The UK Babe Channels Forum

(19-02-2013 20:44 )RCTV Wrote: [ -> ]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.

What on earth are you talking about? There are hardly any genuine complaints about the babe channels. Most people couldn't care less.

I wish to quiz you on these points if you don't mind.

(19-02-2013 20:44 )RCTV Wrote: [ -> ]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.

Firstly rule 4.2.3 (Treatments unsuitable for Children)

Well first and formost. This channel was broadcast in the Adult EPG section so expect adult content. It was also shown after the watershed so this argument holds absolutely no water whatsoever.

Verdict - Not gulity.

Next this one - Rule 5.1 (Misleading Information) and Rule 5.4.2

This I will agree with you on to a certain extent, it was rumoured at the time that it was near impossible to get through and also rumoured at the time that the show was infact pre-recorded. This I will agree with you on.

Verdict - Gulity - It has to be live and callers should have a realistic chance of being connected. Sort the scam out now I would have said.

Next - Rule 6.1 (Harm and Offence) and Rule 7.3.1 (Mental harm) Rule 7.3.7

Where is the evidence that this type of content if harmful or indeed offensive. We all have choice. If you don't want to be offended then don't watch. Also Ofcom's research has not been medically proven, it's mere propaganda and personal prejudice on their behalf when a board is supposed to be neutral, impartial and unbiased at all times and tolerant to all tastes, beliefs and interests.

Verdict - Not Gulity.

Finally - Rule 11.1.2 (Premium rate services)

In order for any type of adult business to survive it has to run a premium rate service. This still exist's to the present day.

Verdict - Not Gulity.

Overall Verdict - Not Gulity.

Overall my verdict is that Babestar TV was hounded out the door by ofcom based on nothing more than old fashioned bias. The reasons for their licence being revoked was down to a number of half cocked and half baked allegations. Bangbabes was the next to suffer the same fate at the start of January 2011 based on very (almost identical) allegations against them too.

(19-02-2013 20:56 )Digital Dave Wrote: [ -> ]What on earth are you talking about? There are hardly any genuine complaints about the babe channels. Most people couldn't care less.

says someone who watches the channels and who clearly can't see it from someone else's point of view, well got news for you, just because you wouldn't complain doesn't mean that tonnes of people won't. This reminds me of the planners... if anyone has watched that, that is the sort of board, in terms of people from all angles.

(19-02-2013 23:06 )RCTV Wrote: [ -> ]says someone who watches the channels and who clearly can't see it from someone else's point of view, well got news for you, just because you wouldn't complain doesn't mean that tonnes of people won't. This reminds me of the planners... if anyone has watched that, that is the sort of board, in terms of people from all angles.

So someone who claims to have worked for Ofcom is unaware that when they publish their investigation list, and their findings, they detail how many complaints were received. That's how I know. Facts rather than fantasy.

(19-02-2013 21:23 )Scottishbloke Wrote: [ -> ]I wish to quiz you on these points if you don't mind.

(19-02-2013 20:44 )RCTV Wrote: [ -> ]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.

Firstly rule 4.2.3 (Treatments unsuitable for Children)

Well first and formost. This channel was broadcast in the Adult EPG section so expect adult content. It was also shown after the watershed so this argument holds absolutely no water whatsoever.

Verdict - Not gulity.

Next this one - Rule 5.1 (Misleading Information) and Rule 5.4.2

This I will agree with you on to a certain extent, it was rumoured at the time that it was near impossible to get through and also rumoured at the time that the show was infact pre-recorded. This I will agree with you on.

Verdict - Gulity - It has to be live and callers should have a realistic chance of being connected. Sort the scam out now I would have said.

Next - Rule 6.1 (Harm and Offence) and Rule 7.3.1 (Mental harm) Rule 7.3.7

Where is the evidence that this type of content if harmful or indeed offensive. We all have choice. If you don't want to be offended then don't watch. Also Ofcom's research has not been medically proven, it's mere propaganda and personal prejudice on their behalf when a board is supposed to be neutral, impartial and unbiased at all times and tolerant to all tastes, beliefs and interests.

Verdict - Not Gulity.

Finally - Rule 11.1.2 (Premium rate services)

In order for any type of adult business to survive it has to run a premium rate service. This still exist's to the present day.

Verdict - Not Gulity.

Overall Verdict - Not Gulity.

Overall my verdict is that Babestar TV was hounded out the door by ofcom based on nothing more than old fashioned bias. The reasons for their licence being revoked was down to a number of half cocked and half baked allegations. Bangbabes was the next to suffer the same fate at the start of January 2011 based on very (almost identical) allegations against them too.

Going to pick your argument a bit, however do agree with parts, say thank you to digital dave for my slightly pissy sound to this.

4.2.3 - agree, but from what I remember there was no encryption, and you have to also take in to account the no topless before 10, and how easy to access it would be to children, no matter where it was placed in sky as to ofcom that has never mattered as it was free accessible, all it would take is for a child to enter a wrong number and they'd have boob in their face. just because it is classified by sky, doesn't mean that this rule doesn't apply. I'm pretty sure that there was some topless before 10, which whilst it still happens, it is dealt with by the companies, this wasn't. I would still go with guilty, but it isn't the main one.

5.1 and 5.4.2 - Pretty sure it was proven to be recorded, or at least parts, and it wasn't made obvious of that, think it is was tease me tv that used to do recorded, but they were obviously recorded and not live. I still think that there are channels that break this, but can't always be proven, in terms of call priority and getting through to the girls.

6.1, 7.3.1 and 7.3.7 - I think this was to do with the adverts shown during the show, and whilst we have choice, we have the watershed, that's restricting choice, that pees a lot of ofcom people off. (good tip to annoy ofcom and try and get your way)

11.1.2 - it's the advertising not the use of the numbers, they were being advertised on some of the adverts if memory serves me correctly.

I would still say guilty on those, but lets remember though they were told about these on several occasions and ofcom did offer to help them fix them, well some of industry pro's on ofcom did, and they refused.

Bangbabes is a totally different story and tbh was expected as they clearly were breaking the rules, more so than Babestar TV, however I think at that time when in the grand scheme of things babe channels were fairly new in the UK, a dimmer view was taken. At that time the decision was right, would I make that decision now that they are guilty, most probably not after Bangbabes, but I would give them a final warning and then revoke as think if they carried on they would of gone the way of Bangbabes.

Trying to remember exact things from years ago is hard, especially when there were several other cases and there's a huge PhD between then and now about production techniques and broadcasting techniques.

If anyone gets asked to work for ofcom DON'T waaaay to stressful.

(19-02-2013 23:14 )Digital Dave Wrote: [ -> ]So someone who claims to have worked for Ofcom is unaware that when they publish their investigation list, and their findings, they detail how many complaints were received. That's how I know. Facts rather than fantasy.

I am aware, but you look at what the complaints received were about. Also you compare the number the babe channels get to other sectors of the industry is far more. Look over a period of time, you will see that the babe channels get more than quite a few other sectors, which is why ofcom is the way it is

I don't quite know what to make of you RCTV, or moreover, your posts in this thread.

But it seems to me, and a few others' too, that you/your "justifications" in your posts are rubbish!

Without delving too deeply, and there's no need anyway, it's fkn CLEAR that Ofcom are dead set against the babe channels. For a start, the detailed inforamtion they give about what was seen etc etc is waaaaay more detailed than any other complaint/breach about any other channel; the targeted way they go about their "business" is so biased - just see what, and even how many, complaints/breaches etc are made against other channels, mainstream channels, and the relative action Ofcom take against them.

There is clear, targeted, biased, vexatious attitude towards the babe channels and this is dictated by someone/some people at the top levels of Ofcom.

Nobody needs to know how a committee works, work at Ofcom etc to see this.

(19-02-2013 23:26 )RCTV Wrote: [ -> ]4.2.3 - agree, but from what I remember there was no encryption, and you have to also take in to account the no topless before 10, and how easy to access it would be to children, no matter where it was placed in sky as to ofcom that has never mattered as it was free accessible, all it would take is for a child to enter a wrong number and they'd have boob in their face. just because it is classified by sky, doesn't mean that this rule doesn't apply. I'm pretty sure that there was some topless before 10, which whilst it still happens, it is dealt with by the companies, this wasn't. I would still go with guilty, but it isn't the main one.

Are you aware that bare breasts are allowed on mainstream TV from 9pm? Your comment is invalid because children are just as likely to get a 'boob in the face' from a film on Channel 4. If they watch Embarrassing Bodies it'll be even worse!

(19-02-2013 23:27 )RCTV Wrote: [ -> ]I am aware, but you look at what the complaints received were about. Also you compare the number the babe channels get to other sectors of the industry is far more. Look over a period of time, you will see that the babe channels get more than quite a few other sectors, which is why ofcom is the way it is

Total and utter rubbish. I had doubted that you worked for Ofcom but judging from your twisted logic I'm beginning to change my view.

(19-02-2013 23:55 )Digital Dave Wrote: [ -> ]Are you aware that bare breasts are allowed on mainstream TV from 9pm? Your comment is invalid because children are just as likely to get a 'boob in the face' from a film on Channel 4. If they watch Embarrassing Bodies it'll be even worse!

that will be for a specific reason, highlighting something, not for entertainment.

(19-02-2013 23:58 )Digital Dave Wrote: [ -> ]Total and utter rubbish. I had doubted that you worked for Ofcom but judging from your twisted logic I'm beginning to change my view.

I highly doubt you've looked and compared over years. My logic twisted, have you actually looked through this thread at some of what is put on here, you're calling my logic twisted, surely having one narrow minded point of view is fairly twisted.