Ofcom returns to whingeing about babe channels being too sexy for daytime TV

Read more ow.htm at MelonFarmers.co.uk

See article [pdf] from ofcom.org.uk

Studio 66 TV Studio 66, 15 April 2019, 10:00 Studio 66, 28 April 2019, 18:30 Studio 66, 8 May 2019, 11:10 Studio 66, 20 May 2019, 10:00 Studio 66, 23 May 2019, 10:00 Studio 66 TV is interactive daytime chat advertising broadcast on the service Studio 66, which is available as part of a standard satellite subscription package. The content consists of presenters inviting viewers to contact them via premium rate telephony services (PRS). Studio 66 is available without mandatory restricted access and is situated in the adult section of Sky’s electronic programme guide (‘EPG’). The licence for the service is held by 914 TV Limited. Ofcom received five complaints, each about a different broadcast. In each case, the complainant considered that the presenters were not wearing suitable clothing, their bodies were inadequately covered, and in some instances their behaviour was sexualised. Having viewed the material, Ofcom identified five examples: eg on 15 April 2019, 10:00 The presenter lay on her side wearing a small black dress, which on several occasions was hitched up at the bottom partially exposing her thigh and buttock; and on several occasions, the presenter stroked and thrust her buttocks. Ofcom considered Rule 32.3: Relevant timing restrictions must be applied to advertisements that, through their content, might harm or distress children of particular ages or that are otherwise unsuitable for them. Ofcom Decision: Breach of Rule 32.3 Ofcom’s published guidance on the advertising of PRS ‘daytime chat’ services (“the Chat Service Guidance”) sets out what Ofcom considers to be acceptable to broadcast on these services. The Chat Service Guidance requires ‘daytime chat’ services to be placed within the ‘adult’ or similarly identified section of EPG listings. It also states that the “presentation of daytime chat should always be suitable for wide audiences, that is for audiences including children and young persons…should they come across it unawares”. It requires that “all dress and behaviour should be non-sexual in tone and apparent intent”, and specifically that ‘daytime chat’ broadcasters should: • “ensure that presenters are wearing appropriate clothing, that adequately covers their bodies, in particular their breasts, genital areas and buttocks”; • “not broadcast images of presenters touching or stroking their bodies in a suggestive manner, in particular avoiding breasts, thighs, crotches and buttocks”; and • “not broadcast images of presenters mimicking sexual intercourse by rocking and thrusting their bodies, or otherwise adopting sexual poses.” Ofcom considered the content across these five broadcasts did not reflect the elements of the Chat Service Guidance listed above. It featured presenters who were positioned and dressed in such a way that resulted in significant exposure of their buttocks, thighs or breasts. Further, in some cases, the presenters: • touched and stoked their buttocks and breasts in a sexual way; and • repeatedly thrust or gyrated their breasts or buttocks, mimicking sexual activity. In light of the above, Ofcom considered that in all five cases, the presenters’ clothing and behaviour were sexual in tone and apparent intent. On 8 April 2019, in Issue 376 of its Broadcast and On Demand Bulletin, Ofcom recorded a breach of Rule 32.3 against the Licensee for the pre-watershed broadcast of content featuring three presenters who behaved inappropriately and were inadequately dressed. While we acknowledged the Licensee’s apology and recognition that the material was non-compliant, we are very concerned that a further breach of this nature occurred just seven days later, and then on four further occasions across a matter of five weeks. Ofcom considers these repeated breaches to be serious and we are therefore putting the Licensee on notice that we will consider these cases for the imposition of a statutory sanction.

66 Whinges…Ofcom resume whingeing about daytime babes on Studio 66 TV

Read more Ofcom Watch at MelonFarmers.co.uk

See article [pdf] from stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk

Studio 66 TV Days Studio 66 TV 1, 25 December 2013, 06:30 to 07:30 Studio 66 TV Days Studio 66 TV 1, 26 December 2013, 06:30 to 07:30 Studio 66 TV Days Studio 66 TV1, 4 January 2014, 14:15 to 15:15 Studio 66 TV Days Studio 66 TV2, 1 January 2014, 05:30 to 05:38 Studio 66 TV Days are babe channel segments of interactive adult chat and daytime chat advertising content broadcast on the service Studio 66 TV 1. Viewers are invited to contact on-screen presenters via premium rate telephony services ( PRS ). During daytime chat , all dress and behaviour should be non-sexual in tone and apparent intent. The licence for Studio 66 TV 1 is owned and operated by 914 TV Limited Following complaints regarding the content of these daytime chat channels, Ofcom reviewed the material and noted the following example: 25 December 2013, 06:30 to 07:30 The female presenter was wearing a light pink, tight-fitting short dress which was considerably cut-away across her front, revealing the majority of her breasts. Only thin strips of material covered her nipples and the remainder of her breasts appeared oiled. For the majority of the broadcast the presenter lay on her side to camera. While lying in this position, the presenter also repeatedly pulled up her dress over her buttocks to reveal a skimpy thong, and rubbed and stroked her hips, bottom and thighs and touched her breasts. She also briefly touched her crotch area. At one point, she took a drink from a glass and licked the straw up and down. Several times throughout the broadcast, the presenter licked her lips and stuck out her tongue to reveal her tongue piercing. Ofcom considered BCAP Code Rule 32.3, which states: Relevant timing restrictions must be applied to advertisements that, through their content, might harm or distress children of particular ages or that are otherwise unsuitable for them. 914 TV stated in its response that it had assessed the content, and agreed that the material complained of did not meet the standards set out in its internal guidelines, or Ofcom’s Guidance on advertising of telecommunications-based sexual entertainment services (July 2013). The Licensee apologised for this. It added that in all three circumstances, the content fell short of the standards that the Licensee aimed to achieve in its advertising content. However, 914 TV stated that it did not consider that the content: was of a level that would, or could, cause harm or distress to children of particular ages watching, which, in its view, the Licensee described as being the the overriding intention of Rule 32.3. Ofcom Decision: Breach of Rule 32.3 Ofcom published its revised Guidance on advertising of telecommunications-based sexual entertainment services in July 2013. The Chat Service Guidance clearly sets out what Ofcom considers to be acceptable for broadcast on daytime chat services pre-watershed. For example, the guidance explicitly states that daytime chat broadcasters should: Ensure that presenters are wearing appropriate clothing, that adequately covers their bodies, in particular their breasts, genital areas and buttocks; and not broadcast images of presenters mimicking sexual intercourse by rocking and thrusting their bodies, or otherwise adopting sexual poses.. Re 25 December 2013, 06:30 to 07:30: Ofcom noted that the female presenter was wearing clothing that did not adequately cover her breasts and buttocks, in particular: a tight fitted top with a significant cut-away area, exposing a large amount of her breasts and cleavage, and a dress that rode up on several occasions, revealing the presenter’s underwear. While wearing this outfit, the presenter acted in a sexualised manner. Prominence was given to her breasts and she also rubbed her bottom and thighs throughout the advertising content. Her body was therefore not adequately covered and the cumulative effect of her outfit and movement was to create a sexualised tone. Given the time of broadcast, Ofcom concluded that this material was unsuitable for children. These broadcasts were therefore in breach of BCAP Code Rule 32.3. The Licensee for Studio 66 TV 1, 914 TV, and the Ofcom licensee 965 TV Limited ( 965 TV , which controls the services Studio 66 TV 2, Studio 66 TV 3 and Studio 66 TV 4) both share the same shareholder and director. According to Ofcom’s records, all four channels also have the same individual responsible for compliance. 914 TV and 965 TV both recently had breaches of BCAP Rule 32.3 recorded against them in issue 235 of Ofcom’s Broadcast Bulletin in August 2013 At that time Ofcom required the individual responsible for compliance for 914 TV and 965 TV to attend a meeting at Ofcom to discuss compliance arrangements. Despite the assurances given to Ofcom at that time, Ofcom is extremely concerned that the Licensee has breached BCAP Rule 32.3 again. Ofcom will consider further regulatory action should similar advertising content be broadcast on this service again.

Unlucky to Get Caught…Ofcom whinges at babe channels for linking to adult website without age verification

Read more Ofcom Watch at MelonFarmers.co.uk

See Complaints Bulletin [pdf] from stakeholders.ofcom.org.u

Get Lucky TV Get Lucky TV (channel 908), 9 October to 2 December 2013, various times between 21:00 and 05:30 Lucky Star Lucky Star (channel 909), 9 October to 2 December 2013, various times between 21:00 and 05:30 Party Party (channel 175), 9 October to 20 December 2013, various times between 00:00 and 05:30 Ofcom received a complaint that the website http://www.babestation.com was being promoted openly on-screen on the service Get Lucky TV intermittently throughout the day. The complainant said that on accessing the Babestation website by means of this URL it was possible to view content which was clearly R18 and beyond . Ofcom viewed the Get Lucky TV channel and noted that references were made to the website http://www.babestation.com by way of a graphic, positioned in the top left-hand corner of the screen, which showed the URL. Ofcom viewed the channel’s output between the hours of 21:00 and 05:30 at various times and on various dates. On all occasions when the presenters were on screen, the URL was visible. After receiving the complaint Ofcom accessed the http://www.babestation.com website and noted and retained records, including video and screenshots, of the following: The homepage featuring a selection of thumbnail images of women. On clicking on the image of a woman, the user was taken to a second page with further images of the woman and the option to see her in what was described as a ¡§live show¡¨ by selecting a choice of payment methods. Ofcom noted that when scrolling through the homepage, a small number of the thumbnail images of the women were explicit, for example showing some with their legs open and their genital area fully visible. In one instance, the image was more explicit, showing a woman masturbating with her fingers inserted inside her vagina. These images were available to view without any restrictions. Once a thumbnail image of a woman was selected and the user accessed the second page of images, the user was able to make payment to enable live webcam streaming and live interaction with the woman. The payment could be done through the use of a PRS number, which generated a PIN, which in turn could be entered into the website. This allowed full access to the website until the call was disconnected. Access could also be purchased by a credit card. Ofcom noted that when the PRS number was dialled and the PIN received (or payment was made using a credit card), users were able to view the live webcam feed and interact with the woman in the original thumbnail via a text chat window. To the right of the screen, a scrollable window displayed live images from other webcam feeds and, in many instances, these were images of women masturbating (equivalent to British Board of Film Classification (BBFC) R18-rated content1). On clicking on any one these live images, users were taken to their chosen live feed, and many of these feeds included R18 equivalent material, predominantly of close-up images of the women’s genitals as they inserted items such as vibrators into their vaginas. When accessing these live webcam feeds via the PRS number the user was at no time asked to verify they were over the age of 18. Ofcom considered BCAP Code Rule 30.3, which states: Advertisements for products coming within the recognised character of pornography are permitted behind mandatory restricted access on adult entertainment channels only. The Licensee accepted that there had been a compliance failure and apologised. It said it had taken immediate action following Ofcom contacting the broadcaster. This action included removing the Babestation URL from Get Lucky broadcasts and, as an additional measure, ensuring that anyone attempting to access the http://www.babestation.com site was redirected to http://www.babestation.co.uk (which the Licensee said was managed by internal personnel and was wholly compliant with the BCAP Code). Ofcom Decision: Breach of Rule 30.3 Ofcom noted that the Licensee apologised for this compliance error and has introduced new training and procedures as a result of this incident. Nonetheless the broadcast of promotional references to the http://www.babestation.com website on Get Lucky TV for extended periods between 9 October and 2 December 2013 breached Rule 30.3 of the BCAP Code. Ofcom was particularly concerned that in this case the advertising led to a website which contained R18 equivalent material without any appropriate age verification process. Breaches of BCAP Code Rule 30.3 Similar breaches of the rules were recorded against associated channels, Lucky Star, and Party.

Babes Driven Offshore?…Babe Channels operated by Satellite Entertainment Ltd close

Read more Satellite X News at MelonFarmers.co.uk

Babe Channels operated by Satellite Entertainment Ltd have closed down on Sky. The channels involved are: Northern Birds (Sky Channel 935) Essex Babes (936) SportxxxGirls (940) LiveXXXBabes (942) It seems that Satellite Entertainment Ltd has folded. But no doubt Ofcom’s ludicrously censorial rules have meant that the channels weren’t able to offer a service sufficiently sexy to entertain the viewers. But no worries, just a few more customers driven onto foreign hardcore services because of British extreme censorship. There will be no less porn being watched, just less money being made in Britain.

Another Skirmish in Ofcom’s War on Sexy…Further whinges against Studio 66 babe channels

Read more Ofcom Watch at MelonFarmers.co.uk

See article [pdf] from stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk

Studio 66 TV Nights Studio 66 TV 3 (Channel 941), 5 March 2013, 00:20 to 00:30 Studio 66 TV Days Studio 66 TV 3 (Channel 941), 17 April 2013, 10:30 to 11:45 Studio 66 TV Nights Studio 66 TV 2 (Channel 938), 17 April 2013, 21:04 to 21:08 Studio 66 TV 2 and Studio 66 TV 3 channels are free to air babe channels owned and operated by the same licensee, 965 TV Ltd. Ofcom cited examples from the above broadcasts: Ofcom noted a female presenter wearing red shoes, a black thong, red bra and red fishnet tights. During the broadcast the presenter lay on her back with her legs open to camera and repeatedly gyrated and thrust her hips as if to mime sexual intercourse. She held this position for a prolonged period. Her underwear did not adequately cover her anal area which was clearly visible during this broadcast. A female presenter was initially shown lying face downwards and wearing a short black crop top that was covering some of her shoulders and breasts, and a pair of cutaway leopard print knickers, exposing the cheeks of her buttocks. Ofcom noted that: the presenter was shown repeatedly rocking her buttocks; and at various times, the presenter adjusted her position so that her crop top did not fully cover the bottom half of her breasts A female presenter was initially shown lying sideways facing the camera, with bare breasts except for her nipples being covered by a thin strip of black plastic tape. Another thin strip of black plastic tape had been stuck around the presenter’s stomach. The presenter’s only other clothing was a skimpy pair of black knickers, with what appeared to be a black G-string worn underneath. While the presenter was lying on her side: she was shown occasionally: rocking her body backwards and forwards; and at times touching her breasts, apparently to check to see if the plastic tape was adequately covering her nipples; and the camera occasionally zoomed in and moved down the presenter’s body. At approximately 21:06 the presenter turned to lie on her front, thrusting and rocking her buttocks up and down. In this position, it was apparent that the presenter’s knickers were cut away exposing the cheeks of her buttocks Ofcom considered BCAP Rule 32.3: Relevant timing restrictions must be applied to advertisements that, through their content, might harm or distress children of particular ages or that are otherwise unsuitable for them. BCAP Rule 4.2: Advertisements must not cause serious or widespread offence against generally accepted moral, social or cultural standards. Ofcom Decision: Breach of Rules 32.3 and 4.2 The combination of these images and actions resulted in the material being of a strong sexual nature. Ofcom considered the broadcast included images that are not permitted in adult chat broadcast advertisements that are freely available without mandatory restricted access. Ofcom found this material in breach of Rule 4.2 of the BCAP Code. And when before the watershed or soon after the broadcasts were in breach of BCAP Code Rule 32.3. Given previous code breaches, Ofcom is requiring the Licensee to attend a meeting to discuss its compliance procedures.

War on Sexy…Ofcom resumes its whinge against babe channels starting with Studio 66

Read more Ofcom Watch at MelonFarmers.co.uk

See article [pdf] from stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk

Studio 66 Days Studio 66 TV 1 (Channel 912), 4 April 2013, 11:30 to 12:05 Studio 66 Days is a segment of free to air interactive daytime chat advertising content broadcast on the service Studio 66 TV 1 (Sky Channel 912). Viewers are invited to contact on-screen presenters via premium rate telephony services ( PRS ). All dress and behaviour should be non-sexual in tone and apparent intent. The licence for Studio 66 TV 1 is owned and operated by 914 TV Limited. As part of its routine monitoring, Ofcom assessed some advertising content broadcast on 4 April 2013 between 11:30 and 12:05 featuring a female presenter. The presenter was wearing a low cut, black and white spotted strapless one-piece, and shown lying on her side with her legs apart while thrusting her body backwards and forwards, and gyrating her hips. Ofcom further noted that: on several occasions one of the presenter’s nipples was partially exposed, due to the one-piece falling down. Furthermore, the presenter was shown repeatedly pulling the top of the one-piece up to ensure that her nipples were adequately covered; from 11:42 to 11:45, the presenter switched position to lie on her back, with her legs apart, while she continued to gyrate her hips and thrusting backwards and forwards; and at various times, the presenter caressed her inner thigh, breasts, and buttocks. Ofcom considered Broadcasting Committee of Advertising Practice (BCAP) Rule 32.3, which states: Relevant timing restrictions must be applied to advertisements that, through their content, might harm or distress children of particular ages or that are otherwise unsuitable for them. 914 TV apologised for this incident. The Licensee said that: we agree that this piece of content fell short of complying with both our own internal guidelines and Ofcom’s published guidance regarding ‘Daytime Chat’ . The Licensee, however, made a number of representations by way of mitigation. Ofcom Decision: Breach of rule 32.3 Ofcom noted that the female presenter was wearing clothing that did not adequately cover her body, in particular a one-piece which repeatedly slipped down to expose one of the presenter’s nipples. While wearing this outfit, the presenter acted in a sexualised manner: she was shown lying on her side for prolonged periods of time, her legs apart whilst thrusting her body backwards and forwards, and gyrating her hips (albeit away from camera), so as to mimic sexual intercourse. She also caressed her breasts, inner thighs and buttocks in a sexually suggestive manner. Ofcom concluded that this material was unsuitable for children. In view of earlier findings and subsequent guidance, Ofcom is very concerned that 914 TV has again broadcast material that has breached Rule 32.3 of the BCAP Code. Given the Code breaches recorded in this Finding, Ofcom is requiring the Licensee to attend a meeting to discuss its compliance procedures. Breach of BCAP Rule 32.3

Linked to Censorship…Ofcom fines babe channels just for advertising links to porn websites (porn chatlines are fine)

Read more Ofcom Watch at MelonFarmers.co.uk

See article [pdf] from stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk

Satellite Entertainment Limited (SEL) runs services Northern Birds (Channel 935), Essex Babes (Channel 936), Sportxxx Girls (Channel 940), and Livexxx Babes (Channel 942). Ofcom has fined SEL £40,000 citing Rule 30.3: Advertisements for products coming within the recognised character of pornography are permitted behind mandatory restricted access on adult entertainment channels only In Ofcom’s finding, published on 4 March 2013 in Broadcast Bulletin issue 2253, Ofcom found that SEL was in breach of BCAP Code Rule 30.3 for the period 24 September 2012 to 8 February 2013 because throughout this period each of the SEL Licensed Services carried continued and repeated broadcast of promotional references to the bluebird.tv website, which at the time of the Finding contained material within the recognised character of pornography. Ofcom noted that the broadcast of an advertisement, on channels without mandatory restricted access, for a website containing pornographic material is a serious breach of the BCAP Code. Ofcom was particularly concerned that the Licensee in these instances broadcast the advertisement for extended periods both during daytime and immediately after the watershed when children were available to view (some unaccompanied). Ofcom therefore put the Licensee on notice that it would consider the breaches for the imposition of a statutory sanction. Ofcom observed that the Bluebird Films home page contained explicit pornographic material (equivalent to BBFC R18-rated content). Registration and age verification by means of credit card ownership was only required if the user wished to become a member of a paid-for content service. Ofcom decided that it is appropriate and proportionate in the circumstances to impose a financial penalty of £40,000 on the Licensee in respect of the breaches of Rule 30.3.

Banned Babe Links…Ofcom whinges at babe channels for promotion of related porn websites

Read more Ofcom Watch at MelonFarmers.co.uk

See Broadcast Bulletin [pdf] from stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk

Northern Birds, Essex Babes, Sportxxx Girls, and Livexxx Babes 24 September to 8 February 2013, various times throughout the day The services all transmit interactive daytime chat and adult chat advertising content. These services are freely available without mandatory restricted access and are situated in the adult section of the electronic programme guide of the Sky digital satellite platform ( Sky EPG ). Viewers are invited to contact on-screen presenters via premium-rate telephony services ( PRS ). The female presenters dress and behave in a sexually provocative way while encouraging viewers to contact the PRS numbers. The licencesare all held by Satellite Entertainment Limited ( SEL ). Ofcom received a complaint that, throughout the day and across all these channels, on-screen references were made to the website bluebird.tv by means of a graphic giving the URL of the website positioned in the bottom left-hand corner of the screen. The complainant said that on accessing the website there were no access restrictions, and that users were directed to freely accessible R18 equivalent content by clicking on any number of links . From Ofcom’s examination of the broadcast material, it appeared that no verbal references to the website URL were made by the presenters. The bluebird.tv website consisted of a homepage containing a number of tab-style links to Bluebird branded content. There were no access restrictions other than responding OK to a pop-up box on first visiting the site to confirm that the user was over 18 years of age. Ofcom observed that this website contained explicit pornographic material (equivalent to the British Board of Film Classification ( BBFC ) R18-rated content 1 ). Registration and age verification by means of using a credit card (holders must be over 18 years of age) was only required if the user wished to become a member of the premium Bluebird service. Two types of explicit pornographic material could be accessed and viewed from the Bluebird Films homepage. The first type, on initially accessing the Bluebird Films website, consisted of an embedded video player positioned in the centre of the screen, which automatically played a video clip. The player showed a 50-second video clip, the first 30 seconds of which featured edited glamour shots of scantily clad or naked women, kissing, touching and posing in an erotic way. The final 20 seconds of the clip, however, featured explicit sexual material involving shots of oral sex, vaginal penetration, and the use of sex toys for sexual stimulation or penetration some of which were in close-up. The second type of pornographic material was accessible at the bottom of the page and consisted of 17 photographic hyperlinks under the heading Bluebird Films Hot Movies . These links promoted pornographic films that could be viewed in full by purchasing premium Bluebird membership or by purchasing the associated DVD product (from the Buy DVD’s [sic] tab positioned at the top of the page). Clicking on these photographic hyperlinks led the user through to teaser videos, each between about one and two minutes in length, promoting the full film to which the photographic hyperlink corresponded. These teaser videos featured explicit sexual material including vaginal penetration, oral sex, and masturbation some of which was again in close-up. Ofcom considered BCAP Code Rule 30.3, which states: Advertisements for products coming within the recognised character of pornography are permitted behind mandatory restricted access on adult entertainment channels only. [After an initial approach from Ofcom the company reorganised the website so that the first website which would be accessed by viewers does not contain adult material itself but links though to another related website that does. Ofcom judged that this technique does not circumvent the ban on links to porn sites]. Ofcom Conclusion: Brach of Rule 30.3 The broadcast of an advertisement, on channels without mandatory restricted access, for a website containing pornographic material, is a serious breach of the BCAP Code. Ofcom is particularly concerned that the Licensee in these instances broadcast, for extended periods both during daytime and immediately after the watershed when children were available to view (some unaccompanied), on-screen references to a website which led to R18 equivalent material without any access restrictions. Ofcom therefore puts the Licensee on notice that it will consider these breaches for the imposition of a statutory sanction. Breaches of BCAP Code Rule 30.3

Elitist Censorship…Ofcom claim sexy material causes widespread offence amongst viewers watching babe channels at 3 in the morning

Read more Ofcom Watch at MelonFarmers.co.uk

See Broadcast Beulletin [pdf] from stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk

Elite Nights Studio 66 TV 2 (938), 15 July 2012, 03:00 to 03:55 Elite Nights is a segment on the babe channel Studio 66 TV 2 (Sky Channel 938). The female presenters dress and behave in a sexually provocative way while encouraging viewers to contact the premium rate telephony services ( PRS ) numbers. The licence for Studio 66 TV 2 is owned and operated by 965 TV Ltd. Ofcom received a complaint that content on this service, broadcast from 03:00, contained images that were inappropriate on a free-to-air service. Ofcom noted there were two female presenters on screen at this time. The first female presenter was wearing black shoes, a pair of yellow knickers with party all night printed on the back and a black top pulled down to expose her breasts. The second presenter was wearing a pink thong under a pink one-piece outfit, which was pulled down to reveal her breasts. During the broadcast the presenters stroked each other’s thighs, buttocks, stomachs and breasts. They also adopted sexual positions, such as on all fours with their buttocks to camera and also lying side by side with their legs intertwined, and while in these positions mimed sexual intercourse, sometimes for quite prolonged periods. Ofcom also noted that while the female presenters filled most of the screen there were graphics on the right of the screen showing still images of women, all of whom were topless and in some cases naked, although their genitals were obscured. These images were accompanied by short code numbers which viewers could text to receive pictures and video content of the women, for example TXT XXX to 899** and TEXT FERNANDA TO 899** . In the bottom left-hand corner of the screen we noted there were graphics that were text only, such as FILTHIEST X RATED VID OF THE MONTH! TEXT JULY TO 899** , and TEXT BABE TO 899** . Ofcom considered BCAP Code rules: Rule 4.2: Advertisements must not cause serious or widespread offence against generally accepted moral, social or cultural standards. Rule 30.3: Advertisements for products coming within the recognised character of pornography are permitted behind mandatory restricted access on adult entertainment channels only. Ofcom Decision Widespread Offence On 27 July 2011, Ofcom published revised rules on the advertising of telecommunications-based sexual entertainment services and PRS daytime chat services. For example the rules explicitly state that adult chat broadcasters should: [T]ake particular care if two or more presenters appear together on screen. If there is any contact between the presenters of an erotic or sexual nature (for example kissing, stroking, or contact between thighs, breasts or genital areas) or any miming or simulation of a sexual act performed by one presenter on another, in Ofcom’s view there is a high risk of causing serious or widespread offence against generally accepted standards. Sidebar Adverts The still graphics included in these advertisements comprised still images of women, all of whom were topless and in some cases naked. In addition, the on-screen graphics were accompanied by text which included: FILTHIEST X RATED VID OF THE MONTH! TEXT JULY TO 899** and TXT XXX to 899** . This in Ofcom’s view clearly indicated to the viewer that if they texted the relevant word or term to the on-screen short code number they would be provided with access to explicit adult material. To assess the product being advertised, Ofcom sent a text message to a short code shown on-screen. As a result Ofcom was sent details of a URL which gave access to explicit video images of a female masturbating. Some of these images were in close- up. Further, although we received a text message requesting age verification, we were able to access the explicit sexual content without being required to provide any proof of age. We noted the Licensee’s argument that viewers would only have been able to obtain the video clips and images if their handset had been age-verified by the relevant mobile network operator. However, we considered this did not remove or weaken the duty on the Licensee to ensure that the products advertised on this channel were acceptable on a free-to-air service. In Ofcom’s opinion this explicit sexual material was clearly equivalent to that which would be given a British Board of Film Classification ( BBFC ) R185 rating. Both R18 equivalent content and adult sex material 6 are clearly within the recognised character of pornography . Therefore any advertisement for this type of content was prohibited on a free-to-air service without mandatory restricted access, regardless of whether the images featured in the on-screen advertisement were edited or masked in an effort to make them non-explicit and suitable for broadcast on a freely available service or whether handsets to which the clips were downloadable had been age-verified by the relevant mobile network operator. Rule 1.18 of the Broadcasting Code makes clear in giving the meaning of mandatory restricted access that this must consist of a PIN protected system (or other equivalent protection) which cannot be removed by the user, that restricts access solely to those authorised to view [i.e. adults] . As Ofcom’s assessment of the on-screen promotions demonstrated (see above), we were able to freely access the explicit sexual content which was being advertised without being required to provide any proof of age. These advertisements for products within the recognised character of pornography were therefore shown on these channels without mandatory restricted access as required by Rule 30.3 of the BCAP Code. Advertising for pornographic content is not suitable for broadcast at any time on any interactive adult chat service available free-to-air, regardless of the type of images broadcast as part of the advertising content. Breaches of BCAP Code Rules 4.2 and 30.3

Moral Censors…Ofcom has another whinge at late night babe channels Sport XXX Girls and Northern Birds

Read more Ofcom Watch at MelonFarmers.co.uk

Thanks to Nick See article [pdf] from stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk

Bluebird Live Sport XXX Girls (Channel 967), 28/29 August 2011, 23:45 to 00:45 Sport XXX Girls (Channel 967), 29 August 2011, 02:45 to 03:45 Sport XXX Girls (Channel 967), 3/4 September 2011, 23:45 to 00:45 Bluebird 40+ Northern Birds (Channel 954), 29 August 2011, 22:50 to 23:25 Bluebird Live and Bluebird 40+ are segments of interactive adult chat broadcast on free to air babe channels Sport XXX Girls and Northern Birds. The licences for Sport XXX Girls and Northern Birds are held by Satellite Entertainment Limited (SEL). A complaint alerted Ofcom to the level of sexual content in the material listed above. Ofcom therefore viewed this content and found: 1. Bluebird Live, Sport XXX Girls, 28/29 August 2011, 23:45 to 00:45 The female presenter was wearing a light blue one piece costume which consisted only of a thin strip of fabric between her legs which covered her vagina but resulted in her outer genital area being exposed. During the broadcast she lay with her legs wide open to camera gently thrusting her hips forward and stroking her upper inner thigh area. Given that this shot of the presenter with her legs wide open remained onscreen for the majority of this broadcast, the material was both invasive and prolonged. SEL denied that the presenter’s outer genital area was exposed, saying that it was covered by her garment. The Licensee also denied that these were prolonged or intrusive images, and asked for further clarification about what Ofcom considered to be invasive about the material. 2. Bluebird Live, Sport XXX Girls, 29 August 2011, 02:45 to 03:45 The presenter wore only a pink lace thong and was filmed with a hand held camera. Throughout the broadcast there were various prolonged and intrusive images filmed, extremely close up and for a duration of time, from directly behind the presenter’s buttocks and also between her wide open legs. While being filmed in these positions she thrust her buttocks and hips towards the camera revealing her outer genital area and anal detail. SEL said there were no prolonged images in the sequence with the potential to cause offence, and asked for Ofcom?s clarification as to how the images were intrusive and prolonged. 3. Bluebird Live, Sport XXX Girls, 3/4 September 2011, 23:45 to 00:45 The female presenter was wearing only a thin white and red thong. For the majority of this broadcast she was positioned on all fours with her buttocks to camera. While in this position her anal and outer genital areas were clearly visible. Given these shots had a duration of several minutes and were in sufficient close up to show anal and outer genital detail they were both prolonged and intrusive. The Licensee said that the presenter?s garment was clearly covering her genitals, and that for most of the sequence the model was on her stomach with the camera focussing on her face; therefore, SEL failed to see how these images could be in breach of the BCAP Code. 4. Bluebird 40+, Northern Birds, 29 August 2011, 22:50 to 23:25 The presenter wore a black leather look thong composed of a thin strip of fabric only covering her vagina and so revealing her outer genital area. During the broadcast she lay on her back with her legs wide open to camera, and while in this position she gently thrust her hips backwards and forwards. Some particularly intrusive images followed, filmed at close range, when her outer genital area was visible for a prolonged period. In this position she massaged and stroked around her outer genital area. Ofcom considered this material raised issues warranting investigation under Rule 4.2 of the BCAP Code, which states that: Advertisements must not cause serious or widespread offence against generally accepted moral, social or cultural standards. Ofcom Decision: Breach of Rule 4.2 of the BCAP Code Ofcom concluded that relevant scheduling restrictions were not applied so as to ensure that the material which was broadcast was not capable of causing serious or widespread offence against generally accepted moral, social or cultural standards. Specifically, this material should not have been broadcast within the context of „adult chat? advertising content that was freely available without mandatory restricted access. Therefore Ofcom found this material in breach of Rule 4.2 of the BCAP Code. Ofcom has recently imposed a sanction on the Licensee for a number of serious and repeated breaches of the BCAP Code3 , which led to the imposition of a financial penalty totalling ฃ130,000. These present contraventions of the BCAP Code by SEL are another example of very poor compliance by the Licensee. In the circumstances, Ofcom is considering what further regulatory action is appropriate.