(06-09-2012 21:14 )blackjaques Wrote: [ -> ] (06-09-2012 20:26 )mr mystery Wrote: [ -> ] (06-09-2012 20:14 )munch1917 Wrote: [ -> ]I don't know off-hand if Extreme is actually broadcast on a dutch license or not.
Freeview Ch 95 the channel that broadcasts Xtreme has a Dutch licence, nothing that is shown on that freeview channels is ever regulated by Ofcom , from 11pm -11.30pm before Xtreme starts it shows the same feed as Sky Ch 906 , Sky 906 also has the Dutch licence .
So, why is BSX censored to Ofcon's rules?
I'm sure that in Holland they don't censor their adult programmes to that extent.
Ofcon must be heavily influencing Cellcast and Cellcast are folding when Ofcon complain.
I read somewhere on this forum (i think) that when overseas licensed channels broadcast on UK TV they must endeavour to not broadcast anything that breaks UK laws (not Ofcom laws) , or something like that, this also works the other way , some channels broadcast to other country's and use a a Ofcom licence to do so , so have to stick roughly to the laws of the country they broadcast to , this is not a Ofcom ruling but is some sort of agreement made by various European country's , some forum members may know more about this than me .
Anyway just had another look at the complaint Ofcom made to the Dutch regulators about the BS channels on freeview , Ofcom actually said that if BS/Cellcast didn't do what they asked them to do ,ie not broadcast phone in babe shows before 12am that they could go to the European commission , this threat was made in March of this year i believe , so far BS have ignored Ofcom's threats and are still defying and breaking Ofcom rules by broadcasting free to air phone in babe channels before 12am .
Thanks, Mr Mystery.
So, having a Dutch licence means SFA in real terms. Ofcon rules. Yes, they certainly do.
(06-09-2012 21:49 )mr mystery Wrote: [ -> ] (06-09-2012 21:14 )blackjaques Wrote: [ -> ] (06-09-2012 20:26 )mr mystery Wrote: [ -> ] (06-09-2012 20:14 )munch1917 Wrote: [ -> ]I don't know off-hand if Extreme is actually broadcast on a dutch license or not.
Freeview Ch 95 the channel that broadcasts Xtreme has a Dutch licence, nothing that is shown on that freeview channels is ever regulated by Ofcom , from 11pm -11.30pm before Xtreme starts it shows the same feed as Sky Ch 906 , Sky 906 also has the Dutch licence .
So, why is BSX censored to Ofcon's rules?
I'm sure that in Holland they don't censor their adult programmes to that extent.
Ofcon must be heavily influencing Cellcast and Cellcast are folding when Ofcon complain.
I read somewhere on this forum (i think) that when overseas licensed channels broadcast on UK TV they must endeavour to not broadcast anything that breaks UK laws (not Ofcom laws) , or something like that, this also works the other way , some channels broadcast to other country's and use a a Ofcom licence to do so , so have to stick roughly to the laws of the country they broadcast to , this is not a Ofcom ruling but is some sort of agreement made by various European country's , some forum members may know more about this than me .
Fair enough they have to stick to UK laws, but can anyone point me to relevant pieces of legislation which apply to the babe channels, as it would no doubt prove an interesting read.
(06-09-2012 21:49 )mr mystery Wrote: [ -> ]Anyway just had another look at the complaint Ofcom made to the Dutch regulators about the BS channels on freeview , Ofcom actually said that if BS/Cellcast didn't do what they asked them to do ,ie not broadcast phone in babe shows before 12am that they could go to the European commission , this threat was made in March of this year i believe , so far BS have ignored Ofcom's threats and are still defying and breaking Ofcom rules by broadcasting free to air phone in babe channels before 12am .
I'm surprised Ofcom suggested they go the EC, as I'd suspect that the EC would more than likely rule against Ofcom hence why they've not takne the threats further.
(07-09-2012 03:31 )LatexRyan Wrote: [ -> ]...
I'm surprised Ofcom suggested they go the EC, as I'd suspect that the EC would more than likely rule against Ofcom hence why they've not takne the threats further.
We don't know they haven't taken this further. Typically these things take time, plenty of time, so Ofcom may well be actively pursuing it as we speak.
(06-09-2012 20:14 )munch1917 Wrote: [ -> ]I don't know off-hand if Extreme is actually broadcast on a dutch license or not.
As has been discussed ad nauseum, BS broadcast their non-encrypted channels on 2 outputs, Sky and Freeview. For each channel they need two broadcast licenses, one for the Sky feed, one for the Freeview feed. ...
Strangely Munch is correct, Ofcom require a separate licence for each delivery platform. I am not sure if this is a statutory requirment - if not spelt out in law Ofcom might argue that each platform has difference reach and technical controls (particularly Freeview, where they have different rules). This could lead to an interesting situation where a channel is found in breach or even sanctioned on, say, Freeview, but not Sky. The fee per licence application is £2,500 and there is an annual fee.
http://licensing.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/t...idance.pdf (para 45)
Even more bizarrely, Ofcom coregulates video on demand, including any hardcore porn webstreams that the babe channels produce.
Whats clear is that there is a strange reluctance to use the Dutch licence to the full extent that many people think it could be. Perhaps whats needed is a channel from a country that disagrees with the UK on political and censorship matters - Equador perhaps, though I dont relish the thought of Julian Assange in a swimsuit.
(08-09-2012 04:13 )eccles Wrote: [ -> ] (06-09-2012 20:14 )munch1917 Wrote: [ -> ]I don't know off-hand if Extreme is actually broadcast on a dutch license or not.
As has been discussed ad nauseum, BS broadcast their non-encrypted channels on 2 outputs, Sky and Freeview. For each channel they need two broadcast licenses, one for the Sky feed, one for the Freeview feed. ...
Strangely Munch is correct, Ofcom require a separate licence for each delivery platform. I am not sure if this is a statutory requirment - if not spelt out in law Ofcom might argue that each platform has difference reach and technical controls (particularly Freeview, where they have different rules). This could lead to an interesting situation where a channel is found in breach or even sanctioned on, say, Freeview, but not Sky. The fee per licence application is £2,500 and there is an annual fee. http://licensing.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/t...idance.pdf (para 45)
This has already happened , Ofcom launched a investigation and found "in breach" the licence holder of the freeview channel that broadcasts Masti Chat for something broadcast on the freeview early morning show, Square 1 Management LTD the licence holders of the freeview channel were the company found in breach and obviously use a Ofcom licence , the channel that showed the same feed on Sky (Ch 906) has the Dutch licences and is owned by Cellcast , no mention was made by Ofcom in their bulletin of the Sky channel even though it showed the same incident that Ofcom found in breach for what was broadcast on the freeview channel .
Details of the offence and in breach ruling were given in Ofcom's broadcast bulletin issue number 207 and dated 11/06/12 .
(08-09-2012 04:13 )eccles Wrote: [ -> ]...
Perhaps whats needed is a channel from a country that disagrees with the UK on political and censorship matters - Equador perhaps
...
Isn't the dutch license loop-hole only there because of EU regulations though, so the country would have to be in the EU?
I think what we have got in the UK is a regulator who will do or say anything (wether it's true or not) to keep explicit sex of our TV screens and act with a zeal usually reserved for religious bigots to further that objective.
I don't see a let up on the babechannels whilst they continue to censor the encrypted channels. Only then, IMO, will we get a bit more nudity on the non-encrypted channels.
(08-09-2012 12:12 )munch1917 Wrote: [ -> ] (08-09-2012 04:13 )eccles Wrote: [ -> ]...
Perhaps whats needed is a channel from a country that disagrees with the UK on political and censorship matters - Equador perhaps
...
Isn't the dutch license loop-hole only there because of EU regulations though, so the country would have to be in the EU?
True but it was late and I couldnt think of a European country with a serious gripe against the UK. Also the image of Julian Asange in a swimsuit stuck in my mind and the only was of getting rid of it was to pass it on. You lucky people.
There are far more important things Ofcom could be doing than keeping a bit of flange off TV. Alternatively they could really streamline their complaints procedure instead of evaluating every trivial complaint about sex in 50 year old childrens cartoons. Every single preliminary investigation is overhead for the broadcasters even if thrown out at an early stage. No other regulator does this.
Imagine if every time your bin was emptied the binman could submit a formal complaint about it being overfull or not sorting the recycling, and you had to respond to a formal complaint with lengthy documents, witness statements and, if available, CCTV. Or neighbours and passers by could complain about parking on yellow lines before 5pm.
What Ofcom should do is concentrate on broadcasters who repeatedly break the rules, ones who dont seem to know the rules, and only investigate single events if they are particularly serious. And the rules should be harm based, not offence based.
Harry Hill's You've Been Framed on ITV made me smile on Friday night......
One section of videos featured 2 cows peeing at one another, a dog peeing and a tiger too!
And this was before 8 pm!!! Over an hour before the so called watershed......
Encrypted this would never happen with 2 humans on TV!
Makes you smile what animals can get away with