The UK Babe Channels Forum

it was nothing to do with simulcasting on multiple channels as there was little of that at that time
Ofcom give the reasons here

https://www.ofcom.org.uk/consultations-a...ticipation

(17-10-2019 22:13 )morenudityplease Wrote: [ -> ]

(17-10-2019 17:23 )grantorino Wrote: [ -> ]Originally the babe shows all ran on general entertainment licenses there was a long consultation which resulted in Ofcom forcing them to change to Teleshopping licenses

You are correct, I had forgotten about that.

Did it not have something to do with too many of the channels were showing the same feed? For example three different Babestation Channels all showing the same content at the same time. An ENTs licence wouldn't allow that, perhaps that is one of the reasons they changed.

(19-10-2019 07:49 )grantorino Wrote: [ -> ]it was nothing to do with simulcasting on multiple channels as there was little of that at that time
Ofcom give the reasons here

https://www.ofcom.org.uk/consultations-a...ticipation

(17-10-2019 22:13 )morenudityplease Wrote: [ -> ]

(17-10-2019 17:23 )grantorino Wrote: [ -> ]Originally the babe shows all ran on general entertainment licenses there was a long consultation which resulted in Ofcom forcing them to change to Teleshopping licenses

You are correct, I had forgotten about that.

Did it not have something to do with too many of the channels were showing the same feed? For example three different Babestation Channels all showing the same content at the same time. An ENTs licence wouldn't allow that, perhaps that is one of the reasons they changed.

To my recollection the main reason Ofcom compelled and pigeonholed the channels into Teleshopping classification was that such standards did not permit the dress codes and sexual titillation of the other licence. Ofcom basically denied the channels their actual function because they also advertised their product.

In short: it was a downright deceitful tactic and a liberty.

9 complaints not upheld about 66 in this weeks broadcast bulletin



Studio 66 Studio 66 TV 05/09/2019 Participation TV - Offence 2

Studio 66 Studio 66 TV 07/09/2019 Participation TV - Offence 1

Studio 66 Studio 66 TV 26/09/2019 Participation TV - Offence 1

Studio 66 Studio 66 TV 30/09/2019 Participation TV - Offence 1

Studio 66 Studio 66 TV 01/10/2019 Participation TV - Offence 2

Studio 66 Studio 66 TV 03/10/2019 Participation TV - Offence 1

Studio 66 Studio 66 TV 04/10/2019 Participation TV - Offence 2

Studio 66 Studio 66 TV 06/10/2019 Participation TV - Offence 1

Studio 66 Studio 66 TV 07/10/2019 Participation TV - Harm 2

Well that's interesting. It's Issue 389 BTW.

Eleven offences and two harms recorded on page 38 and on page 30 the regulator says that after careful assessment they've decided not to persue because they do not raise issues warranting investigation.

What's the difference between assessment and investigation and surely if I do harm or cause offence then I should be investigated and told off.

To understand Ofcom's reasoning I read through the list of other cases. I tried counting and lost count. Twice. There must be 400 of them on nine pages. I assume that Ofcom have to bear in mind their resources when carefully assessing.
If you read through the list you'll see so many programmes that are familiar to us all but one of them stood out and it's this one.



I'm prepared to bet that most of us could tell exactly what the issue is here and for those that don't I'll tell you that it is because of the name of a man's dog.

Studio 66's defence last time was that they are an adult channel and I thought that that was a bit weak even though it's true. What they were saying was that babe channels are part of the culture. Ofcom decided not to persue Film 4 because Dambusters is part of the culture too.
I'm heartened by this as it says to me that there is someone with some commonsense at Ofcom.

Ofcom assess every compliant they get and decide whether it warrants a full investigation by them. Assessments that conclude the compliant worthy of no further consideration (or are out of Ofcom's scope of responsibility) get listed in the simple long lists that conclude each bulletin.

If a complaint gets to the investigation stage it will be outlined in detail on the earlier pages of a later bulletin. With a breach or no breach conclusion appended (but not always a reference to any action taken as the result of a breach).

(27-10-2019 17:25 )Chrisst Wrote: [ -> ]Ofcom decided not to persue Film 4 because Dambusters is part of the culture too.
I'm heartened by this as it says to me that there is someone with some commonsense at Ofcom.

The Dam Busters is a film with a PG rating and under Ofcom's broadcasting code TV channels (like Film4) are allowed to show PG films.

Accordingly, the complaint wasn't pursued because it was clear that no rule had been broken. It was nothing to do with common sense.

I'm always impressed by the facts you have your posts Admiral.
Could you, would you (or anyone else) be able to suggest then why the regulator decided not to persue so many issues concerning S66. They decided to persue none...not one.
Other than because no rule had been broken, using a previous example perhaps.

(28-10-2019 18:20 )Chrisst Wrote: [ -> ]Could you, would you (or anyone else) be able to suggest then why the regulator decided not to persue so many issues concerning S66.

Ofcom assess complaints to see if they are a potential breach of the rules or not. If the facts as alleged in a particular complaint would appear to be a breach of the rules then it would get investigated, but if it appears that no rules would have been broken even if the facts alleged are true then it would not be pursued.

A good example is a complaint in the recent bulletin about wrestling being violent, which Ofcom chose not to pursue. TV channels are allowed to show wrestling after the watershed and the programme named is shown at 11:00pm, so a broadcast at that time would not amount to any potential breach of the rules.

Admiral... If all (or at least most of) the complaints against a channel come from one person, what are Ofcom's rules / guidelines in those circumstances?

There will always be individuals with a grudge against a girl / channel for whatever reason, would that idiot be flagged for any complaints in the future?

Ofcom have a record of every person who has ever complained to them, and details of their complaints, which means that in assessing a particular complaint they have easy access to all complaints made by the same person previously. That information may help them to decide on whether a complaint is worth pursuing or not.