I would like to offer a defence that I believe should be taken on board by the broadcasters.
OFCOM has falsely reclassified them as 'teleshopping' in order to enforce rules that apply to advertisements on TV. But the broadcasters need to refuse this classification because it cannot be justified….Here is why I am convinced that it cannot be justified:
Labelling the sex channels as teleshopping cannot be justified for this reason: when advertising a product on television, those who do so have the right to display their commodity in every explicit detail in order to entice the purchaser. Advertising the phone numbers are the means for the purchaser to gain access to the product (which in this case, are the girls). So, if all those who are advertising their product are allowed to display their commodity in every explicit detail, how can it then be justified that the girls are exempt from this rule? Clearly they cannot be labelled with a category if they are not been permitted the right to do as all others in that category do.
If the broadcasters used this argument, and demanded that they be classified correctly as programmes offering mild titillation (during the day) and more intense sexual titillation at night, they should be able to overturn this sham of a classification; and Bang Media should have the right to be reinstated, once classified correctly.
(04-12-2010 12:06 )Intense1 Wrote: [ -> ]I would like to offer a defence that I believe should be taken on board by the broadcasters.
OFCOM has falsely reclassified them as 'teleshopping' in order to enforce rules that apply to advertisements on TV. But the broadcasters need to refuse this classification because it cannot be justified….Here is why I am convinced that it cannot be justified:
Labelling the sex channels as teleshopping cannot be justified for this reason: when advertising a product on television, those who do so have the right to display their commodity in every explicit detail in order to entice the purchaser. Advertising the phone numbers are the means for the purchaser to gain access to the product (which in this case, are the girls). So, if all those who are advertising their product are allowed to display their commodity in every explicit detail, how can it then be justified that the girls are exempt from this rule? Clearly they cannot be labelled with a category if they are not been permitted the right to do as all others in that category do.
If the broadcasters used this argument, and demanded that they be classified correctly as programmes offering mild titillation (during the day) and more intense sexual titillation at night, they should be able to overturn this sham of a classification; and Bang Media should have the right to be reinstated, once classified correctly.
I doubt that Babestation could claim that they are not an advertising/teleshopping channel at present
(04-12-2010 12:14 )TheWatcher Wrote: [ -> ] (04-12-2010 12:06 )Intense1 Wrote: [ -> ]I would like to offer a defence that I believe should be taken on board by the broadcasters.
OFCOM has falsely reclassified them as 'teleshopping' in order to enforce rules that apply to advertisements on TV. But the broadcasters need to refuse this classification because it cannot be justified….Here is why I am convinced that it cannot be justified:
Labelling the sex channels as teleshopping cannot be justified for this reason: when advertising a product on television, those who do so have the right to display their commodity in every explicit detail in order to entice the purchaser. Advertising the phone numbers are the means for the purchaser to gain access to the product (which in this case, are the girls). So, if all those who are advertising their product are allowed to display their commodity in every explicit detail, how can it then be justified that the girls are exempt from this rule? Clearly they cannot be labelled with a category if they are not been permitted the right to do as all others in that category do.
If the broadcasters used this argument, and demanded that they be classified correctly as programmes offering mild titillation (during the day) and more intense sexual titillation at night, they should be able to overturn this sham of a classification; and Bang Media should have the right to be reinstated, once classified correctly.
I doubt that Babestation could claim that they are not an advertising/teleshopping channel at present
The point is, that anyone who is labelled in this way must be afforded the right to display their product
explicitly.
But I do see your humour.
your reading it wrong. the girls have nothing to do with it. there advertising premium chat lines. well at least thats what ofcom say.
they don't take into account that most of us phone specific girls, they go by the fact that the companies use £1.50pm numbers in most cases to enable us to do so. because the channels sell sex chat they do in fact come under advertisements for a product, if looked at a specific way.
(04-12-2010 12:56 )HEX!T Wrote: [ -> ]your reading it wrong. the girls have nothing to do with it. there advertising premium chat lines. well at least thats what ofcom say.
they don't take into account that most of us phone specific girls, they go by the fact that the companies use £1.50pm numbers in most cases to enable us to do so. because the channels sell sex chat they do in fact come under advertisements for a product, if looked at a specific way.
This is precisely why they need to challenge this. Every time that someone phones a TV advert, they have to chat as a means to access the product. Chat cannot justifiably be claimed to be a product that is distinct from the rest of the individual: what the content of a private conversation is,
is no one’s business. The product are the girls!!
I think we should just be thankful that Ofcom haven't tried to reclassify them as 'Telepimping'.
Whilst the Babe channels are CLEARLY not the same as the QVC, Price Drop TV et al. teleshopping channels, rules and regulations are notoriously 'technicality' rather than 'obvious common sense' based. There may be an argument to be had in the 'exchange of goods' area, as callers to the Babe channels are paying for a service rather than physical goods. Teleshopping channels are retailers, but I don't think you could really define the Babe channels as such.
Of course if it all just comes down to advertising phone lines, then you can't really argue with the classification.
Does anyone know if X-Factor and the like are also classed as advertising/teleshopping? because that is essentially their purpose. Yes they are 'entertainment' shows, but that entertainment is a direct means to get people to call in and vote?
(04-12-2010 17:19 )lucent-x Wrote: [ -> ]I think we should just be thankful that Ofcom haven't tried to reclassify them as 'Telepimping'.
Whilst the Babe channels are CLEARLY not the same as the QVC, Price Drop TV et al. teleshopping channels, rules and regulations are notoriously 'technicality' rather than 'obvious common sense' based. There may be an argument to be had in the 'exchange of goods' area, as callers to the Babe channels are paying for a service rather than physical goods. Teleshopping channels are retailers, but I don't think you could really define the Babe channels as such.
Of course if it all just comes down to advertising phone lines, then you can't really argue with the classification.
Does anyone know if X-Factor and the like are also classed as advertising/teleshopping? because that is essentially their purpose. Yes they are 'entertainment' shows, but that entertainment is a direct means to get people to call in and vote?
Your point which I have highlighted is the key....But if this is the case, then what is been allowed to be displayed by the advertisers would still need to be consistent...we are after all still watching a show; and these shows
are about the girls. So, the very fact that the girls are not of the same commodity as retail goods (which is precisely why they should not be classified as such) is the reason why they should be recognised for what they are,
sex shows, and be permitted to function as such.
(04-12-2010 12:06 )Intense1 Wrote: [ -> ]...
Advertising the phone numbers are the means for the purchaser to gain access to the product (which in this case, are the girls). So, if all those who are advertising their product are allowed to display their commodity in every explicit detail, how can it then be justified that the girls are exempt from this rule? Clearly they cannot be labelled with a category if they are not been permitted the right to do as all others in that category do.
...
(04-12-2010 12:17 )Intense1 Wrote: [ -> ]The point is, that anyone who is labelled in this way must be afforded the right to display their product explicitly.
The girls are not the product, the service provided is the product - do you pay for the AA man or for the service he provides?
As I said, I don't think the Babe channels should be classifed alongside the retailing teleshopping channels, but you won't get anywhere with the 'product inspection' argument I'm afraid.
(04-12-2010 18:45 )lucent-x Wrote: [ -> ] (04-12-2010 12:06 )Intense1 Wrote: [ -> ]...
Advertising the phone numbers are the means for the purchaser to gain access to the product (which in this case, are the girls). So, if all those who are advertising their product are allowed to display their commodity in every explicit detail, how can it then be justified that the girls are exempt from this rule? Clearly they cannot be labelled with a category if they are not been permitted the right to do as all others in that category do.
...
(04-12-2010 12:17 )Intense1 Wrote: [ -> ]The point is, that anyone who is labelled in this way must be afforded the right to display their product explicitly.
The girls are not the product, the service provided is the product - do you pay for the AA man or for the service he provides?
As I said, I don't think the Babe channels should be classifed alongside the retailing teleshopping channels, but you won't get anywhere with the 'product inspection' argument I'm afraid.
If this argument is taken to its logical conclusion, and the service is claimed to be only 'the chat', then we are still left with
what is on show. What is on show, are the girls: what are they on show for? they are clearly not on sale like retail goods, but their bodies are the goods.
This argument should really seal it on behalf of the broadcasters. But, if they are not prepared to fight their own corner, then so be it.
Let us use the analogy of the ‘AA man’: The service that the AA man provides is his skills, not his appearance. The women, on the other hand, are selling their appearance. That is to say they are selling images of themselves via camera…...so the purchaser is only calling them on behalf of the images that they are providing, otherwise one might as well just phone any chat service that does not provide images.
And this is why the women have every right to display images of themselves, just as explicitly as any other commodity being sold on TV, when being falsely labelled in this way.
ETA: So, the correct definition of this service is, interactive, not just chat, but chat whilst interacting with the image on screen. That is the whole sales package.