The UK Babe Channels Forum

^ Hallelulah.

Confirms what I said here: http://www.babeshows.co.uk/showthread.ph...pid2079161

^ Sorry but that is still a company directive to me. It's a policy based on a cautious reading/interpretation of an Ofcom rule. The rule doesn't say the cam on show is advertising in and of itself. If it did BS would be hiding the cam during daytime in the same way - therefore it's operator based.

Pleasing Ofcom is still what they are doing. It's not being done for any other reason is it?!

But I agree it all sophistry as regards the end result.

(11-09-2017 18:06 )ShandyHand Wrote: [ -> ]^ Sorry but that is still a company directive to me. It's a policy based on a cautious reading/interpretation of an Ofcom rule. The rule doesn't say the cam on show is advertising in and of itself. If it did BS would be hiding the cam during daytime in the same way - therefore it's operator based.

Pleasing Ofcom is still what they are doing. It's not being done for any other reason is it?!

But I agree it all sophistry as regards the end result.

Don't get this at all!!!! Are you really saying that Studio 66 are enforcing a guideline which does not suit them at all, in order to please Ofcom, who themselves are making no attempt to enforce this rule anyway? What the £%"^ is the point of that?

^ Why are they doing something that BS feel no need to do?

(11-09-2017 19:37 )ShandyHand Wrote: [ -> ]^ Why are they doing something that BS feel no need to do?

Are you absolutely 100% certain that both stations have totally identical daytime licences? Because some people think there is a difference not just for the night shows.

I've seen no evidence of that. Ofcom publish lists of licences; BS's have been linked on the forum in the past. BS had several. The is little indication of NICAM use beyond FV. If someone can pinpoint something specific that says differently of course that changes the picture.

Ofcom are enforcing the rule btw. You said as much. One of the things it does is stopping all operator's babes from going on mic and saying "hey guys come on my cam where I show a lot more". Its whether this rule goes further than that and relevant captions, OSG's and so on, that is open to opinion - quite apparently.

66 feel Ofcom may come along one day and say "hey showing your cams are onscreen during the day, that's advertising them - naughty, naughty, we told you not to do that". They may be right to play it that way - Ofcom have a little previous at being mercurial like that. But its not easy to get around the fact that others in the industry are not reading it like that. So atm it looks like one party just playing it safe.

Well Shandy, we agree on most things, I think, but this theory is beyond my comprehension. I do understand the idea that S. 66 want to keep Ofcom happy - of course they do, but......Let's see if I've got your theory right.....

BS and S. 66 have identical licences, and Ofcom have never suggested that the pervecam should be hidden. Despite this S. 66 decide that they will please or satisfy Ofcom by taking an action which Ofcom have never said is appropriate or necessary. They do this even though none of the staff want to do it, despite the fact that it is counter-productive as far as getting viewers to watch the pervecam, and despite the fact that it is almost impossible to keep it up successfully all of the time - there have to be lapses in concentration etc. They do it despite the fact that their biggest competitor - BS - isn't doing it and therefore hands their rivals a massive advantage. All the time that they are doing it, they can see that BS are not doing it, so if they have the same licence, surely all of their staff would be in open rebellion about this stupid procedure imposed on them for no obvious reason. (So I think the staff must all believe that BS and S. 66 have different licences).

The hiding of the pervecam to avoid accusation of advertising this service is not the clear requirement of a regulation but is a wholly new interpretation of a regulation in a manner never previously applied. It would be impossible for Ofcom to legally enforce a totally new interpretation of existing guidelines without proposing or explaining them first. In other words, Ofcom have to tell S. 66 what their interpretation is, and require them to adhere to it. They cannot criticise the station for not taking an action which they have never required.

Your proposal suggests that there is not one person in management at S. 66 who is capable of thinking this through logically. I doubt that.

We have exhausted this subject, I think and should agree to disagree before we bore other readers to death!

^ Now you are being selective with what I wrote and charactersing the rest in the most negatative terms possible. None of those terms reflect my view.

Look - there is no argument to win here. I have already said that if Evelyn's "possibility" is correct then of course your assesement is the right one. I'm just saying that you're hanging quite a bit on one babe's possibility.

I have not said 66 bosses are being illogcal. That is your erroneous conclusion. On the contrary I am saying that what are doing is being quite conscientious in their decision making (with legal advice on the wording?) and are taking into account the context of Ofcom's history with the channels. Something you are not considering enough I'd say.

Ofcom have been known to sideswip the channels before. They have given unexpected judgements based on unexpected interpretations of their owm rules. This can be read in published Ofcom documents - how Ofcom has refuted the standard interpretation when passing judgement.

You and I have previously been agreeing on here that Ofcom's rules can be open to interpretation. We have agreed before that sometimes the operators are cautious. Why you are assessing that as so massively illogical here is beyond me? Ofcom twist the channels into doing things they wouldn't normally do all the time.

But yes, on your last point, I agree wholeheartedly.

(11-09-2017 15:36 )nottooold Wrote: [ -> ]To finish the visible pervecam discussion (I hope), I have spoken to Evelyn on the phone today to obtain her views.

Unfortunately Evelyn’s views are not facts and therefore can’t realistically finish the discussion.

(11-09-2017 15:36 )nottooold Wrote: [ -> ]She believes totally that the directive (or advice or suggestion etc) to keep the pervecam out of sight came from Ofcom.

Evelyn may believe that, but Evelyn is wrong. If the policy to hide the pervcam during daytime was laid down by Ofcom it would hardly be applied in such an uneven and sometimes lackadaisical manner.

(11-09-2017 15:36 )nottooold Wrote: [ -> ]She believes that she, the other girls, and Studio 66 want the cam to be visible because it is a sales feature - look we have the pervecam available!

She’s right about that at least

(11-09-2017 15:36 )nottooold Wrote: [ -> ]She believes that the point at issue for Ofcom is that the Studio 66 licence does not permit them to advertise a private show and the sight of a camera is an advert for just such a private show. It should therefore not be visible. We get the same thing about ten pm when Evelyn cannot say on the mic. that she is doing a private show, she says she will be "somewhere else".

This is more or less correct. The point in issue specifically is the long standing rule that sexual entertainment services cannot be advertised on TV during the daytime and Studio 66 consider that the pervcam being on display could be construed as just such an advert.

(11-09-2017 15:36 )nottooold Wrote: [ -> ]She believes that possibly BS has a slightly different licence

No they don’t. It’s complete nonsense. Broadcast licences are a matter of public record, so Evelyn is wrong.

We don’t just know that Evelyn is wrong, we can prove it.

(11-09-2017 15:36 )nottooold Wrote: [ -> ]assumes that the occasional sight of a pervecam with some S. 66 girls is a lapse by them or the producers, and should not happen.

The use of the word occasional here is very unfortunate, because the lapses as you call them are much more than occasional and they always have been much more than occasional. I noticed several yesterday alone.

I find the use of the word occasional here to be a travesty of the truth!

Incidentally, how does Evelyn account for her own lapses? If she believes she’s working under an Ofcom directive she ought to be more careful surely?

And what about the producers? If these lapses shouldn't happen, why don't they immediately put the S66 logo up, as they do if Fernanda's skirt threatens to ride up for example?

(11-09-2017 15:36 )nottooold Wrote: [ -> ]It isn't a perfect solution

No indeed, it isn’t perfect. Fatally flawed and easy to repudiate would be a more accurate appraisal.

When I talked about closing the visible pervecam debate, a great deal of my consideration was that it must be quite boring for a lot of people as the same points get thrown around repeatedly.

I admit that I made the mistake of believing that the opinion of someone who was directly involved like Evelyn, might be interesting and helpful. Clearly I was wrong. Incidentally, Evelyn did say that she had been told off a few times for showing the pervecam.

No explanation, neither mine (Evelyn's) nor that of the self appointed "seeker of truth and justice", tidies up all the loose ends. For example, the girls and producers are not always concealing the pervecam, which they should do whether it is an Ofcom directive or a S. 66 rule. Therefore mentioning this does not help the admiral's side of the debate either. His version too is an imperfect solution.

May I respectfully suggest again that we drop this and move on to another more interesting subject.