(07-09-2011 21:23 )eccles Wrote: [ -> ]No Broadcasting Bulletin this week. Apparently people dont get offended if there is a bank holiday in the month.
Ofcom will just make up offences next time to make back the lost's because we all know that these alleged offences are just bogus claims to prove Ofcom's need for existence.
I see Elite had a complain not upheld against them in the latest bulletin. Only skimmed through but couldn't see any other babechannel mentions.
proves their current tatics of playing safe are working
(12-09-2011 20:03 )Rammyrascal Wrote: [ -> ]proves their current tatics of playing safe are working
Tell me about it, i was just on my mac, and was watching how the babes used to perform about a year or 2 ago, how things have suddenly changed for the worst courtesy of Ofcom. And what really pisses me of, is how they can so call justify it with all these bogus claims.
It's nice to have the memories to look back on, i just hope we can look forward to ofcom getting out of the way and let the babe channels entertain us as they used to be
.
Keep it as it is and
Elite TV avoids the wrath of Ofcom. Step it up another level and no doubt
Elite TV will be found in breach. Either way, the complaints against the channel will more than likely continue.
Anyone know if the channels are able to use the freedom of information act or something in order to try and find out who's
actually making these complaints?
(12-09-2011 20:37 )Chilly Wrote: [ -> ]Keep it as it is and Elite TV avoids the wrath of Ofcom. Step it up another level and no doubt Elite TV will be found in breach. Either way, the complaints against the channel will more than likely continue.
Anyone know if the channels are able to use the freedom of information act or something in order to try and find out who's actually making these complaints?
Well you've gotta point, i've noticed certain babe channels have been allowing a bit more 2for1, meaning to girls together and that's about it, no real interaction between the babes like they used to be, the only one that's gets away with things a bit more is babestation because they have a foreign licence. but at least it seems the other babe channels seem to be pushing the boundaries a bit more which is good, i tend to think the producers are getting a bit fed up with all the rules and regs but thats just my opinion i could be further from the truth. concerning about the complaints, well i've heard from some that it might be from other rival babe channels? i'm not sure about that one, however if some are from the general public, i still can't see how they can complain, i mean you have to physically input the channel,or select the category under Adult. I mean what do they expect to find Snow white lol
(12-09-2011 20:37 )Chilly Wrote: [ -> ]Keep it as it is and Elite TV avoids the wrath of Ofcom. Step it up another level and no doubt Elite TV will be found in breach. Either way, the complaints against the channel will more than likely continue.
Anyone know if the channels are able to use the freedom of information act or something in order to try and find out who's actually making these complaints?
I think we all know what rival channel is making the bulk of the complaints.
But as for the channels pushing the bounderies, what's the point. Ofcom will only clamp down even further.
The only way around this, is to make the govenment see that if Ofcom continues with it's current course of unrealistic restraints against these channels, then eventually they will go bust. And then the govenment will have several thousand extra people claiming benefit. I'm sure the govenment would much rarther have the tax generated from these channels. Not only from the employees, but from the telephone reciepts as well.
I know you all say that the govenment doesn't want to be seen getting involved with an adult related problem. But that's just it. Ofcom don't see these channels as part of the adult business. It catergorises them as advertising. And untill that error is corrected, then Ofcom will continue to hound them out of existence.
(12-09-2011 21:49 )aceman65 Wrote: [ -> ]Ofcom don't see these channels as part of the adult business. It catergorises them as advertising.
It's a strange one, isn't it? I mean we keep hearing this, but if the babeshows are truly categorised as advertising then how do they get away with the stuff they show? Can anyone honestly imagine the QVC presenters sat there with their tits out?
To me, this proves that Ofcom don't
really have them categorised as anything.
Some of the gambling channel presenters arent far off being topless.
They really ought to start serious advertising. It would reduce their dependence on phone calls that are fundamentally limited in the amount of money they can raise.
A few examples spring to mind. Sponsorship by Kleenex. Flora margarine (as sponsored by Princess Diana). Baby oil. Tasty underwear for the GF. Legal claims advisors. Lads mags. Dating agencies. Cars. Lager. Mens fashion.
I'm pretty sure Ofcom consider the babechannels as a category all on their own. The full title of the guidance is "Ofcom guidance on the advertising of telecommunications-based sexual entertainment services and PRS daytime chat services." PRS = premium rate telephone services
I'm not sure it matters what name you give the category of channels, Ofcom hold that they are there to regulate the BCAP rules that apply to PRS adult chat and daytime chat services.