'Tamestation'

I am well aware of ofcom's view, I am just saying how irrational they are. The fact that there are parental control on sky should not be their problem. It should be down to their parents or guardians.

It would be like stopping all forms of adult entertainment on the Internet because under 18 could access it.

Lets be real here it is a stupid unrealistic rule who are they to decide how to protect them? It is adult TV after all.

There is one simple word that goes some way towards explaining all this: context

The context in which specific language is used can dramatically alter the perceived effect it has, and therefor the 'allowability' of that language

(12-10-2009 23:34 )admin Wrote:  

(12-10-2009 22:55 )vostok 1 Wrote:  The type of language can be used on a Babe Channel.

No, in fact that type of language cannot be used on a babe channel.

Your arguments about Babestar and the other things they did are not really relevant here, because I only chose that as a random example.

Here's another example, where Babeworld were fined £25,000.

'The presenters were dressed provocatively in underwear and behaved in an extremely sexual manner, for example thrusting their breasts and buttocks directly at the camera and appearing to masturbate. They encouraged viewers to call them using explicit sexual language, for example: “I want you to spunk in my mouth. It makes me really horny”; “she needs a nice hard cock up there”; and “…maybe you just want to bend me over and stick it up my arse”.'

'Ofcom concluded that the explicit sexual content on the programme, both language and visuals, was in breach of the Code Rules aimed at protecting the under 18s. The content was so explicit, and in particular the language, it was considered to be ’adult-sex’ material. This meant it should have been broadcast under encryption.'

I hope everything's clear now.

From what I read of the sanction report much of Ofcom's issue seems to be because it was just 15 minutes after the 9pm watershed for 15 rated material they point out several times in the report about how it appeared so soon after the watershed.

My extreme example might get them in trouble before or after 10pm but the guidelines don't outline this specifically but they don't need to watch their language as such. It seems that the context is important here but also Ofcom seem to put a lot of emphasis on the time it appears and this is also an important factor in why they got a fine...

In reaching its decision on the financial penalty, however, the Committee had particular regard to the pattern of repeated and poor compliance displayed by the Licensee with regard to Sections One, Two and Ten of the Code. This was despite various warnings from, and correspondence with, Ofcom.

I would say a big reason that they got a sanction in addition to repeated miscompliance was because it happened at 9:15pm and in particular because it was a mother complaining that her young son and friends were watching it at that time.

There's no specific rule set out by Ofcom that I can find but I'm pretty sure that if that had been said at 1:15am and not 9:15pm Ofcom wouldn't have had such an issue with it.

I may be completely wrong though and maybe strong language is not allowed as long as it's not intended to arouse the viewer, but that would be at odds with the fact the intent of the images on screen is to sexually arouse the viewer! Is there a huge difference between arousal by what's on the screen and arousal by what's being said?

I guess the only people that can clarify that are Ofcom themselves or one of the producers from the channels.

(12-10-2009 23:49 )tony confederate Wrote:  

(12-10-2009 23:37 )setter1000 Wrote:  I know the point you are making. But it does seem strange to be protecting people under 18 considering the fact you can use parental control to stop under 18s from being able to watch it in the first place.

In Ofcom's view that isn't good enough. As admin said, to protect the under 18s you have to broadcast sex material under encryption. Ofcom do not recognise parental control as providing sufficient protection.

If encryption is the only way to protect -18s, what is the purpose of watersheds, parental controls and ‘18+’ warnings at the start of, and at regular intervals during, the shows?

(13-10-2009 00:06 )SxciiSooky Wrote:  There is one simple word that goes some way towards explaining all this: context

The context in which specific language is used can dramatically alter the perceived effect it has, and therefor the 'allowability' of that language

The only way I have seen Ofcom use context as a qualifier is when they say explicit content which would otherwise be banned in a particular circumstance may be featured if it is 'justified by the context'. And this is for pre-watershed timings.

Where could explicit language be more justified by context than on a late-night 18-rated adult sex chat show?

(12-10-2009 23:34 )admin Wrote:  No, in fact that type of language cannot be used on a babe channel.

Under who's rules?

Quote:Your arguments about Babestar and the other things they did are not really relevant here, because I only chose that as a random example.

I responded to the example you posted. And the example you posted dealt with a violation (by way of the adult language used) of the BCAP advertising code, which has no impact on a Babe Show with the correct broadcast licence. Babe Station have the correct broadcast licence.





In this section (part 9) it details how the owner wished to change his broadcast licence to one of a "General entertainment channel", which would not be subject to BCAP rules on language and sexual content in Advertising.

Quote:Here's another example, where Babeworld were fined £25,000.

Full details of that adjudication here:
http://www.ofcom.org.uk/tv/obb/ocsc_adjud/babeworld.pdf

Quote:'The presenters were dressed provocatively in underwear and behaved in an extremely sexual manner, for example thrusting their breasts and buttocks directly at the camera and appearing to masturbate. They encouraged viewers to call them using explicit sexual language, for example: “I want you to spunk in my mouth. It makes me really horny”; “she needs a nice hard cock up there”; and “…maybe you just want to bend me over and stick it up my arse”.'

'Ofcom concluded that the explicit sexual content on the programme, both language and visuals, was in breach of the Code Rules aimed at protecting the under 18s. The content was so explicit, and in particular the language, it was considered to be ’adult-sex’ material. This meant it should have been broadcast under encryption.'

I hope everything's clear now.

What you didn't mention is that the adjudication and fine related to content that was broadcast at 21.15 hrs and promotion of an adult phone line prior to the watershed.

Ofcom took issue with the fact that the language and content was broadcast so soon after the watershed and prior to 10pm.

(12-10-2009 18:05 )admin Wrote:  

(11-10-2009 20:47 )oxygenIT Wrote:  the girls don't have to be limited to saying 'Cheeky' and basically have no limitations on their language since it falls with post-watershed hours. They could say 's***k all over my tits you dirty f*****g c**t' live on air and as long as it is after 10pm there shouldn't be an issue as it's post watershed.

This is totally incorrect. That kind of language is not allowed to be used on the babe channels.

OxygenIT was talking about content broadcast after 10pm. The sanction you quoted concerning Babe World dealt with issues broadcast at 21.15hrs and prior to 9pm.










If there would have been a sanction if the "offending material" was broadcast after 22.00 hrs when Babe World is listed as "18" certificate material on the Sky EPG remains to be seen.

Also, taken from European Directive: “Television Without Frontiers” or TVWF, as recognised by the Department of Culture Media Video and Sport (DCMVS)

Broadcasting matters covered by the Directive include sports rights, right of reply, advertising, sponsorship and protection of minors.

Article 22 of TVWF:

"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 (post watershed, generally after 22.00 hrs) by any technical measure (the ability for parents to remove all 900 channels from the Sky Digital EPG and the ability to delete seleted channels from freeview, as the case is) that minors in the area of transmission will not normally hear or see such broadcasts.

3. Furthermore, when such programmes are broadcast in unencoded/Un-encrypted 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."

For channels to clearly operate within legal TVWF guidelines they simply need to follow directive 3. The Participation Television Broadcasters Association have addressed the acoustic warning by airing their commercial at the start of night time shows. They simply just have to add an "18" certificate on screen to have the protection of EU Law.

very informative. great to know that our members are up to date on their knowledge and understanding of guidelines etc

Whether the explicit language discussed above is or is not permitted, there is absolutely no reason for banning the use of words like 'dirty' and 'filthy'. These are not, in any way, 'adult sex content'. They are words in common use by English-speaking people all over the world as part of their everyday vocabulary.

They also accurately describe the service on offer, which 'ch**ky' does not. In fact the use of that word amounts to deceit. It has no connotation of meaning that could apply to the type of conversation which features in the phone calls. It is also used to describe two entirely different services. As I understand it, the girls are not allowed to talk dirty during the daytime show, which begins at 5:30am. If, a few minutes earlier, a caller has been having a typical 'ch**ky' phone conversation with a girl on the night show, should they not be entitled to expect exactly the same sort of conversation when a sexily-dressed day girl also offers a 'ch**ky' phone call?

(13-10-2009 01:09 )vostok 1 Wrote:  

(12-10-2009 23:34 )admin Wrote:  No, in fact that type of language cannot be used on a babe channel.

Under who's rules?

I believe this discussion concerns Ofcom's broadcasting code and was instigated by oxygenIT who said he thought that under the code such language was allowed.

(13-10-2009 08:14 )admin Wrote:  

(13-10-2009 01:09 )vostok 1 Wrote:  

(12-10-2009 23:34 )admin Wrote:  No, in fact that type of language cannot be used on a babe channel.

Under who's rules?

I believe this discussion concerns Ofcom's broadcasting code and was instigated by oxygenIT who said he thought that under the code such language was allowed.

So in fact you are totally ignorant admin? Please don't get involved in threads unless you can add some definitive comment. Supposition posing as fact is not helpful.

(13-10-2009 01:09 )vostok 1 Wrote:  OxygenIT was talking about content broadcast after 10pm. The sanction you quoted concerning Babe World dealt with issues broadcast at 21.15hrs and prior to 9pm.

If there would have been a sanction if the "offending material" was broadcast after 22.00 hrs when Babe World is listed as "18" certificate material on the Sky EPG remains to be seen.

No, it doesn't remain to be seen. There would still have been a sanction because, for the third time, that kind of language cannot be used on a babe channel - at any time.

Quote from Ofcom:

'Rule 1.24 of the Code restricts the broadcast of ‘adult-sex’ material to premium subscription services and pay-per view/night services between 22:00 and 05:30 – provided there is a mandatory PIN protection system, or equivalent protections, to restrict access to those authorised to view. A letter sent by Ofcom in September 2006 to broadcasters in the sector made clear that “Under the Code it is prohibited to broadcast content where the visuals or the audio or the overall tone is tantamount to adult sex material and we will intervene if we see such programming. This includes explicit sexual language”.

Here is Ofcom's judgement in a case stated by them to relate to the date and time of '7/8 May 2007, 00:00-01:00' (therefore after 22:00).

'We consider that the actions of the presenters (e.g. masturbation) and the explicit sexual language used demonstrated quite clearly that one of the main aims of the programme was to arouse viewers sexually: there was no other significant editorial context for the explicit images and language. Such explicit material is suitable for broadcast only on subscription/pay per view channels that have appropriate protection mechanisms in place.'

Further:

'The channel emphasised that it took compliance with the Code extremely seriously and had make significant changes to the format of its programme. Its current output did not show masturbation at all, and the broadcaster had issued a directive to all presenters not to use crass language.'

I hope the point is now made and Ofcom's position is perfectly clear to everyone. The channels certainly understand that they cannot broadcast the kind of language suggested by oxygenIT at any time.