The UK Babe Channels Forum

so if they broke that rule, they can be stopped immediately from broadcasting?

(11-05-2015 13:50 )mr mystery Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-05-2015 11:39 )HEX!T Wrote: [ -> ]as for advertising the website. if the website contains 18+ material they can only advertise after the watershed. there is no need to be subtle about it either.

As we know the free to air phone in babe channels operate under telesopping regulations, Ofcom regard them as long form advertising or something like that, and they come under the BCAP code .

Anyway there is specific rules/guidelines for what websites and references they can advertise on unencrypted TV phone in babe channels after and before the watershed.

Ofcom say this "Under rule 3.30 Ofcom licensed services that are broadcast without mandatory restricted access must not promote websites or products such as video content or images, that contain material within the recognised character of pornography"

These are the rules/guidelines that the babe channels have to abide by, including the advertisement of website rules for nights (page/section 8,and days section/page 9)
http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binarie...idance.pdf


I still think they need to be careful about advertising their twitter account on TV, they even advertise it during the daytime pre-watershed hours , their twitter contains adult images and gives out their website address, this seems to be a strict no no especially during the day time advertising rules .

From what i understand from reading (in breach) rulings given to other babe channels, the link given on screen doesn't need to lead straight to adult imagery, they can be found in breach, if when visiting the website there is another link that does then lead to adult content etc .

If any investigation was launched by Ofcom it would be determined by the strength of content shown in the website link, or any indirect link,or other links broadcast on TV, and at what times they are advertised .
Is the Sin content strong enough to be recognised as Pornography on their website and twitter, it's probabley to strong to be advertised in the day, but is it to strong for what can be advertised at night ? .

http://www.imagebam.com/image/b5a20d405497045 babestation have been running this add for about 2 weeks now.
under eu law the companies have to be allowed to operate on a level playing field. so if babestation are allowed to do it every company should be allowed.

new laws designed to protect the consumer and create a level playing field for business.
http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-13-111_en.htm the process started back in 2013 its taken them 2 years but its now being voted upon by member states and looks like it will pass unopposed.
atvod and ofcom can shout as much as they want about it but they still have to abide by it.

(11-05-2015 16:53 )winsaw Wrote: [ -> ]Is the argument not that the web site they are promoting is family safe Twitter, which is not a problem if you go by the letter of how ofcoms rule is worded

I'm not sure how promoting a twitter account both day and night on tv, that gives links to their website that broadcast the X-streame streams, and were hard core images can be viewed is family friendly, their twitter account and website is not behind a age verified pay wall .

(11-05-2015 16:54 )babelover48 Wrote: [ -> ]so if they broke that rule, they can be stopped immediately from broadcasting?

No i doubt it, Ofcom would probably insist that stopped advertising their twitter account on TV and find them "in breach" of that rule", they could get are a fine if they were found guilty of breaking that rule, but because it's their first "in breach ruling" and are a new channel they could just get a slap on the wrist and told not to do it again, but you never know with Ofcom .

(11-05-2015 17:23 )HEX!T Wrote: [ -> ]http://www.imagebam.com/image/b5a20d405497045 babestation have been running this add for about 2 weeks now.
under eu law the companies have to be allowed to operate on a level playing field. so if babestation are allowed to do it every company should be allowed.

new laws designed to protect the consumer and create a level playing field for business.
http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-13-111_en.htm the process started back in 2013 its taken them 2 years but its now being voted upon by member states and looks like it will pass unopposed.
atvod and ofcom can shout as much as they want about it but they still have to abide by it.

Babestation were found in breach a while back for advertising their website on TV, it's in one of Ofcom's broadcast bulletins
This BS site shows the hard core imagery and the streams for unleashed http://www.babestation.tv/
.
Blue Bird and Elite TV were also found in breach for advertising their websites on TV .

The BS website shown in that link is this one http://www.babestation.com/
It does not show free to view hard core imagery to my knowledge or show the unleashed streams .

(11-05-2015 14:17 )Broncobilly Wrote: [ -> ]The production is the heart beat of the problem, if someone like Mellie walks away not long after signing up its obvious the company is badly run and the show lacks content as the producer is scared to do the job properly.

The have the best girls just the worst people calling the shots

If they can't get things like phone lines active they can't make money.

Agree bronco, the problems sintv have isn't with the babes they have. Overall they've probably got the best roster on the babeshows, which is getting better with the recent additions of Karina Currie and Holly McGuire and more babes are joining next month. if they can get things sorted behind the scenes then they will carry on doing as well as they have done so far

We will see in an upcoming ofcom bulletin if this promoting the x-streams via Twitter is breaking the rules. If it doesn't appear, then presume ofcom is fine with it

(11-05-2015 18:05 )Rammyrascal Wrote: [ -> ]We will see in an upcoming ofcom bulletin if this promoting the x-streams via Twitter is breaking the rules. If it doesn't appear, then presume ofcom is fine with it

If it doesn't appear in a Ofcom bulletin then maybe no one has complained about it ?, just because it may not be in a upcoming bulletin doesn't mean Ofcom are fine with Sin TV giving links that lead to hard core imagery via twitter or what is shown on the X-streams .

I should think that if Sin TV thought they could promote their website on TV then they would be doing so, and not doing it indirectly via twitter ..

^ Thanks mr mystery for keeping this stuff as straight as possible. That's the way I had this one reasoned in my head after ColinRB mentioned the two BS websites the other day. The penny dropped for me on how BS had been getting round things in this regard. (Btw, did the 'naughty' site, BS.TV, used to be advertised on the NICAM regulated BS1 do you know?)

So the next question is: If the x-streams and all Sin's R18-type web material went behind a paywall could Sin then advertise their website on TV? I see the Ofcom rule you quoted makes no mention of pay or free-to-view material.

BS.com does have naughty chat pay streams I see. Those are presumably classed as "pornographic". So maybe, yes?

At the end of the day, however, Sin simply doesn't yet have the brand assurance that BS has amongst it's potential customer base to even consider putting these streams behind any paywall. They are trying to build from zero on that score right now and are currently offering next to no reliability of when, how often, for how long, featuring which girls, working to what content levels these streams are going to be operating each night. Is it any wonder that they are struggling - even amongst the small minority of callers, within the slightly less small minority of fans, who are even aware of the streams' existence!

Customer awareness is not the only problem the x-streams have at the moment, it's just the more difficult one to solve. Why Sin are doing precisely nothing to encourage those who know where the streams are is even more perplexing to me. They seem to have lost complete faith in them atm, having not been able to resolve the awareness problem. As a result they are now experiencing disappointed customers - some of whom they may struggle to regain.

In business you have to show faith in your product, even when your message fails to get across, otherwise no one else will.

(11-05-2015 18:14 )mr mystery Wrote: [ -> ]If it doesn't appear in a Ofcom bulletin then maybe no one has complained about it ?...

It's worth remembering that Ofcom no longer have to wait for a complaint, they have their own investigators looking for this stuff now or are at least telling people they have!

I wonder if sin should put TV strength content on the xstream for a month, show nothing more the on the ofcom show, as they would then be able to advertise them all the time on TV, it would get the less clued up callers use to going on the web to see sins other TV channel, then once the awareness is their make the content harder again and stop plugging them on tv

(11-05-2015 19:14 )ShandyHand Wrote: [ -> ]It's worth remembering that Ofcom no longer have to wait for a complaint, they have there own investigators looking for this stuff now or are at least telling people they have!

what, you mean Ofcom are paying people to surf the internet for porn? The bastards lol

(11-05-2015 19:14 )ShandyHand Wrote: [ -> ]^ Thanks mr mystery for keeping this stuff as straight as possible. That's the way I had this one reasoned in my head after ColinRB mentioned the two BS websites the other day. The penny dropped for me on how BS had been getting round things in this regard. (Btw, did the 'naughty' site, BS.TV, used to be advertised on the NICAM regulated BS1 do you know?)

So the next question is: If the x-streams and all Sin's R18-type web material went behind a paywall could Sin then advertise their website on TV? I see the Ofcom rule you quoted makes no mention of pay or free-to-view material.

BS.com does have naughty chat pay streams I see. Those are presumably classed as "pornographic". So maybe, yes?

I'm not sure, but i don't think the BS.TV naughty site was being shown on either the Dutch regulated TV channels or the Ofcom regulated channels when Ofcom found them in breach, it was for showing the BS.com site that got them in trouble with Ofcom .
At that time the BS.com site was showing hardcore imagery, BS then stopped advertising BS.com on screen for a good while, when they started promoting it again on screen it no longer had free to view hardcore imagery .

This is the Ofcom broadcast bulletin were Ofcom go into detail about BS showing their website on TV, and the rules they breached
http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binarie...obb248.pdf
Take note, only the Ofcom regulated BS channels are mentioned .
The Sky and freeview Dutch channels are not mentioned, they were also broadcasting the same website .

I should think but not sure, that Sin TV could at night promote their X-Stream web streams on TV, if the web streams are behind a age verified paywall, but they wouldn't be able to show R18 material on X-stream, but could show harder imagery than what they can on unencrypted TV,ie full frontal nudity .

In the link i gave to the babe channel rules (in section 8 just under the rule i posted) it mentions that links/adverts to R18 material can only be advertised on TV if the TV channel is a encrypted channel, but the R18 material it's self can't be shown on TV..