(06-02-2011 19:18 )sweetsugar007 Wrote: [ -> ]Well the girls still have employment law to protect them so there should be no problem there.As far as the channels are concerned until they pin encrypt the whole lot then these channels will struggle.How much would it have cost to do this as opposed to the fines they have paid and the licenses lost.
i don't think the pin encryption will ever happen as sky won't do it. also the vast majority if not all, are actually self employed.
(06-02-2011 13:12 )RCTV Wrote: [ -> ]The adult industry is still seen as bad and is still VERY patriachal and a lot of the times girls are seen as 'toys' (actually said by one of crew member of one of the channels recently) and that they are only there to pleasure the people at home and the crew, which I know of several cases which could of actually gone to court of a crew member trying to get with one of the girls.
The industry has no independant overseaer, it has ofcom for broadcasting but nothing for how the girls are treated, which it really really needs.
Most industries have no independent overseer. Education, social work, doctors, nurses, police do. All groups that have direct power over peoples lives. Thats more or less the complete list. Small businesses generally dont have professional regulatory bodies and can are sometimes staffed by people who have never been on equality awareness courses and arent really clear personal and business boundaries. Plumbers, builders, estate agents, garages, print shops all have no oversight. Major multinationals dont have independent oversight either, including big pharmacuticals, IT firms and car manufacturers. The BBC and ITV dont (the BBC Board are concerned with broadcasting matters, and employment law - like every other employer - but not personal morality). Most of the workforce do not have an independent overseer in the picture.
Sexual harassment even happens in big investment banks, ranging from derogatory treatment to sexual favours as a condition of continued employment.
But its no surprise that some people in the adult industry are slimebags who think a model is "available". Ive met strip pub landlords like that - and others who were thoroughly decent. There are bound to be a mixture of grown ups who know modelsare just acting, tetosterone kids who want their fantasy to be true, and adults who dont know better.
There are legal remedies - sexual harassment claims (civil courts, compensation payments) and sexual assault charges (criminal law). Often there is a big downside, ie not working for that employers again, and possibly not for anyone else either. Complaints are best either from someone who has well laid plans to move on, or a group of employees who can corobborate stories. Any model will have a hard time overcoming prejudice, but unlike typists and market stall workers, models have the advantage of there being lots of cameras around.
One final point. If a model brings a claim and does not settle out of court, does not sign a gagging order, next stop is Ofcom who are legally obliged to ask if known sexual predators are "fit and proper" persons to run a TV channel. The owners would introduce equality training, monitoring and drop named offenders faster than a fast thing, and no one else in adult TV would employ them, rather than risk loosing their licence.
(06-02-2011 17:53 )StanTheMan Wrote: [ -> ] (06-02-2011 13:16 )RCTV Wrote: [ -> ]We may not agree on stuff, but all of us want the same thing...
Do we? From your past posts I'd say you certainly want something different to an awful lot of us - me, certainly!
From what I have seen Ramoss viewpoint is that of an industry insider who is more pragmatic that than most members of this forum. Of course she sees things differently. And shes not a bloke wanting to get her end away. As an insider she has probably gone up against Ofcom rules more often than the rest of us, and been left feeling it is like banging a brick wall. Work within a set of rules all day long and you start to accept them as normal. I disagree with some of what she writes too, but lets not confuse being pragmatic with being an Ofcom supporter.
If we can put an argument to Ramos and get her to agree, thats a little ray of hope. If we put an argument forward and cant wven get someone syphathetic to agree then thats time for a reality check. Thats what critical friends are for.
(07-02-2011 00:03 )eccles Wrote: [ -> ] (06-02-2011 17:53 )StanTheMan Wrote: [ -> ] (06-02-2011 13:16 )RCTV Wrote: [ -> ]We may not agree on stuff, but all of us want the same thing...
Do we? From your past posts I'd say you certainly want something different to an awful lot of us - me, certainly!
From what I have seen Ramoss viewpoint is that of an industry insider who is more pragmatic that than most members of this forum. Of course she sees things differently. And shes not a bloke wanting to get her end away. As an insider she has probably gone up against Ofcom rules more often than the rest of us, and been left feeling it is like banging a brick wall. Work within a set of rules all day long and you start to accept them as normal. I disagree with some of what she writes too, but lets not confuse being pragmatic with being an Ofcom supporter.
If we can put an argument to Ramos and get her to agree, thats a little ray of hope. If we put an argument forward and cant wven get someone syphathetic to agree then thats time for a reality check. Thats what critical friends are for.
thanks hun. you are more than welcome to put stuff to me. I don't like the whole rules by far, but i can see why they are there. where a lot of guys on here can't see that view.
(06-02-2011 19:18 )sweetsugar007 Wrote: [ -> ]Well the girls still have employment law to protect them so there should be no problem there.As far as the channels are concerned until they pin encrypt the whole lot then these channels will struggle.How much would it have cost to do this as opposed to the fines they have paid and the licenses lost.
I used to think that perhaps PIN encrypting Babe channels might work, although it would have been a nusiance and cost a packet, but now I dont. Heres why.
The FTV channels apply pressure on the paid-encrypted channels by their very existence. Paid channels have to offer more or loose paying subscribers to the free ones.
If all the free babe channels were moved into paid packages tomorrow, yes, at first the content would be harder, but in a years time it wouldnt be much stronger than the current free content, apart from the occasional short lived hard(er) series to boost subscriptions. If you look at model ratecards most charge more on a sliding scale, ranging through glamour, topless, implied nude, explicit nude then various forms of hardcore. Also the more explicit the content, the fewer models offer it. It is easier and cheaper to find a fit, cute model who will do topless than a fit one who will do a live sex show.
Also the free shows act as great advertising for the stronger stuff. Remember the old SportXXX pre-encryption shows that gave a pretty good idea of what the encrypted content was like? (OK, it wasnt exactly the same, but looking back 5 years I miss those days).
They did a survey, to which it was concluded that the majority of the survey takers liked the adult channels and found them to be acceptable, yet they ingored their own survey, and decided against it.
[/quote]
Yeah and we still havn`t found out how much this survey cost us,the paying public.
I would love to know why no one was dragged over the tiles for this obscene waste of public funds,especialy so in the current financial climate.
(25-01-2011 02:52 )Gold Plated Pension Wrote: [ -> ] (20-01-2011 19:22 )Gold Plated Pension Wrote: [ -> ]Well my money is still on RLL with 5 complaints still to be investigated but expect those outcomes on Monday. With only 2.17% of the vote TVX now have 4 complaints to be investigated from December. What did i miss.
Up to 14 January 2011
Programme Channel Transmission Date Date Lodged
Dirty Talk Dirty Talk Wednesday, 08 December 2010 10 December 2010
Dirty Talk Dirty Talk Saturday, 11 December 2010 12 December 2010
Fone Girls Dirty Talk Saturday, 11 December 2010 11 December 2010
Honey Days Dirty Talk Wednesday, 15 December 2010 15 December 2010
Well it would appear we all got it wrong. Ofcom are about to issue a financial sanction with possibly a 'Notice of Direction' to a channel operator not mentioned above.
The decisions on the 5 complaints against RLL have also been published and yes you've guessed it 'In Breach'. These broadcasts are shown on channels licensed to Playboy and Just4us who have previously been found in breach so therefore Ofcom are now stating
In light of the above and Ofcom‟s recent concerns with Just4Us and Playboy‟s compliance, Ofcom is now requiring the licensees to attend a meeting at Ofcom to discuss its compliance procedures. Ofcom also puts Just4Us and Playboy on notice that it must take all necessary and appropriate measures to ensure its channels comply with the BCAP Code in the future. Ofcom will not expect further breaches of this nature to occur again.
So whilst RLL have taken ex Bang talent on don't expect to see them pushing any limits. Whilst Playboy did relax it's stance with Bang (post revocation) following the meeting of all channel licensee's in early December they will not want to suffer the revocation of a licence, imposition of a Notice of Direction or financial penalty due to non compliance of a broadcaster. Expect to see them put RLL on a very tight leash with immediate effect.
Read all about it.
http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binarie...sue174.pdf
Well the enforcement has begun. As predicted above a 'Notice of Direction' has been served on Hoppr Entertainment Ltd holder of broadcast licence TLCS 851 for channel Live 960.
The notice requires ownership information to be provided to Ofc@m in order to determine whether the de facto control of Hoppr Entertainment Limited complies with the media ownership rules as set out in the Broadcasting Act 1990.
I believe this to be a bit of a smokescreen, Hoppr Entertainment Ltd are not exactly in the same league as Rupert Murdoch in relation to media ownership.
This notice is to get accurate ownership information prior to the revocation of the licence and/or a substantial financial penalty to ensure correct service of such legal documentation.
The clock is now counting down on this broadcaster.
Also in trouble again is Playboy TV UK/Benelux Limited for breach of
Rule 1.17 “Material equivalent to the British board of Film Classification (BBFC) R18-rating must not be broadcast at any time”.
allegedly shown during the freeview section of their encrypted service Climax 3-3 on the 1st July 2010.
Whilst Playboy owned up to the breach the following day to Ofcom they will still be put on notice that this present contravention of its licence is being considered for the imposition of a statutory sanction.
So having been called in last week for a final warning and with several investigations still outstanding expect this broadcaster, once the outcomes of those investigations are made public, to be hit with a substantial financial penalty far in excess of that received by Bang for both it's encrypted and FTV services.
The question is will they fight the penalty through the courts, accept it or just close the channels down/transfer the licenses.
Playboy are a huge company and might just create a bit of history by taking Ofcom to the cleaners. They have nothing to lose as if they just simply pay the fines then ultimately the channels will go the same way as Bangbabes did and it is also an admission of guilt. 2011 has to be the year that these channels start to fight back. Smaller channels can't afford to go down this road but Playboy can and should.
Was it R18? Thats the question.
They should fight this all the way.