The UK Babe Channels Forum

Following the 2009 survey this is what was proposed before Ofc@m choose to take a cautionary approach against all evidence.

RULE CHANGES
The following rule changes are proposed, as well as others stated or implied in other sections of this document:
• Material up to and including BBFC 18 certificate strength can be transmitted after the watershed, subject to additional controls for strong sexual content.
• Strong sexual content up to cert 18 can be transmitted after the watershed provided there is a genuine educational justification.
• Brief accidental breeches, for example genitalia visible in long shot for a second while changing position, shall be tolerated.
• Strong sexual content up to cert 18 but without a genuine educational justification, including sex themed entertainment, can be transmitted after 10:30pm provided it is flagged as “18” and voluntary settings can block this.
• Strong sexual content up to cert 18 including material intended for sexual gratification or arousal can be transmitted after 10:30pm in the Adult section of an Electronic Programme Guide, such that voluntary means exist to block access to the entire Adult section.
• Strong sexual material equivalent to BBFC R18 strength can be transmitted after 10:30pm on PIN protected channels with adult verification.
• Material stronger than BBFC R18 may not be transmitted.
• Where ambiguity exists, material shall be regarded as BBFC 18 equivalent rather than BBFC R18. Material shall only be considered BBFC R18 strength if there is a prolonged clear view of genital contact. A small distant view shall not be regarded as clear.
• Being in the Adult section of an Electronic Guide shall be regarded as editorial justification for sexual content including nudity, gestures, and language, subject to access restrictions defined above.

All the controls to block channels already exist and probably can be improved to make them more secure. Other than having a permanent sign of '18' on prominent display on the screen all the requirements to allow stronger content on FTA/FTV channels exist as well as R18 on encrypted channels.

Regarding R18 material
When The Government drafted the Communications Act 2003 it had every opportunity to include a clause specifically banning the broadcast of R18 material. It is probable that the theoretical ability to do so had been pointed out by both the previous regulators and by civil servants with expertise in broadcasting.
Indeed the BBC’s long-standing right to transmit any sexual content it saw fit was well known, and the introduction of external regulation was widely commented on.
Likewise Parliament had every opportunity to introduce an amendment banning transmission of R18-strength material. Not only did Parliament not pass such an amendment, so far as is know, there was not even a serious minority call in the house to do so that was defeated. It is therefore arguable that by specifically banning R18 material, OfC@m has exceeded what Parliament intended.

R18 is not banned by criminal law but by a regulator not wanting to bring the wrath of the moralistic minority onto their heads.

It has always been subject to challenge but no 'adult' broadcaster has either had the money, inclination or desire to tread that path even though the ECHR would support such a position.

I am currently looking into the ECHR case studies regarding licenses and administrative law decisions and will post soon.

(06-02-2011 05:31 )Gold Plated Pension Wrote: [ -> ]Following the 2009 survey this is what was proposed before Ofc@m choose to take a cautionary approach against all evidence.

RULE CHANGES
The following rule changes are proposed, as well as others stated or implied in other sections of this document:

All most interesting and i doubt that any of us would argue with the majority of the points. However the question arises as to who proposed the listed rule changes and to whom?

(06-02-2011 11:06 )Tonywauk Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-02-2011 05:31 )Gold Plated Pension Wrote: [ -> ]Following the 2009 survey this is what was proposed before Ofc@m choose to take a cautionary approach against all evidence.

RULE CHANGES
The following rule changes are proposed, as well as others stated or implied in other sections of this document:

However the question arises as to who proposed the listed rule changes and to whom?

Indeed! That was going to be my question. Whoever it was had their heads screwed on much firmer than Ofcom do.

I believe in time we will see a more gradual move towards proper R18 material as it is achievable. Other countries in Europe have questioned the censorship rules and have won. To defeat Ofcom you have to take a stand and exhaust every revenue that is possible, which none of them have so far done. If the babe channels and subscription ones did this then I think a lot of the nonsense and persistent bullying methods used by those at Ofcom will be stopped. Ofcom I don't think will go and are probably here to stay for the time being, however a high court ruling could order them not to target Adult Channels anymore, so long as they are all in the correct section of the EPG'S. Instead Ofcom will only be responsible for monitoring channels outside of the Adult Sector. Yes the likes of Babestation are still making a healthy profit even with the restrictions in place but still face the every day danger of Ofcom without notice closing them down just like they did to Bangbabes. The closure of Bangbabes should have been enough of a warning for the rest to sit up and take notice but they all appear to be perfectly happy and continuing on as if nothing has ever happened.

(07-02-2011 03:39 )Scottishbloke Wrote: [ -> ]I believe in time we will see a more gradual move towards proper R18 material as it is achievable. Other countries in Europe have questioned the censorship rules and have won. To defeat Ofcom you have to take a stand and exhaust every revenue that is possible, which none of them have so far done.

There is a gentleman's agreement between Benelux Ltd (Playboy/Adult channel) and Northern and Shell (TVX). Both Broadcasters have agreed to stick to a fair game and not show hardcore. Northern and Shell (TVX) did play dirty and briefly show hardcore to entice new subscribers, Benelux Ltd cried to Ofcom: a record fine.
The biggest critic of allowing Hardcore subscription TV? Not the religious nutters or the Mary Whitehouse brigade or Ofcom but the AITA, the trade body that represents licensed sex shops. They were the ones who publicly claimed that encrypted/subscription based R18 on TV is harmful, yet a hardcore DVD from a sex shop is safe.

(07-02-2011 04:07 )vostok 1 Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-02-2011 03:39 )Scottishbloke Wrote: [ -> ]I believe in time we will see a more gradual move towards proper R18 material as it is achievable. Other countries in Europe have questioned the censorship rules and have won. To defeat Ofcom you have to take a stand and exhaust every revenue that is possible, which none of them have so far done.

There is a gentleman's agreement between Benelux Ltd (Playboy/Adult channel) and Northern and Shell (TVX). Both Broadcasters have agreed to stick to a fair game and not show hardcore. Northern and Shell (TVX) did play dirty and briefly show hardcore to entice new subscribers, Benelux Ltd cried to Ofcom: a record fine.
The biggest critic of allowing Hardcore subscription TV? Not the religious nutters or the Mary Whitehouse brigade or Ofcom but the AITA, the trade body that represents licensed sex shops. They were the ones who publicly claimed that encrypted/subscription based R18 on TV is harmful, yet a hardcore DVD from a sex shop is safe.

Playboy TV have just been found 'In Breach' for showing R18 equivalent content during the freeview section of it's Climax 3-3 encrypted service.

Three scenes were depicted
The first scene showed two actresses‟ in a bar setting. This scene included the depiction of the insertion of a bottle, a straw, a dildo and a hand-held soft drink dispenser gun. The second scene showed what appeared to be a lone woman urinating in a barn. The third scene showed three actresses‟ in a barn who appeared to be inserting fingers and dildos into themselves and each other.

What amazes me is that when this occurred no reference was made on this forum about these scenes broadcast on the 1st July 2010. Yet some time later a complaint was received by a viewer even though Playboy themselves had contacted Ofc@m the following day about the slipup.

Anyway Ofc@m have found them in breach of

Rule 1.17 “Material equivalent to the British board of Film Classification (BBFC) R18-rating must not be broadcast at any time”.

Expect Playboy to be hung out to dry by the regulator once it finishes it's outstanding investigations.

Todays Broadcast Bulletin has 2 interesting cases:

Hoppr Entertainment / Live 360 - Notice of Direction
Seems that Ofcom have not really known who owns/controls Hoppr since July last year, perhaps longer. Using anti-competition powers designed to prevent control of the broadcasting industry, or cross-media control of a newspaper and TV empire, Ofcom have ordered Hoppr to supply a signed document saying Regent Nominees Limited is the ultimate owner/shareholding company.

Thats right, Ofcom want to be told what they already know.

Climax 3 gets found in breach for broadcasting 30 minutes of unencrypted material back on 1 July last year. Not clear why it has taken 7 months to reach a decision when Playboy, the licence owners, admitted the offence and reported themselves.

Quote:The first scene showed two actresses' in a bar setting. This scene included the depiction of the insertion of a bottle, a straw, a dildo and a hand-held soft drink dispenser gun. The second scene showed what appeared to be a lone woman urinating in a barn. The third scene showed three actresses' in a barn who appeared to be inserting fingers and dildos into themselves and each other.

My emphasis on the second scene.

Ofcom seem to be saying that they have their own definition of R18

Quote:Various Ofcom decisions have clarified what Ofcom has regarded as content equivalent to R18-rated material

Not clear why Ofcom do not use BBFC guidelines instead of having to work out "what [they] regard as ...R18".

Quote:Ofcom first examined a scene during this broadcast which included what appeared to be a lone actress urinating. Ofcom considered that this scene had a clear focus on the act of urination and that, as with other material in this programme, was broadcast for the primary purpose of sexual arousal. In the circumstances, Ofcom considered that this particular content was of an equivalent standard to R18-rated material and its broadcast was therefore a breach of Rule 1.17.

I find it hard to belive that there was a clear shot of urine leaving the vagina, as opposed to a stream of yellow liquid between the knees that might - or might not - have been urine. Ofcom does not say that it could be seen leaving the vagina, just that the scene focussed on the act, and thats a major difference. BBFC guidelines state that R18 contains "clear images of sexual activity".

Yet again, Ofcom confuses implied and explicit.

In a yah-boo-sucks note, Ofcom go on to say

Quote:In any event, this material clearly constituted at the very least 'adult sex material' – i.e. images of a strong sexual nature that were broadcast for the primary purpose of sexual arousal and should not therefore have been broadcast without mandatory restricted access.

They might get fined for broadcasting R18.

If they do, the people who fine them will be colleagues of the people who wrote the rules, investigated the case, decided to bring the case, and then decided they had broken the rules. Under Human Rights Legislation (and Magna Carta) legal decisions should be taken by people who are impartial, not mates of the prosecution.

Thread about the broadcast here Climax3-3 Possible broadcast error! - Full frontal nudity/sextoys on 10pm Free View

Great minds think alike.

This stuff was shown on ENCRYPTED tv!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

ENCRYPTED!!!!

Get a life, ofcon minions.

(08-02-2011 00:41 )mrmann Wrote: [ -> ]This stuff was shown on ENCRYPTED tv!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

ENCRYPTED!!!!

Get a life, ofcon minions.

No, Playboy muffined up and put it out unencrypted.