Mikedafc, I can see your point, but I was thinking how can we answer the fact that under the ITC the babe channels had a lot more freedom to do what they wanted to do, and everything seemed to be running A OK.
It's a fact since 2003 the fateful year when Ofcom was formed under the bloody labour party that things started going TITS up pardon the pun, and it's slowly been going down the toilet ever since? You no what I say " BRING BACK ITC" or bring back a proper regulator who no's how to regulate. The fact remains that these channels are specificly positioned in the 900's on SKY EPG and they do not cause any harm to anyone, furthermore the general public cannot accidently stumble on them, you have to physically input them in or select Adult on SKY'S scroll bar in the menu.
SKY have done all they can, it's just the F**KING idiots at ofcom who want to destroy them it's that simple.
Something else has just crossed my mind, do you think SKY would be prepared to do battle for the babe channels? Well I'm thinking to myself, all these Babe channels pay SKY to be on there network, and when these channels disappear its causing loss of revenue for SKY. So maybe it might be in SKY'S interest to do battle with Ofcom not only for the Babe channels but for other channels which have either been fined or removed from air completely. mmmh maybe its a shot in the dark but SKY sure has the financial clout to take on Ofcom in the courts and win.
(12-11-2011 20:00 )continental19 Wrote: [ -> ]Hey Mystery, the babe channels can't have it both ways, they either go PIN protected which as you've mentioned should allow them to be as they used to a yr ago, however Ofcom can be unpredictable as we no, I guess if the channels went soft pin protection they might have some ammo to fight Ofcom but who no's, it's bit like playing Roulette none of us no where the ball is going to finish either on black or red. In otherwords Ofcom are an unknown quantity, and thinking you've managed to gain an advantage with these guys is a gamble in itself.
Weren't we just here half a dozen posts ago, when I explained then that soft encryption wouldn't make any difference? I'm no expert in this field, but Ofcom have stated it doesn't offer sufficient protection as far as they're concerned.
You're right Stan I do recall the post you wrote, you are correct mate
(12-11-2011 22:37 )StanTheMan Wrote: [ -> ]Weren't we just here half a dozen posts ago, when I explained then that soft encryption wouldn't make any difference? I'm no expert in this field, but Ofcom have stated it doesn't offer sufficient protection as far as they're concerned.
Ofcom say an adult lock isnt sufficient unless there is some genuine form of adult verification. Rather than have people queue up at the Post Office with their passports for an Ofcom pass they rely on credit cards. You cant have a credit card under 18 so credit card payment is proof of age they say.
(12-11-2011 21:49 )mikedafc Wrote: [ -> ]So it is ok to go graphically inside a womens private parts if it's educational but not if it's to get men off as part of a phone sex chat. The one rule for one programme and another for another needs to be tackled!!
That is basically their argument yes, and sorry to say I agree with the strength of it in the context of children seeing it (which is a major context for most of what Ofcom do.) Some sex education programmes are even aimed at children! I'd say those broadcasters think those programmes should be shown in schools or used to make sex education more credible to a savvy generation.
But no one thinks the babechannels should be accessed by kids, isnt that right?
What is the difference? It has to be something to do with purpose/function or whatever Ofcom call 'context'.
(12-11-2011 22:37 )StanTheMan Wrote: [ -> ] (12-11-2011 20:00 )continental19 Wrote: [ -> ]Hey Mystery, the babe channels can't have it both ways, they either go PIN protected which as you've mentioned should allow them to be as they used to a yr ago, however Ofcom can be unpredictable as we no, I guess if the channels went soft pin protection they might have some ammo to fight Ofcom but who no's, it's bit like playing Roulette none of us no where the ball is going to finish either on black or red. In otherwords Ofcom are an unknown quantity, and thinking you've managed to gain an advantage with these guys is a gamble in itself.
Weren't we just here half a dozen posts ago, when I explained then that soft encryption wouldn't make any difference? I'm no expert in this field, but Ofcom have stated it doesn't offer sufficient protection as far as they're concerned.
I've seen your post Stan and have seen it mentioned in a few other places places that Ofcom don't recognise PIN protection as giving sufficient protection in order for harder material to be shown , but i always thought what they were talking about was the same content not being allowed under just PIN protection as to what allowed on subscription channels , obviously Ofcom recognise PIN protection as having a certain amount of protection or otherwise they wouldn't let channels use PIN protection in the daytime to show programs that without PIN protection could only be show at night .
So would PIN protection offer channels more leeway at all , especially were complaints were concerned if they only showed slightly harder material under PIN protection , if RLC had used PIN protection would they have received the same amount of complaints and been given a 110k fine ? . I don't know any of the answers i'm just asking a few questions .
Hey Mystery, i agree, there seems to be to many questions and not enough answers, and that's the trouble. If only we new of someone on the inside of Ofcom to find out what the heck is going on.
The bottom line is that Ofcom are on a seek and destroy mission concerning the Babe channels, and if this Monster isn't stopped in its tracks now, they'll eventually accomplish there mission. There's only so much any of us can do, but to really take Ofcom on at there own game there needs to be some sort of powerhouse to take them on, who or what is anyone's guess.
(12-11-2011 22:06 )continental19 Wrote: [ -> ]Something else has just crossed my mind, do you think SKY would be prepared to do battle for the babe channels? Well I'm thinking to myself, all these Babe channels pay SKY to be on there network, and when these channels disappear its causing loss of revenue for SKY.
This is a non-starter I'm afraid. There is a huge backlog to get onto Sky's EPG (despite what's generally thought, there isn't a limitless capacity for channels on Sky's EPG software).
For every channel that leaves the EPG, there's a dozen channels wanting to take its slot, which is why there's also a tidy market for channels selling their EPG slot to the highest bidder wanting to jump the queue.
Sky aren't losing any money because of this.
I think part of the issue here is perception. I don't know many people who actually find porn offensive these days. I work in a large office where watching porn is part of a healthy and normal sex life. Several of my female colleagues, including managers and parents, went to see puppetry of the penis last week at our local theatre (it was a 2000 seater sell out) and one girl remarked on the double standards i.e. if the local council put on a female stripper show there would be massive outrage but seeing nude men playing with themselves on stage is fine. Same as those who say Chubby Brown swearing is vile but the Vagina Monologues is acceptable (it also sold out the same venue TWICE in a year btw)...None of these porn watchers are weird, wear flasher macs and hang around dogging sites and not as far as I know have committed any sex offences. However the great and good at Ofcon think rather than know they represent the majority of the adult population and until the majority tell them they are wrong will go along unabated. Opinions anyone??
