The UK Babe Channels Forum

And your on screen promos will be . . .

a) completely truthful about what can and can't be seen on your Sky and Freeview channels or

b) suggestive, hinting at far stronger material if you pay money, containing phrases similar to "we get so much harder after encryption" and "if you want to see me f**ked by 6 guys at once, subscribe now"

Well? After all it's only the third time I've asked.

(17-06-2010 11:24 )BLUEBIRD OFFICIAL Wrote: [ -> ]

(17-06-2010 10:27 )Grawth Wrote: [ -> ]....

Are you reading Mr Bluebird? Ofcom in court defending their Generally Accepted Standards and Offensive Materials policies.

These would be the people and policies you claim couldn't be challenged as they were all about European directive's and whether Ofcom is "reasonable".

Well, looks like they can be challenged after all, as I and a number of others suggested.

What a surprise, you seem to be just another adult channel making claims that aren't true.

Yes we're reading.

Ofcom is 'challenged' day in and day out. So what ?

Again, you fail to see the difference between CONTEXTS. And the Ofcom broadcasting rules are all about CONTEXT. Try reading them.

Tommie Jo isn't known for making political speeches about issues of the day. Her performances constitute sexual expression. Maybe you can't tell the difference and you spend your night hours turning yourself on to parliamentary debates.

The Applicant's argument in this case is that Ofcom should not be allowed to chill free political speech. What you then need is a ruling which says that freedom of any kind of expression is permitted, subject only to libel and obscenity laws. But that rule does not exist in English or European law.
SNIP

The fundamental right in question is the right of Freedom of Expression, as laid down in the ECHR; that is not limited to political speech, or any particular type of ‘speech’ at all, it’s expression of any kind. That right already exists, so no 'ruling' about 'any kind of free exrpession' is required, it is just that, in this case, they specific incident involves what is claimed to be political speech.

You have the same option to challenge Ofcom with regard to sexual expression, but you have chosen not to do so.

As I have pointed out previously, this is only one of the many areas of challenge open to you with regard to Ofcon censorship.

(20-06-2010 01:58 )BLUEBIRD OFFICIAL Wrote: [ -> ]

(20-06-2010 00:51 )Grawth Wrote: [ -> ]And your on screen promos will be . . .

a) completely truthful about what can and can't be seen on your Sky and Freeview channels or

b) suggestive, hinting at far stronger material if you pay money, containing phrases similar to "we get so much harder after encryption" and "if you want to see me f**ked by 6 guys at once, subscribe now"

Well? After all it's only the third time I've asked.

You can keep asking. We're exercising Our right not to enter any further dialogue with you. Until you apologise for calling us 'liars'.

(20-06-2010 00:58 )StanTheMan Wrote: [ -> ]This reminds me of those tv interviews with politicians

Why don't you just answer the man's question, Bluebird? It seems a perfectly fair one to me.

If someone else wishes to ask the question we'll be happy to answer. We are entering into no further dialogue with Grawth until he apologises for calling us 'liars'.

I very nearly pissed myself laughing when I read this. Now, let me help you clear up your toys and pop them back in the pram for you.

Let's set a few things straight shall we.

You claimed that Ofcom cannot be challenged because they are merely exercising their discretionary right to decide what is or is not acceptable as a broadcast.

Then along came John Gaunt who won the right to a judicial review of the decision that found him in breach of their code. That review is taking in both the Generally Accepted Standards and the Offensive Material policies.

I suggested this proves that Ofcom's judgements and decisions can be challenged, but you maintained that, as this was a poitical discussion it does not affect whether you - an adult broadcaster - can also challenge Ofcom.

I said you were "making claims that aren't true" (which you have taken as me calling you liars).

Let me try one more time to explain why it DOES have an impact on your situation. Ofcom received a complaint. They judged the broadcast to be in breach. That decision was challenged with the result that there is now a juducial review of whether it was fair and ressonable.

Now let's imagine. You broadcast something that is beyond what is currently seen on TV. Ofcom receive a complaint. They judge the broadcast to be in breach. You apply for a judicial review of whether that decision is fair and reasonable. You ask for that review to cover Generally Accepted Standards, Offensive Material, and the reasonableness of banning R18 material merely on the "precautionary principle". Within that review you could point to all manor of studies which demonstrate the acceptableness of porn being broadcast within certain safeguards; you could even point to the high court ruling stating that porn was NOT harmful or offensive enough, even to minors, to justify banning the sale of DVDs or magazines; and of course you could point to the hardcore channels which ARE broadcast from abroad into this country, which Ofcom has done NOTHING to proscribe.

You might also like to point out the difference between "Offensive Material" and "material that has offended someone", because Ofcom seems to believe that they are the same thing when, in law, they are not.

Oh by the way, you also claimed earlier in this thread that "Ofcom was delegated by Parliament the statutory legal power to censor what appears on TV in this country". That's not true either. Censorship is pre-broadcast. It prevents people seeing what you don't want them to see. Ofcom is post-broadcast. It judges whether or not it's code has been broken AFTER the broadcast and SUBSEQUENT to complaints being received.

As to lying - well that would only be true if you knew what you were saying was inaccurate. It's my belief that you have made at least two claims that are not true. That is all I have said. There is a difference between deliberately lying about something, and just getting it wrong. Only you know which side you are on - and although of course I suppose you may still believe Ofcom cannot be challenged, you ought to know that they are NOT a censor.

No need for me to ask my question again as it has been asked by someone else now (as you requested) - thanks Jonny2009

One more thing - you keep putting 'liars' in those dinky little quote marks. I'd love you to show me where I've actually used that word.

Thanks!

Mr. Bluebird your silence is deafening.

Moderator Notice - off-topic posts have been moved out of this thread http://www.babeshows.co.uk/showthread.php?tid=21614

(21-06-2010 12:28 )Grawth Wrote: [ -> ]

(20-06-2010 01:58 )BLUEBIRD OFFICIAL Wrote: [ -> ]You can keep asking. We're exercising Our right not to enter any further dialogue with you. Until you apologise for calling us 'liars'.

I very nearly pissed myself laughing when I read this. Now, let me help you clear up your toys and pop them back in the pram for you.

Let's set a few things straight shall we.

You claimed that Ofcom cannot be challenged because they are merely exercising their discretionary right to decide what is or is not acceptable as a broadcast.

Then along came John Gaunt who won the right to a judicial review of the decision that found him in breach of their code. That review is taking in both the Generally Accepted Standards and the Offensive Material policies.

I suggested this proves that Ofcom's judgements and decisions can be challenged, but you maintained that, as this was a poitical discussion it does not affect whether you - an adult broadcaster - can also challenge Ofcom.

I said you were "making claims that aren't true" (which you have taken as me calling you liars).

Let me try one more time to explain why it DOES have an impact on your situation. Ofcom received a complaint. They judged the broadcast to be in breach. That decision was challenged with the result that there is now a juducial review of whether it was fair and ressonable.

Now let's imagine. You broadcast something that is beyond what is currently seen on TV. Ofcom receive a complaint. They judge the broadcast to be in breach. You apply for a judicial review of whether that decision is fair and reasonable. You ask for that review to cover Generally Accepted Standards, Offensive Material, and the reasonableness of banning R18 material merely on the "precautionary principle". Within that review you could point to all manor of studies which demonstrate the acceptableness of porn being broadcast within certain safeguards; you could even point to the high court ruling stating that porn was NOT harmful or offensive enough, even to minors, to justify banning the sale of DVDs or magazines; and of course you could point to the hardcore channels which ARE broadcast from abroad into this country, which Ofcom has done NOTHING to proscribe.

You might also like to point out the difference between "Offensive Material" and "material that has offended someone", because Ofcom seems to believe that they are the same thing when, in law, they are not.

Oh by the way, you also claimed earlier in this thread that "Ofcom was delegated by Parliament the statutory legal power to censor what appears on TV in this country". That's not true either. Censorship is pre-broadcast. It prevents people seeing what you don't want them to see. Ofcom is post-broadcast. It judges whether or not it's code has been broken AFTER the broadcast and SUBSEQUENT to complaints being received.

As to lying - well that would only be true if you knew what you were saying was inaccurate. It's my belief that you have made at least two claims that are not true. That is all I have said. There is a difference between deliberately lying about something, and just getting it wrong. Only you know which side you are on - and although of course I suppose you may still believe Ofcom cannot be challenged, you ought to know that they are NOT a censor.

No need for me to ask my question again as it has been asked by someone else now (as you requested) - thanks Jonny2009

One more thing - you keep putting 'liars' in those dinky little quote marks. I'd love you to show me where I've actually used that word.

Thanks!

You have your Opinion.
We do not agree with it. You do not agree with our disagreement.
The difference is that we do not ascribe derogatory motives to your opinion: but you do to us.
End of

Now go and bother Cellcast or Bang Media or Elite please on their threads [and see if you even get a response at all]

Tell you what Mr Bluebird, I'll make this my final post, on ANY bluebird thread, if you answer the question both I, and Jonny 20009 (at your request) have asked about your on-screen promos.

Maybe you haven't ascribed "derogatory motives" to my opinion, but you HAVE accused me of using words I never used, you HAVE been told off by the moderator for altering my words with your own interpretation, and you HAVE assumed that my opinion of the law is "unqualified" without any evidence other than my opinion differing from yours. Not quite so "whiter than white" yourself are you?

As for Cellcast, Bang Media or Elite, there's very little chance of getting them to change anything as they are entrenched and comfortable with the current position. I had hoped that you - a new player in this area - might actually be willing to consider attempting to change things, but apparently not.

Oh, and one more thing, I suggest that you answer mine and Jonny20009's question fairly soon, otherwise people might assume that you're not answering because the answer won't do you any favours.

Bye for now

(22-06-2010 02:06 )BLUEBIRD OFFICIAL Wrote: [ -> ]You have your Opinion.
We do not agree with it. You do not agree with our disagreement.
The difference is that we do not ascribe derogatory motives to your opinion: but you do to us.
End of

Now go and bother Cellcast or Bang Media or Elite please on their threads [and see if you even get a response at all]

To Mr Bluebird:

I think that most posters would commend you for your attention to your potential customer base and, personally, I hope it continues. It does surprise me, though, that your company has, I'm sure, spent so much time & expense getting this project off the ground to then, after the novelty has worn off, be clobbered by Ofcon if the girls dare to be a little bit more explicit than the present channels. Is it worth it? I suppose it must be otherwise......
I look forward to reading your reaction when Ofcon come looking for you, as they surely will.

(22-06-2010 22:53 )blackjaques Wrote: [ -> ]To Mr Bluebird:

I think that most posters would commend you for your attention to your potential customer base and, personally, I hope it continues. It does surprise me, though, that your company has, I'm sure, spent so much time & expense getting this project off the ground to then, after the novelty has worn off, be clobbered by Ofcon if the girls dare to be a little bit more explicit than the present channels. Is it worth it? I suppose it must be otherwise......
I look forward to reading your reaction when Ofcon come looking for you, as they surely will.

Thanks for that.
We answered this question many posts ago.
We are not going to enter into a public discussion of what our arguments might be if there were a dispute with Ofcom over broadcast content.
Litigation is an adversarial contest: you do not start by telling the other side what your position is before a dispute has even arisen.

(20-06-2010 10:03 )jonny20009 Wrote: [ -> ]And your on screen promos will be . . .

a) completely truthful about what can and can't be seen on your Sky and Freeview channels or

b) suggestive, hinting at far stronger material if you pay money, containing phrases similar to "we get so much harder after encryption" and "if you want to see me f**ked by 6 guys at once, subscribe now"

Well? After all it's only the third time I've asked.

a)

Interesting thread.