The UK Babe Channels Forum

Scottishbloke "Is it not evidently clear to all on this forum that bangbabes media are 100% without a doubt being victimised". [/quote] Perfectly said Scottishbloke coz if Bangmedia was not being victimised, then why else has Bangmedia become the tamest babechannel apart from TVX ones.

*EDIT - I voted NO and will play the Devil's Advocate for the moment to maintain some perspective.

Ofcom operate on complaints raised by people watching the adult channels, which narrows it down to only 2 types of person viewing specifically to make a fuss:

1.) Rival channel(s) attempting to discredit/financially ruin Bangmedia.
2.) Right-wing moral guardians/religious loonies who watch for broadcasting regulations being broken.

Either way, there has to be a legitimate reason for Ofcom to investigate, then positive evidence for them to proceed with any kind of litigation against Bangmedia. Without those criteria they could take no action and Bangmedia wouldn't have be fined, so whether we like it or not the decisions against them were correct - ACCORDING TO THE LAW OF THE LAND

So the real issue and enemy here is the law, not just the short-sighted advocates of said law at Ofcom. Where I understand how we all feel about Ofcom, they are simply the police upholding antiquated regulations that wouldn't look out of place in Queen Victoria's reign. Not only that, but it affords anyone with a grudge the opportunity to make life very difficult for whatever channel they dislike. One thing I will say about Ofcom is that they must exercise common sense when acting upon a complaint, as an accidental infringement is quite different from a deliberate flouting of the law. Each case must be acted upon fairly and by its own merits, so in that sense I do think Ofcom need to reel their fangs in a bit.

BUT, until the laws are changed folks, expect this kind of nonsense to continue.

Heres an idea for bangbabes media to stick it to ofcom, the way I see it the bastards are out to get them irrespective of what they do so one night they should just decide to air the filthest ,muckiest, dildos and all show sky tv has ever seen so that they can at least justify a fine, they may as well, they have fuck all to lose.

(27-05-2010 18:55 )Scottishbloke Wrote: [ -> ]What I want to know is who are the 6 numpties who voted for no, is it not evidently clear to all on this forum that bangbabes media are 100% without a doubt being victimised.

Other broadcasters?

(27-05-2010 23:03 )Scottishbloke Wrote: [ -> ]Heres an idea for bangbabes media to stick it to ofcom, the way I see it the bastards are out to get them irrespective of what they do so one night they should just decide to air the filthest ,muckiest, dildos and all show sky tv has ever seen so that they can at least justify a fine, they may as well, they have fuck all to lose.

So you want Bangmedia to lose even more money and possibly their license to broadcast? What exactly will that prove mate, except that Ofcom are right in their actions against them?

(27-05-2010 20:42 )Shady Cee Wrote: [ -> ]so whether we like it or not the decisions against them were correct - ACCORDING TO THE LAW OF THE LAND

I'm sure someone will be able to correct me here, but as far as I can see, the Ofcom Broadcast Code has never been laid before Parliament and therefore is not law and can only be used as a guide and should comply to current legislation, as recognised by the Department of Culture Media and Sport, Audiovisual Media Services Directives (89/552/EEC, as amended by Directive 97/36/EC and Directive 2007/65/EC) well as the European Court of Human Rights Articles 8, 9, 10 and 14 .

As far as I am aware, The Ofcom Broadcasting Code is simply a set of guidelines to broadcasting and nothing more as it is not on the Statute Books and has not been laid before Parliament.

(27-05-2010 23:36 )vostok 1 Wrote: [ -> ]the Ofcom Broadcast Code has never been laid before Parliament and therefore is not law and can only be used as a guide and should comply to current legislation, as recognised by the Department of Culture Media and Sport, Audiovisual Media Services Directives (89/552/EEC, as amended by Directive 97/36/EC and Directive 2007/65/EC) well as the European Court of Human Rights Articles 8, 9, 10 and 14 .

OK that's fair comment as I am certainly not an expert on the law. However, does the legislation you quote not amount to the same thing anyway? Broadcasters must still agree to adhere to the code.

(27-05-2010 23:36 )vostok 1 Wrote: [ -> ]As far as I am aware, The Ofcom Broadcasting Code is simply a set of guidelines to broadcasting and nothing more as it is not on the Statute Books and has not been laid before Parliament.

Nonetheless, breeches can still result in fines or removal of the broadcasting license can't they? The Ofcom code may be guide lines, but isn't the broadcasting of sexually explicit material against the law? At the end of the day, non-compliance is still a violation so the arguement is fairly academic I would have thought.

(27-05-2010 23:56 )Shady Cee Wrote: [ -> ]OK that's fair comment as I am certainly not an expert on the law. However, does the legislation you quote not amount to the same thing anyway? Broadcasters must still agree to adhere to the code.

But where has Bang Babes breached the code?


From the Broadcasting code:
Sexual material

1.17 Material equivalent to the British Board of Film Classification ("BBFC") R18-rating must not be broadcast at any time.
1.18 'Adult sex material' - material that contains images and/or language of a strong sexual nature which is broadcast for the primary purpose of sexual arousal or stimulation - must not be broadcast at any time other than between 2200 and 0530 on premium subscription services and pay per view/night services which operate with mandatory restricted access.
In addition, measures must be in place to ensure that the subscriber is an adult.
Meaning of "mandatory restricted access":
Mandatory restricted access means there is a PIN protected system (or other equivalent protection) which cannot be removed by the user, that restricts access solely to those authorised to view.


The Ofcom Broadcasting code incorporates Article 22 of the Audiovisual Media Services Directive 2007/65/EC : "Protection of minors in television broadcasting", which contradicts sections 1.17 and 1.18 of the broadcasting code:


Article 22
1. Member States shall take appropriate measures to ensure that television broadcasts by broadcasters under their jurisdiction do not include any programmes which might seriously impair the physical, mental or moral development of minors, in particular programmes that involve pornography or gratuitous violence.
2. The measures provided for in paragraph 1 shall also extend to other programmes which are likely to impair the physical, mental or moral development of minors, except where it is ensured, by selecting the time of the broadcast or by any technical measure, that minors in the area of transmission will not normally hear or see such broadcasts.
3. Furthermore, when such programmes are broadcast in un-encoded form Member States shall ensure that they are preceded by an acoustic warning or are identified by the presence of a visual symbol throughout their duration.

Quote:Nonetheless, breeches can still result in fines or removal of the broadcasting license can't they? The Ofcom code may be guide lines, but isn't the broadcasting of sexually explicit material against the law?

As I said before, I haven't seen a law that says that.

Audiovisual Media Services Directive 2007/65/EC is quoted above.
You can read it in full here: http://www.ofcom.org.uk/tv/ifi/codes/bcode/twf/
It is incorporated into the Ofcom Broadcast Code.
Ofcom are required to recognise this directive.
It doesn't say that the broadcasting of sexually explicit material is against the law.

Quote:At the end of the day, non-compliance is still a violation so the arguement is fairly academic I would have thought.

Not for the Broadcasters. BSkyB themselves have asked Ofcom to provide clear guidance on this issue. They haven't.

A little analogy here:

1.17 & 1.18 of the Broadcasting code says "SEX ON TV: NO"
Directive 2007/65/EC of the European Parliament as well as European Convention on Human Rights Articles 8, 9, 10 and 14 (which are all incorporated into the Ofcom Broadcasting Codes says "SEX ON TV: YES"

So you have a Broadcasting code that says "SEX ON TV: NO" and established law that says "SEX ON TV: YES" which is like a traffic light that is showing RED and GREEN simultaneously, which is like a sign that says "SMOKING IS PERMITTED AND SMOKING IS NOT PERMITTED"

Which goes to show that the Broadcasting code is as clear as mud.
And it wont change until Bang Babes challenges it.

(27-05-2010 23:36 )vostok 1 Wrote: [ -> ]

(27-05-2010 20:42 )Shady Cee Wrote: [ -> ]so whether we like it or not the decisions against them were correct - ACCORDING TO THE LAW OF THE LAND

I'm sure someone will be able to correct me here, but as far as I can see, the Ofcom Broadcast Code has never been laid before Parliament and therefore is not law and can only be used as a guide and should comply to current legislation, as recognised by the Department of Culture Media and Sport, Audiovisual Media Services Directives (89/552/EEC, as amended by Directive 97/36/EC and Directive 2007/65/EC) well as the European Court of Human Rights Articles 8, 9, 10 and 14 .

As far as I am aware, The Ofcom Broadcasting Code is simply a set of guidelines to broadcasting and nothing more as it is not on the Statute Books and has not been laid before Parliament.

Sighs heavily. Vostok 1, I take it you are not a shareholder in BangBabes and it's not your money (or job) on the line. (Neither am I before anyone asks). To be technical it is Common Law. And that is just as real as Statute Law.

Parliament gave Ofcom the power to - actually it required it to - draw up and operate a Broadcasting Code. The only procedural way to challenge this is for a broadcaster who has been through the sanctions business to apply to the High Court for a Judicial Review. They would have to prove irrationality, bias or departure from legislation. It could take 1-2 years to get a hearing during which Ofcom would seem an emergency injunction banning disputed content. No bank would risk loaning money to BangBabes in the meantime and any lines of credit would be switched off. They could eventually win a court case and still loose.

By the way, TeleText was fined £225,000 today for closing their loss making service 3 years early. This was despite co-operating with Ofcom and asking permission.

If Ofcom are being fair, then why was I able to see a woman inhaling a gas lighter canister at the time kids are getting home from school on a well known daytime tv show and i've not heard of them getting a fine.