The whole thing about Babestation broadcasting with a Dutch license via our terrestrial digital tv transmitters is a bit of a bizarre one as ultimately all uk digital tv multiplex transmitters are responsibilty of Ofcom as per the uk government rules.
You can bet ya bottom dollar the Dutch government would not let you broadcast via their terrestrial transmitter mutiplexes with a uk licence or not conforming to certain very strict rules that all Dutch tv has to conform too.
(09-11-2011 22:19 )mr mystery Wrote: [ -> ]All i know is that Ofcom themselves have said they do not regulate Babstation because the channel is licenced in Holland , when new rules were brought in last year the babe channels were redefined as advertising/teleshopping programs, babe channels had to apply for new licences and adhere to new rules , Ofcom said in one of their bulletins that the new rules wouldn't apply to Babesation because they were exempt from Ofcom regulations because they had a oversees licence . Like BS posted , it's not good to draw extra attention to yourself . If Ofcom state themselves they do not regulate the BS channels on Sky or freeview with the Dutch licence then that's good enough for me .
I'm sorry, mr mystery, I know you're only reporting things you've heard and read elsewhere - and I don't doubt Ofcom have said the things you say, but all this is complete nonsense.
There is an argument that says the reason Babestation don't take advantage of their Dutch license is because they don't want to outdo their PPV show on Freeview, but that doesn't explain why the cameramen on this channel are constantly cropping and hurriedly cutting away from the girls - in exactly the same way the cameramen on all the other channels do - whenever they accidentally reveal more than they should.
It's one thing them not wanting to outdo their ppv show, but if they didn't have to stick to Ofcom's rules, there's no way they'd be as cautious about accidental slips and flashes as they are.
I think the channels should designate one channel to be a secret channel that only trusted members know of, where we can punch a code into our TV and it will appear, without censorship. The codes could be given to trusted callers and viewers, and the threat of forum banning could be imposed if anyone reveals what the codes are. That might be a fun way to do a proper adult show for once. The producers of these channels could give the codes to the admins/mods here, and they could give it to those they trust. It wouldn't even have to be all the time, just every once and a while. Power outages would be a nice cover
We are going off track a bit from what was supposed to be about Playboy's 110k fine , but the simple answer is that BS are cautious at times because their Dutch licenced channel on Sky shows the same feed as their Ofcom regulated freeview channel and their Dutch licenced freeview channel (BS Xtra) shows the same feed as their Sky Ofcom regulated Sky channel (910) BS Blue is Ofcom licenced on Sky and freeview , so for most of the time what is shown on tv from BS is regulated by Ofcom . Like i said earlier if Playboy/RLC used a oversees licence even if content was the same as Ofcom regulated channels they wouldn't be getting Ofcom fines , also if they ever get a freeview channel like Cathy said they will be getting then a Dutch licence would allow them to broadcast before 12am .
I feel we were completely lied to by the Tories regarding "getting rid of quangos" and "more personal freedoms"! As for the Liberals what a crock, they have just bent over like a good puppies do (prostituted themselves for a minor sniff of political power). What a bunch of fucking terrible liars!!! OFCOM can suck my dick.
The jurisdiction issue seems to be complicated (unsurprisingly!), but I've found two documents that may help shed some light.
The
first one is Article 2 of the EU's Audiovisual and Media Policies Directive. This focuses on the subject of 'jurisdiction'. There's a bit to read there, but I think the key point is:
"
To avoid cases of double jurisdiction or absence of jurisdiction, each provider of media services comes under the jurisdiction of one and only one EU country for the purposes of the directive. This will depend chiefly on where their central administration is located and where management decisions are taken on programming or selection of content. Further (subsidiary) criteria include the location of the workforce and any satellite uplink, and the use of a country’s satellite capacity."
It may be argued therefore that if a channel's central administration, management and workforce are all based in the UK, then UK (ie. Ofcom) jurisdiction applies.
On Ofcom's website, they provide a
PDF document setting out their guidelines for dealing with regulators in other EU member states in relation to UK-licensed TV channels. I accept that this is the other way round than what we're discussing, but it does say at one point:
"
Ofcom regularly receives and deals with complaints about services which fall under UK jurisdiction (and therefore hold a licence granted by Ofcom) but which are receivable in other Member States of the European Union. Ofcom believes there are benefits of cooperation with the official regulators of other Member States, to assist each other in the handling of complaints concerning such services. In the same way, should there be complaints from UK audiences concerning services established (and licensed) in other Member States, Ofcom would appreciate the regulators of such services reciprocating, insofar as is possible, the principles set out in this guidance."
Does any of this help move things forward?
(10-11-2011 19:29 )terence Wrote: [ -> ] (10-11-2011 03:17 )StanTheMan Wrote: [ -> ]I hope the cocks of every single Ofcom board member fall off!
including the female members!
No, I hope they get fanny rot.
(10-11-2011 20:45 )BarrieBF Wrote: [ -> ] (09-11-2011 20:40 )MARCCE Wrote: [ -> ]The big clue is in the repeated statement that channels broadcasting as advertisement channels have "less latitude" than channels broadcasting editorial content.
It's worth highlighting this point because it seems to be something that a lot of people here overlook.
It's overlooked because it's ridiculous. If the babe channels are truly categorised as shopping channels, then they're breaking every rule in the book because nudity and overtly provocative behaviour isn't allowed in advertising, therefore Ofcom themselves should be heavily fined for allowing such content on shopping channels.
... now there's a thought.
I no i mentioned it in one of my earlier posts, but is there any way we could expose ofcom to a european Regulator? The government of the day are doing F**K ALL at this moment in time, i don't no, maybe I'm falling short of some idea's
