The UK Babe Channels Forum

"The Committee considered that the material broadcast was of a very strong sexual nature, showing apparent masturbation and the presenter rubbing saliva on her genitals. That material could have led a reasonable viewer to conclude that those acts were real."

A viewer could have concluded that rubbing saliva on her genitals was real? But it was. Confused thinking by Ofcom again.

"and, on occasion, her anus and labial areas were shown in detail"

For how many seconds?

"The Committee considered that this additional level of seriousness resulted from the fact that viewers risked coming across such material unawares, despite the presence of the Tease Me Channel within the Adult section of the Code."

Risk calls for Risk Assessment. How many viewers actually came across such material unawares? In the past 5 years how many genuine viewer complaints has Ofcom received for all the FTA channels? Somewhere between 0 and 1 complaints for between 5 and 10 channels, and that was supposedly from a mun who caught her teenage son and friends deliberately watch babe channels. That's 5 years times about 7.5 channels, 37.5 broadcast years. So the objective risk of viewers coming across FTA babe channels unawares is below 1 person in 37.5 years. Is this a serious enough risk to this warrant a £21,000 fine?

Bangbabes were asked to supply a huge amount of recordings - over 24 hours. Ofcom did give them [some] extra time, but have taken the line that they can ask for infinite recordings if they want and the broadcaster must supply them almost as quickly as 1 hour. Is this rational?

"In considering the appropriate size of a financial penalty for each of Bang Channels and Bang Media, the Committee also took account of the following specific criteria which may be relevant to adjust the starting figures set out above ... The degree of harm caused"
Ofcom's own guidance refers to harm caused - meaning actual harm - not potential to cause considerable harm or offence but it has used this second different criteria when determining the fine.

Ofcom's own rules also require it to take account of "The duration of the contravention". This might mean the whole timeframe - 5 months - but Ofcom's own rules also mean that a 1 second flash should be regarded as less serious than a sustained 60 second leisurely look. A short flash is not sufficient time for "sexual gratification", a long leisurely look is. Even a 15 year old coulf not knock one out that quickly.

"the Committee noted that strong sexual material was broadcast throughout the period"

Strong sexual material was NOT broadcast THROUGHOUT the period, it was broadcast on a few occasions. Wrong again.

Fines were progressively increased above the initial cost, by increasing amounts from 50% to 150% depending on how much time had elapsed. This seems to be in chronological order despite breeches being different types - it might be interesting to see if this aligns with the Repeat Count for the relevant type of breech, and if the multipliers kick in after relevant Ofcom warnings or before.

The notice of sanction is dated 29 July 2010, today. Since the sanction was not decided today and the document publishing it must have been written in advance, dating it today is incorrect.

By contrast DM Digital Television was fined £17,500 on 20 July for dodgy adverts soliciting investments of £30,000 and payments to a "spiritual healer" for dating help. Ofcom found that "The broadcast of the advertisement resulted in significant actual financial harm to a viewer (who paid Professor Zain a total of £1510 to find her a partner, and on the promise of delivery of “a prince”) and had the potential to cause significant potential harm to vulnerable viewers.".
DM Digital Sanction.

I know what I consider more harmful to adults and children.

At want point do you, as a viewer go from, wow, these 2 girls are stunning, this is hot!... nipple rubbing? that is too far... its pathetic... :/

I can understand women getting upset. Have you ever heard the bile that some otherwise reasonable women come out with when they see a scantily clad woman in Tescos? They feel insecure, old and threatened by someone everything they aren't. Particularly if they can cook, drive a Ferrari and like short bald middle aged men. (I can dream).

Studies (discredited ones by a biased regulator, whose name escapes me for the moment) showed greater opposition from old women, like over 30, and old men, though the men were not quite as anti as the women. To be serious, these are post-menopausal women who have lost all their sexual allure, were "good girls" when young, and who may be in poor health due to childbirth and age. There's nothing in it for them, they have no interest in seeing Dreamboys, but attractive women may leave them feeling uncomfortable or threatened.

As for the older men, their sex drive has probably dropped, if they get a semi it's rare enough to get a mention in their diary, along with the BMs, and they might feel a bit guilty about fancying the neighbour's ass when they were younger, instead of the dowdy frump they settled down with. A bit of bile and invective, an outraged letter to the News Of The World, the Daily Mail and the Croydon Gazette helps them feel good about themselves by putting others down. Step 2 close pubs at 11, re-introduce National Service, and ban kids from parks unless accompanied by adults.

BUT no-one forces them to watch.

No-one tells them the channel numbers.

And they aren't the ones complaining. It's rival channels.

(29-07-2010 18:06 )TheWatcher Wrote: [ -> ]169. For the reasons set out above, the Committee decided to impose a financial penalty on
Bang Channels of £147,250 in respect of the breaches of the Code and Licence
Condition 11, as follows:
£5,000 for the programme broadcast on 20 June 2009;
£5,000 for the programme broadcast on 21 June 2009;
£4,000 for the programme broadcast on 22 June 2009;
£8,000 for the programme broadcast on 20 August 2009;
£10,500 for the programme broadcast on 31 October 2009;
£12,000 for the programme broadcast on 6 November 2009;
£8,500 for the programme broadcast on Tease Me on 7 November 2009;
£9,000 for the programme broadcast on Tease Me 3 on 7 November 2009;
£14,000 for the programme broadcast on 13 November 2009;
£11,250 for the programme broadcast on 15 November 2009;
£17,500 for the programme broadcast on Tease Me on 24 November 2009;
£17,500 for the programme broadcast on Tease Me 2 on 24 November 2009;
£19,000 for the programme broadcast on 25 November 2009; and
£6,000 in respect the breach of Licence Condition 11.

An expensive lollypop at £19000
The report also said that the total fine was over 5% of Bangs annual income
(£147,250 is equivalent to approx 100,000 call minutes!)

Apart from the obvious ones, what OFCOM have done here is basically a form of "skimming".

Bang Media should definitely challenge the amount they've been fined...

i firmly beleive its just a way of getting more money
ive never heard of fun being taxed before and its all a loads of
i`m not even going there really,this once great country is on its knees @ the moment
am i allowed to call the government ben stillers name in meet the parents

Well I watched a stand up comic late last night on comedy central and as part of his routine he made reference to the word offended which is precisely what this is all about. People will always be offended by something as its the price we pay for democracy, but being offended never ever harmed anybody. Religious channels, Boy bands and soaps all offend me because they're all fucking shite but I don't make a big deal out of it, I choose what to watch and what not to watch so as far as ofcom stooping to the lows of fining late night adult channels which are quite clearly labelled as containing sexual content its pandering to the low life scum minority few who simply need to fucking grow up and realise that everybody has different tastes which have to be catered for as this is the real world we all live in. If you're offended then so fucking what, being offended never caused anybody any harm at all.

(30-07-2010 11:19 )pewack1976 Wrote: [ -> ]ive never heard of fun being taxed before and its all a loads of

"Sin taxes" are widespread. Drink. Fags*. Bingo. Sex shop licences.

The only difference is that this isn't a tax, just a random throw of the dice.

(30-07-2010 10:37 )Winston Wolfe Wrote: [ -> ]

(29-07-2010 18:06 )TheWatcher Wrote: [ -> ][color=#0000CD]169. For the reasons set out above, the Committee decided to impose a financial penalty on
Bang Channels of £147,250 in respect of the breaches of the Code ...
... (£147,250 is equivalent to approx 100,000 call minutes!)

Apart from the obvious ones, what OFCOM have done here is basically a form of "skimming".

Bang Media should definitely challenge the amount they've been fined...

Usually Ofcom's fines are not large enough to be worth challenging in court, but this time the fine is larger than probable court costs if they loose.

(30-07-2010 23:37 )eccles Wrote: [ -> ]Usually Ofcom's fines are not large enough to be worth challenging in court, but this time the fine is larger than probable court costs if they loose.

Problem is if they lose they have to pay the court costs and the fine.

Given Jon Gaunt can lose a case where some of us, (i.e. me), were stupid enough to think Ofcom were clearly and obviously wrong, they may decide the risk of incurring additional costs on top of the fine is just too great.

The odds are that ofcom will lose a court battle at some point and what a positve message it would send out to the rest of the channels if bangbabes actually took them to court and won, also this could encourge the government to change the law into line with the rest of europe and so long as the watershed was obeyed then no future fines could be handed out anymore, I would also love to see daytime at least being allowed to air topless shows but thats a bit ambitious and thats another debate entirely.