provided that in additional to other protections there is a mandatory PIN protected encryption system, or other equivalent protection, that seeks satisfactorily to restrict access solely to those authorized to view, and there are measures that ensure that the subscriber is a adult, BBFC R18-rated films or their equivalent must not be broadcast" .

(19-02-2013 10:58 )RCTV Wrote: [ -> ]I was sat on several of the committees 04-08 as a co-opted member and advisor. I was involved in Babestar yes, but had no power to vote.

Firstly very good post there Mr Mystery, you do your research really well but moving on I am more interested as to what actually goes on behind the scenes at ofcom HQ.

Now RCTV you previously stated that you were once a member on the committee board. You also recently stated in one of your post's that whoever is the chairman of the committee really has no influence on the politics in which the ship takes direction. You said that it is decided by the board. So what I'm wondering here is.

If this was the case then why were you denied a vote in deciding whether or not to revoke the licence of Babestar TV at the beginning of 2007. Just what type of board is ofcom if only some are allowed to vote on important decisions wherea's other's are denied the right.

Secondly if you were given the right to vote just which way would you have voted and why.

Also please note that ED Richards become Chief Executive of the Ofcom Board in October 2006. Coincidence or not that from that moment onwards the witch hunt was well and truly out for all things concerned with Adult entertainment.

The captain of the ship has no influence on the direction of the board. I beg to differ. RCTV just what and how much do you know with all things ofcom concerned and why are you now posting on a babe channel forum when it's clear that ofcom hate and despise everything about the babe channels.

(19-02-2013 17:54 )Scottishbloke Wrote: [ -> ]<SNIP> questions you asked

Do you know how committees work as I said I was co-opted which isn't unusual in committees, most companies have co-opted board members who can't vote. The members listed on ofcom's site are the ex-officio, elected and nominated. Co-opted's aren't put on due to the amount the change.

Co-opted members are on a committee are on a committee for a reason. For me it varied depending what board I was asked to sit in. It varied from being co-opted as a youth member, parent, production specialist or someone in the industry on an issue that is being looked at, at that time a mixture of news broadcasting and the babe channels, as well as theatre work.

Can you prove that Ed Richard's was the cause? or you are speculating because of the amount that are becoming aware?

Maybe, just maybe look at that there are more complaints about the babe channels and similar complaints, ofcom can't just sit there and let it happen, there would be tonnes of people complaining saying that ofcom aren't doing anything. Ofcom have to do something and this has increased. Remember that children have more access to sky/freeview and internet than ever and parents are the most likely people to complain about this sort of channel, as well as the channels.


My view from what I remember of the case, was several years ago. (Taken from Notice of Revocation)
Rule 4.2.3 (Treatments unsuitable for Children) - There were several times that this occurred and they were warned for this several times.
Rule 5.1 (Misleading Information) and Rule 5.4.2 (Superimposed text) - Think if they had worked with ofcom that could have been sorted
Rule 6.1 (Harm and Offence) and Rule 7.3.1 (Mental harm) Rule 7.3.7 (Use of scheduling restrictions) - Adverts could have been pulled, and these could have been done.
Rule 11.1.2 (Premium rate services) - pull the adverts.

in breach of its Television Licensable Content Service licence, Condition 17.1: Failure to comply with a direction from the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) that the offending advertising be removed from the service, despite repeated requests and despite that direction being subsequently reinforced by Ofcom.

I would of agreed and revoked, as there were changes that they could of done, which they failed to do and it would of been fairly easy to do the changes. They were warned several times. However I do think that there was to much emphasis on children, but at the end of the day they broke rules and failed to comply with ofcom, and do things that are easy to do and could of saved them.