Nuts TV will be replaced on Freeview by news channel CNN International after it was axed from TV to become a broadband-only service.
The channel was launched on Freeview channel 42 in 2007 and on Sky digital in January this year.
It has made relatively little impact and a spokesman said: In an increasingly crowded TV market for this demographic, it's vital that Turner and IPC play to our respective strengths. And for Nuts TV the future is in the fast-growing world of
Having already attracted large communities within its social networking sites, it makes sense for Nuts TV to continue in this vein.
Bang Babes is free-to-air unencrypted programming available on the channels Tease Me and Tease Me 2. The channel broadcasts programmes based on interactive 'adult' chat services: viewers are invited to contact on-screen presenters 'babes'
via premium rate telephony services. The female presenters dress and behave provocatively.
Ofcom received a complaint about the broadcast on Tease Me 2 on 17 March 2008. It alleged that the broadcast showed simulated masturbation and full screen images of bare breasts and nipple stimulation before 22:00.
Ofcom viewed the material. It noted that the broadcast on Tease Me 2 on 17 March from 21:43 showed prolonged close-ups and full screen images of the presenter's breasts and nipples, which were continuously massaged and stimulated and thrust into
the camera. In addition, the presenter was shown lying on her back with her legs apart rubbing and touching her genital area outside of her underwear in a sexual manner before 22:00. There was also a brief sequence where the presenter placed her
hands inside her underwear. These sequences were all of a highly sexualised nature.
Rules 2.1 (generally accepted standards)
2.3 (material which may cause offence must be justified by context) of the Code.
It is a requirement of the Code that content which is considered to be 'adult-sex' material must be PIN protected and encrypted (Rule 1.24). In this case, Ofcom carefully considered whether the content complained of was 'adult-sex' material. It
concluded that in this case it clearly was not.
In terms of the complaint about simulated masturbation, Ofcom noted that the broadcaster had stressed that a presenter acted briefly outside its own internal procedures on 17 March 2008 and that, since then, staff had received further compliance
training. Broadcasters must note, as Ofcom has made clear on a number of occasions, that it is unacceptable to show simulated or real masturbation in the context of free-to-air 'adult' chat television services.
As regards Rules 2.1 and 2.3 and the 17 March broadcast, Ofcom acknowledges that the images and language on Tease Me 2 were materially less explicit than in a number of examples of free-to-air 'adult' chat service content that it has previously
investigated. Ofcom concern on this occasion focussed on the content and the time of broadcast.
The prolonged and close-up full-screen shots of the presenter stimulating and massaging her bare breasts, pinching her nipples and shaking them to camera, were in Ofcom's opinion highly sexualised and not suitable for broadcast before 22:00. The
images of the presenter lying on her back with her legs open, briefly simulating masturbation, and stroking her semi-naked body were also not acceptable before 22:00. All these images in Ofcom's view were sexually provocative and of a physically
intrusive nature so as to be offensive, and in breach of generally accepted standards on a free-to-air channel in the adult section of the EPG shown before 22:00.
UEFA and four major media companies could get involved in the European test case showdown on foreign satellite football – now likely
to be heard around June or July next year.
The European football body has lodged an application with the European Court of Justice to intervene in the case against two suppliers of foreign satellite equipment, according to the solicitor acting for one of the suppliers.
Meanwhile Sky, Setanta, Canal+ and the Motion Picture Association are believed to be in the process of lodging an application with the court to also have their say in the case.
The case against suppliers QC Leisure and AV Station was referred to the European Court in July by the High Court in London.
Portsmouth licensee Karen Murphy, who is appealing a conviction for showing foreign satellite football using a Greek Nova card, will have her case heard at the same time.
At a House of Commons meeting hosted by John Grogan MP yesterday, Paul Dixon, of legal firm Molesworths, Bright, Clegg, who represents Murphy and AV Station, revealed the five other parties were applying to intervene in our proceedings so they
can have their 30 minutes of fame, because it's not just about sports rights.
Kate Nicholls of the Association of Licensed Multiple Retailers also addressed the All-Party Parliamentary Beer Group meeting, looking at the legal and regulatory issues around screening sport in pubs. Nicholls urged everyone to respond to a
further consultation on the issue, which ends December 9.
The European Audiovisual Observatory has revealed that adult and erotic audiences can count on no fewer than 190 separate channels.
The figures, drawing on the EAO's newly created Mavise database, show European audiences have a choice of about 6,500 TV channels.
The U.K. has by far the most, with 883, compared with 300 in Germany, 284 in Italy and 252 in France. Britain's leading position is explained not only by the large number of thematic channels but also by those set up in the country and targeting
other European countries.
Only 376 channels can be described as generalist, while there are 333 for film, 324 for sports, 238 for music, 201 for news and business, 189 for children, 149 for religion, 135 for documentaries, 103 for home shopping, 26 for games, 26 for
travel, 20 for government/parliament and nine weather channels.
SportxxxBabes is listed in the adult section of the Sky electronic programme guide (“EPG”). It broadcasts programmes based on interactive adult chat services: viewers are invited to contact on-screen presenters 'babes) via premium rate
telephony services. The female presenters dress provocatively and encourage viewers to contact them.
Ofcom noted that the programming focussed extensively on the depictions of masturbation – the output showed the female presenter on each date engaged in this activity for the majority of the programme.
We considered the broadcast under the following Code Rules:
* Rule 1.24 ('adult-sex' material is restricted to overnight encrypted services);
* Rule 2.1 (the broadcaster must apply generally accepted standards); and
* Rule 2.3 (offensive material must be justified by context).
Ofcom Decision Breach of Rules 1.24, 2.1 and 2.3
We are extremely concerned by the broadcaster's failure to ensure the material it broadcast on the channel on 19 and 20 November 2007 complied with the Code. The seriousness of the breach was aggravated by the fact that it occurred just after
Ofcom had published a number of Findings about similar content on 22 October 2007 in Broadcast Bulletin issue number 95. In one of these Findings, against LivexxxBabes (a channel also operated by the same company), Ofcom made clear that depictions of masturbation, simulated or otherwise, are not appropriate for unencrypted broadcast unless there is strong editorial justification.
In addition, the breach occurred at a time when the Licensee was under consideration of a statutory sanction for other breaches that had occurred on SportxxxBabes in February and March 2007. Ofcom considered referring the November 2007 breaches to
the Content Sanctions Committee. However, in view of all the circumstances of this case - including the broadcaster's quick and frank admission of the breaches, the steps taken to rectify the problem and the subsequent improvements to the
channel's content in terms of compliance with the Code - Ofcom finally decided not to do so.
However, should breaches of a similar nature occur on the channel in future, Ofcom will not hesitate to consider referring the matter to the Committee for consideration of a sanction, which could include the imposition of a financial penalty or
revocation of the broadcaster's licence.
LivexxxBabes is free-to-air unencrypted programming in the adult section of the Sky electronic programme guide. The channel broadcasts programmes based on interactive 'adult' chat services: viewers are invited to contact on-screen presenters
(“babes”) via premium rate telephony services. The female presenters dress and behave provocatively.
Ofcom received a complaint alleging that the broadcast amounted to 'adult-sex' material within the meaning of Code Rule 1.24 and therefore should have been transmitted in line with that rule's requirements, including encryption. In particular,
after 22:00 there was constant nudity and a voiceover periodically referred to mutual tommy-tanking.
Ofcom viewed the material. It noted that between 21:00 and 22.00 the presenters were dressed in a relatively modest way. After 22:00 however the presenters bared their breasts and for the rest of the broadcast performed in an overtly sexual
manner, including thrusting their backsides to camera so that on occasion their anal area was showing.
Ofcom considered rules:
2.1 generally accepted standards must be applied
2.3 offensive material must be justified by context
It is a requirement of the Code that content which is considered to be 'adult-sex' material must be PIN protected and encrypted (Rule 1.24). In this case, Ofcom did not consider the content complained of to be 'adult-sex' material. This decision
was reached taking all the relevant circumstances into account, including the sexual explicitness and nature of the images (including such factors as their length and editing) and language, the purpose of broadcasting this material and the overall
context in which it was broadcast. In particular, although clearly material of a sexual nature, the programming did not include simulated or real genital stimulation and contact between presenters was avoided.
However, in this case the presenters were wearing thongs and while they thrust their bottoms towards the camera there were a few, brief occasions when their anal areas were shown in intrusive detail. The location of the channel in the 'adult'
section of the EPG and late transmission were not sufficient to justify these aspects of the content. This, in Ofcom's opinion, was so revealing as to be offensive and in breach of generally accepted standards on a free-to-air channel in the adult
section of the EPG. In order to remain compliant with the Code, broadcasters operating in the free-to-air 'adult' chat sector, should take great care when using extreme close-ups of the crotch and backside. These images can result in physically
invasive shots which are not suitable for free to air transmission.
Sex on TV channels and forum chat about EuroBird 9
Sex On TV claims that its 4 channels are high quality both in terms of picture quality and quality of films shown.
Sex On TV broadcasts full hardcore movies from both Europe and the US covering every kind of adult hardcore genre.
Sex On TV claims to deliver 8 unique hours of content per channel, repeated 3 times over a 24 hour period.
The majority of movies are exclusive to Sex On TV and will have never been seen before on any other adult bouquet. Furthermore the channels claim to avoid lengthy adverts between films.
Sex On TV broadcasts on two satellite positions on Hotbird at 13°E and Eurobird W9 at 9°E.
It is interesting to note the use of Eurobird 9, there is forum talk that MCT are considering migrating to this new satellite in January 2009. Also some of the small print of some of the multi channel cards excludes Redlight channels from January
The cost of Sky for pubs and the current legal situation around foreign satellites will be debated during a meeting in Parliament next
MP John Grogan is hosting the meeting in the Palace of Westminster on October 20.
Speakers at the event will be Nick Bish and Kate Nicholls from the Association of Licensed Multiple Retailers and lawyer Paul Dixon, a partner at legal firm Molesworth Bright Clegg.
Dixon has represented Portsmouth licensee Karen Murphy, who has had her appeal against a conviction for screening foreign satellite football referred to Europe.
Grogan, who previously hosted a meeting for the European Satellite TV Association (ESTA) in July last year, said: A number of MPs have been lobbied over the Parliamentary recess by publicans regarding the issue of the cost of installing Sky TV
in licensed premises.
With the forthcoming court cases in Europe and the report of OfCom into the Pay TV market due by Christmas, I thought it was an appropriate time to raise the issue.
Virgin 1, 6 October 2007 and 8 April 2008, 23:00
Ofcom received two separate complaints about items featured in the ‘adult' magazine style programme Sexcetera which explores topics of a sexual nature. The first complainant objected to the explicit sexual scenes in an item entitled “Houston Gang
Bang”. This featured a pornography actress called Houston being filmed breaking the world record for having sex with the greatest number of men in one day. The second complaint raised concerns about an item on the sexual practice of water bondage.
This showed scenes of consenting female models engaging in sadomasochism, domination and submission with a professional female dominatrix. The report included images of women being restrained underwater, submerged forcefully and whipped. The
complainant expressed concern that these scenes depicted torture and were offensive and potentially harmful.
Ofcom considered rules:
2.3 (broadcasters must ensure that material which may cause offence is justified by the context)
Ofcom Decision: Breach of Rule 2.3
Ofcom acknowledges that, in applying generally accepted standards, programmes with content of an ‘adult' nature can be broadcast unencrypted provided they comply with all the relevant Rules of the Code. In this case Rule 2.3 applies because the
nature of the content broadcast has the potential to cause offence and therefore the material must be justified by the context.
The broadcaster argued that certain factors ensured that the material complained of met generally accepted standards, even though it included fairly explicit scenes of sexual activity on a free-to-air general entertainment channel late in the
evening. These included the fact that Sexcetera is broadcast late night, its title provides the audience with an expectation of the likely content, it is a long running series so viewers may be familiar with its content, and appropriate
information was given to viewers both before and during programmes.
In Ofcom's opinion however, these factors taken together did not ensure that the material met generally accepted standards for late night programming on a general entertainment channel. The nature and strength of the images of the sexual
activities featured in these episodes - prolonged footage of a ‘gang bang' promoted for public entertainment and scenes of sado-masochism - were removed from the mainstream and type of material most viewers would expect even on a programme like
Therefore, the treatment of these themes by the broadcaster required exceptional justification in the context to provide adequate protection for viewers from offensive material. In Ofcom's view in summary the contextual justification provided was
not sufficient and the broadcaster breached Rule 2.3 as regards both the “Houston Gang Bang” and the “Water Bondage” items.
Houston Gang Bang
According to the broadcaster the focus of the feature was not the scenes of Houston having sex with over 600 men but to report on the ‘gang bang' pornography genre. In other words the sexual scenes were justified by the editorial context. Ofcom
was concerned however by the number, length and relative explicitness of the scenes of sexual activity shown in the "Houston Gang Bang" item and the context in which they were shown. The whole event was being recorded for a pornographic
film and the item focussed on the event as a semi-public “rally” which men could attend and participate in. A series of men, some professional porn stars, were shown queuing up to have sex with the actress in an arena setting, the actress naked
and having sex with different men on a podium, while spectators and participants stood around watching, cheering, clapping and counting down as the last man finished sexual intercourse. No explicit shots of genitalia or penetration were shown, but
there were a series of scenes depicting sexual intercourse and other sex acts with close ups of faces and naked bodies.
Further, the style and content of the presenter's commentary overall appeared largely to promote and celebrate gang bangs as a form of adult entertainment, and did not, in Ofcom's opinion, provide adequate editorial context for, or analysis of,
what the broadcaster described as the ‘gang bang' pornography genre.
Ofcom noted the late night schedule and the fact that a warning was broadcast before the start of the programme. Sexcetera however is shown on a general entertainment channel. Ofcom took into account that not only viewers could come across this
material unawares but that even viewers who may have been more familiar with the series would have found this item offensive. The “Houston Gang Bang” item therefore overall was not justified by the context and breached Rule 2.3.
As regards this item, Ofcom was particularly concerned that the scenes, filmed for the purposes of the website of the dominatrix, featured women engaged in various water bondage, domination and sado-masochistic activities. All of these are not
mainstream sexual practices. Indeed the dominatrix herself described these sadomasochistic sexual practices as “extreme,” and the commentary noted that such activities are usually accessed only on ‘adult' websites.
The item showed one model suspended in the air, with her arms tightly tied and restrained behind her body with one of her legs hoisted to the side and raised off the floor. She was depicted being sprayed on her vagina with a jet hose at close
range, with her face wincing through gritted teeth and sometimes screaming in pain. In another scene a model was shown tightly restrained whilst her head was forced underwater several times in a water tank, as the dominatrix engaged in a sex act
with a dildo.
In Ofcom's view, such material was clearly in breach of generally accepted standards on a free-to-air general entertainment channel late in the evening. The strength of the sexual imagery shown, coupled with the nature of the sex acts depicted,
would in Ofcom's view require exceptional justification in the context. Ofcom noted that the models explained the pleasure experienced through the pain and fright they endured, no harm appeared to have been caused to the participants, the item was
shown late at night and warnings were given to viewers. But in Ofcom's view none of these contextual factors advanced by the broadcaster justified the showing of this material unencrypted on a general entertainment channel, even late in the
evening in a programme with which many viewers are familiar. Rule 2.3 was therefore contravened.
Spice Extreme is a channel that appears in the ‘adult' section of the Sky Electronic Programme Guide. Its core schedule
is encrypted sexual programming, starting at 22:00. Each evening the channel also broadcasts 10 minute free-to-air trailers, which promote its later encrypted programmes and encourage viewers to subscribe.
26 July 2007
A viewer complained that a 10-minute trailer broadcast as a repeated promotional loop from 21:30 to 22:30 contained material unsuitable for the time of broadcast and for unencrypted transmission.
5 September 2007
As part of Ofcom's monitoring of channels found in the ‘adult' section of the EPG, we noted a free-to-air, 10-minute trailer broadcast repeatedly from 20:00 to 21:30 that also contained strong imagery and language. Ofcom noted that more explicit
versions of the trailer were shown after 21:30.
Ofcom considered the following rules from their Program Code
• Rule 1.2 (protection of under eighteens);
• Rule 2.1 (generally accepted standards); and
• Rule 2.3 (offensive material to be justified by context).
Spice Extreme stated that it “focuses on the more niche areas of sexual activity and may therefore not be to everyone's taste.” Nevertheless, it believed the explicitness of the trailer broadcast on 26 July 2007 was generally in line with industry
expectations. It added that prolonged shots of genitalia and simulated sex were avoided and, while some images of sexual activity were shown fleetingly, these were largely obscured by the camera angle or graphics. With regard to the context
of the material, the broadcaster said it understood that nudity and certain language may cause offence to some viewers but believed it was generally expected in an adult channel's free-to-air trailers.
Ofcom accepts that a free-to-air promotion for encrypted material within the ‘adult' section of the EPG will contain a certain amount of sexual activity and that viewers of these channels might expect some depiction of such content.
While some viewers may object to such content being aired at all, to curb all visual or verbal references to sexual activity would not, in Ofcom's opinion, be in line with the generally accepted standards for such channels. Additionally, the
specific context for such references (including the time of broadcast, location of the channel within the ‘adult' section and the expectations of the audience) would allow sexual activity to be depicted to some degree.
Ofcom considered that, given the sexualised nature of the material (such as images of nudity, simulated sex and the use of inappropriate sexual language), the free-to-air trailers on both dates were clearly unsuitable for broadcast either before,
or soon after, the 21:00 watershed. The channel's positioning within the EPG and its scheduling of materially stronger content only 30 minutes after the 21:00 watershed did not provide adequate protection to prevent under-eighteens accessing the
content. The broadcasts were therefore in breach of Rule 1.2 of the Code.
When considering whether the offensive material was justified by context, Ofcom accepts that Spice Extreme broadcasts within the ‘adult section' of the EPG and that, to some extent, its audience may therefore be self-selecting. We also note the
warning given before the free-to-view trailers broadcast in this case, on both 26 July and 5 September 2007, from 21:30. Nevertheless, Ofcom does not consider that these factors justify the strength of content shown free-to-view. The broadcasts
were therefore in breach of Rules 2.1 and 2.3 of the Code.
The trailer broadcast on 5 September 2007 between 20:00 and 21:30 was generally more restrained than the material transmitted after 21:30. However, Ofcom is concerned that it featured sexual imagery and adult themes. As recognised by the
broadcaster, the cumulative effect of this material was not acceptable for broadcast before, or close to, the watershed. This content was therefore also in breach of Rule 1.3 of the Code.
Ofcom regarded the above breaches of the Code to be serious and considered whether to recommend this case for consideration of a statutory sanction. Taking into account all the relevant circumstances however (including the broadcaster moderating
its output on being made aware of Ofcom's specific concerns and its previous compliance record), Ofcom decided not to pursue a sanction on this occasion. However, any further breaches of this nature by Spice Extreme are likely to result in Ofcom
considering the imposition of a statutory sanction.
Dear Mr Steward Purvis,
Content and Standards,
I am sick to death of Ofcom pandering to censorious types such as John Beyer of Mediawatch, and other Mary Whitehouse types, and allowing such people to dictate what the rest of us are free to see by pandering to their incessant inane complaints about
programs they have no need to watch, but watch them deliberately just so they can complain about them, in the hope they can get them off the air.
We should, under pin protection and encryption, be free to watch (even very) explicit adult material just like ALMOST EVERY OTHER FREE country in Europe can.
Please justify why we STILL cannot in THIS free (?) country ?
Also why was it necessary to fine "SATELLITE ENTERTAINMENT LTD" 20,000 pounds ? If I was them I would tell you lot to get lost, stuff your "licence" where it might hurt, and go and get a broadcasting licence from a FREE country in
I STRONGLY suspect that some of those in charge are using their high position of POWER to IMPOSE NARROW MINDED restrictions upon us, because of THEIR RELIGIOUS beliefs. This is unacceptable, and a HUMAN RIGHTS violation.
Other countries do NOT find such BLATANT censorship at all NECESSARY. Censorship should only be acceptable, when REAL AND MANIFEST HARM would be caused if restrictions were not imposed. If such restrictions were necessary it would be EASY for you to
demonstrate the need for them. You have never done that. There would be STRONG evidence you could cite from countries who don't censor their Adult TV as you do.
You might well consider such programmes worthless. That is not the point however.
You should persuade people to use the channel changer remote more. After all, there's enough bandwidth nowadays to suit everyone.
Your restrictions are out of date, unfair, unnecessary, and a human rights violation.
You ought to be known as the TellyBan, rather than Ofcom. Or should it be Ofcon I wonder ?
Speaking today John Beyer, director of mediawatch-uk, praised Ofcom for their decision:
This is yet another breach of the rules by a so-called "adult" satellite TV channel.
There have been more serious breaches of the Broadcasting Code by these channels than any other. Ofcom really must set an example and think about withdrawing licenses rather than fining because only that will show the regulator
really means business.
Ofcom has fined Satellite Entertainment Ltd ฃ20,000 for breaches of Ofcom's Broadcasting Code in respect of its service SportsxxxBabes.
SportsxxxBabes broadcasts free-to-air 'adult chat' programming. Satellite Entertainment Ltd was fined because SportxxxBabes transmitted free-to-air explicit sexual content, which Ofcom considered to be 'adult-sex' material.
Specifically, Ofcom has found Satellite Entertainment Ltd in breach of the following rules:
Rule 1.24: Premium subscription services and pay per view/night services may broadcast ‘adult-sex’ material between 2200 and 0530 provided that in addition to other protections:
* there is a mandatory PIN protected encryption system, or other equivalent protection, that seeks satisfactorily to restrict access solely to those authorised to view
* there are measures in place that ensure that the subscriber is an adult
Rule 2.1: Generally accepted standards must be applied to the contents of television and radio services so as to provide adequate protection for members of the public from the inclusion in such services of harmful and/or offensive material
Rule 2.3: In applying generally accepted standards broadcasters must ensure that material which may cause offence is justified by the context…Appropriate information should also be broadcast where it would assist in avoiding or minimising offence.
Ofcom received three complaints about the explicit sexual nature of the unencrypted content broadcast on the Channel on 26 February 2007, 13 March 2007 and 17 March 2007.Ofcom assessed the material broadcast between 21:45 and 00:00 on the dates in
This decision that there was a breach of Rule 1.24 was based on Ofcom’s view that the content of the programme was sexually explicit, its primary purpose was to arouse the audience sexually, and it did have any or sufficient editorial
In the broadcast on 26 February 2007 a presenter appeared to perform oral sex on another presenter, who appeared to be naked. In addition one presenter, who was apparently naked, was shown from a side view masturbating and appeared to alternately insert
the dildo into her vagina and her mouth. The genital regions of the presenters were pixellated.
The broadcast on 13 March 2007 featured a naked male lying down while a semi-naked female appeared to perform oral sex and masturbate him (the male’s genital area was pixellated). Another female could be seen, apparently masturbating and appeared
to pull her knickers to one side and insert the dildo into her vagina. Later the couple were shown apparently having sex.
On 17 March 2008 a female presenter, who was clearly naked, appeared to masturbate while a semi-naked female behind her appeared to insert a dildo into the first female’s vagina. A third female, who was wearing knickers, was seen apparently
masturbating (with her hand inside and outside her underwear). One presenter removed another’s knickers and used them to gag her briefly, after which she appeared to insert a vibrator from behind into the second presenter.
The decision that there were breaches of Rules 2.1 and 2.3 was based on the Executive’s view that the material breached generally accepted standards and had the potential to cause offence, and that this offence was not sufficiently justified by the
context in which the content was broadcast.
A faith-based nutter family group said it would like the Harper government to intervene to block a broadcasting licence issued to a new Canadian porn channel.
The Canada Family Action Coalition wants the Conservatives to quash last week's decision by the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission to grant a licence to adult film network Northern Peaks.
The licence granted to Alberta-based Real Productions requires the new channel broadcast 50% Canadian content. That means Canadian young people will be enlisted to work on and in some cases appear in porn films, says Charles McVety, president of CFAC.
McVety says by setting such a high Canadian content requirement, the CRTC is effectively stimulating the growth of the domestic porn industry: It is to the public detriment to fuel an industry where women are degraded and treated as sex objects.
He also says both CRTC and the cable companies give preferential treatment to lucrative porn broadcasters but short shrift religious programming. He is concerned that the CRTC will allow cable companies to offer the station on a free trial for a number
of months: That to us is corrupting minds and getting them hooked on this material.
Under the Broadcasting Act, CRTC decisions can be appealed to cabinet, although it is unusual for cabinet to overturn a decision, particularly one based on content. Such an appeal would put Prime Minister Stephen Harper's government in the position of
having to decide on the morality of legal pornography.
A spokesman for the Department of Canadian Heritage said cabinet would have 45 days to act on a request to review the CRTC decision on Northern Peaks.
McVety admits it is not particularly likely cabinet will get involved: We would be happy if they did, but we understand the parameters in which they operate and we don't anticipate they will make such a move.
Canada's federal regulators have given the go-ahead for a Canadian-made porn channel and has licensed Edmonton-based Northern Peaks -- as long as the digital channel commits to 50% Canadian content.
Northern Peaks' Shaun Donnelly is confident he will find a cable or satellite distributor to carry his channel, asserting there's a huge, unfulfilled market for local porn. I've always found there's a real turn-on to watching and knowing it's people
you could run into in the grocery store, he told Canwest News Service.
This is the third porn channel the CRTC has approved since 2003.
Sex Station a free-to-air unencrypted babe channel on Lucky Star channel. The channel is listed in the adult section of the Sky electronic programme guide (“EPG”).
While monitoring the output of channels within the ‘adult’ section of the Sky EPG, Ofcom found material broadcast in Sex Station on the 11 July 2007 that included some explicit images featuring, in particular, apparent female masturbation.
The presenters and viewers’ texts also used some explicit sexual language, such as: We want a paddling pool filled with your hot, horny man-muck and a viewer’s text (at 21:43 ) saying, Tammy would you punish me if I didn’t
lick your fanny good enough?
Ofcom considered the following Code Rules:
Rule 1.2 (the broadcaster must take reasonable steps to protect under 18s)
Rule 1.24 (‘adult-sex’ material is restricted to overnight encrypted services)
Rule 2.1 (the broadcaster must apply generally accepted standards)
Rule 2.3 (offensive material must be justified by context)
Ofcom also received a complaint concerning similar output on 26 July 2007 with such language as, I’m looking for a dirty man who’s going to make me cum everywhere, and, I reckon you guys should spunk all over that [i.e. a
presenter’s white bodice]. Cover her up with white.
Lucky Star said that Sex Station appears post watershed, with an ‘18’ warning and within the ‘adult’ section of the Sky EPG. It added that the presenters are instructed to moderate their language nearer the watershed and that,
while the programme is live, viewers’ texts are heavily moderated prior to being put to screen and acutely rude words are not allowed.
Ofcom judged that much of the material broadcast after 21:00 was sexually explicit, as regards both the images (in particular, apparent masturbation) and language. This content had insufficient editorial or contextual justification to allow its
exceptional transmission unencrypted on free-to-air television.
The broadcasts were found in breach of Rules 1.2, 1.24, 2.1 and 2.3 of the Code.
Ofcom regarded these breaches of the Code as serious and considered whether to recommend this case for consideration of a statutory sanction. Taking into account all the relevant circumstances however (including the broadcaster moderating its output on
being made aware of Ofcom’s specific concerns, its apology and its previous compliance record), Ofcom decided on balance not to pursue a sanction on this occasion. However, any further breaches of this nature by Lucky Star are likely to result in
Ofcom considering the imposition of a statutory sanction.
House of Fun
26 July 2007, 22:00 and 29 August 2007, 23:00
House of Fun is a free-to-air unencrypted babe channel. Viewers are invited to contact on-screen presenters (“babes”) via premium rate services. The female presenters dress provocatively and encourage viewers to contact them.
Ofcom received two complaints that the channel broadcast material that featured explicit images in particular apparent female masturbation.
Ofcom viewed recordings of the material broadcast on the above dates and noted that the content contained images of the presenters engaged in acts of an apparently explicit sexual nature including:
various shots of presenters with their hands in their underwear appearing to masturbate
two presenters licking another presenter’s breasts while they had their hands inside the first presenter’s underwear, appearing to masturbate her
two of the female presenters removing their underwear and, while the picture was pixelated, appearing to masturbate.
House of Fun TV said that great care was taken to ensure that there was no real masturbation was broadcast, although undoubtedly there was “posturing and gesturing with hands in the vaginal regions and on the upper thighs of the presenters”.
The broadcaster stated that suggestion, innuendo, titillation were all part of the presenters’ performances. It stated that from a purely visual point of view, a pixelated image is a pixelated image and an overexcited viewer may imagine many
things, but the reality is that the image was pixelated and nothing inappropriate was broadcast which could be identified.
Ofcom judges that the material broadcast was visually sexually explicit, in particular the apparent masturbation. This content had insufficient editorial or contextual justification to allow its exceptional transmission unencrypted on free-to-air
television. For these reasons this content was in breach of Rule 1.24, which requires such material to be encrypted and restricted to broadcast after 22:00.
This content was sexually explicit and unsuitable for free-to-air television. It was therefore also in breach of generally accepted standards to ensure adequate protection for viewers in general from harmful and/or offensive material. In Ofcom’s
opinion, contextual factors such as this channel being in the ‘adult’ sector of the EPG and the content being broadcast after 23:00 did not justify the broadcast of this material.
Ofcom therefore found that Rules 1.24, 2.1 and 2.3 of the Code were breached.
These were serious and repeated breaches of the Code. Ofcom reviewed whether the matter should be referred to the Content Sanctions Committee (the “Committee”) for consideration of a statutory sanction. However, taking account of all the
relevant circumstances, including that no explicit language was transmitted, the late time of the broadcasts and the fact that monitoring by Ofcom showed subsequent improvements in compliance, Ofcom decided that, on balance on this occasion, the matter
would not be referred to the Committee. Should there be further breaches of a similar nature however by this Licensee, it is likely that the contraventions of the Code will be referred to the Committee.
Ofcom received complaints about the over explicit sexual nature of output broadcast on TVX during both encrypted and free-to-air
elements on 8 June 2007 from 22:00.
This was during a live ‘babe' programme. The complaints, from competitor broadcasters, suggested some of the encrypted output was equivalent to material that would be classified as ‘R18' by the BBFC
The encrypted material transmitted under PIN encryption on 8 June 2007 between 22.10 and 22.40 featured two naked female presenters engaging in very explicit sexual acts. This included:
frequent and prolonged masturbation, shown in close-up
explicit scenes of oral sex
explicitly depicted scenes of vaginal penetration by fingers and dildos.
The ten minute free-to-air trailer transmitted immediately prior to the encrypted output on the same night featured the same presenters. During this section one of the ‘babes' removed her knickers and was then depicted in relative close up
touching and being touched between her legs. Labial detail was apparent.
Throughout, the ‘babes' invited viewers to subscribe to the encrypted service using explicit language, such as: …I can't wait to bring my head in between those luscious thighs and get sucking on that juicy pussy!” and …If you wanna see
me fucking this pussy I‘ve got all kinds of toys…. that you can see me fucking Tiffany with…
The Licensee immediately accepted that part of the live programme transmitted on 8 June 2007 from 22:10 breached Rule 1.25 of the Code i.e. it was the equivalent of ‘R18'-rated material. The transmission of content equivalent to BBFC-rated
‘R18'-rated material is not permitted under Rule 1.25 of the Code.
Portland also accepted that the images broadcast during the free-to-air promotional trailer were in breach of the Code. However, they did not accept that the language during the free-to-air promotional trailer breached the Code.
Ofcom concluded that the encrypted material was equivalent to ‘R18' content because of the sexual explicitness detailed above. It therefore recorded that the broadcast was in breach of Rule 1.25 of the Code.
Ofcom also decided that free-to-air material was so explicit, especially the visual images, that it was ‘adult-sex' material. Accordingly Rule 1.24 applied, which meant it should have been broadcast under encryption. Since however this material
was not protected by encryption and other measures required by Rule 1.24, it contravened this Rule. In view of this material being shown free-to-air, the Executive also decided that it breached Rules 2.1 and 2.3. These require broadcasters to
protect viewers from material that is harmful or offensive and which cannot be justified by the context.
In Ofcom's view, the breaches were sufficiently serious that the case should be referred to the Committee for consideration of a statutory sanction of £25,000.
Except for the various mitigating factors, and in particular the swift action to discipline the production staff responsible and improve compliance, the Committee would have imposed a higher financial penalty.
Karen Murphy of the Red, White & Blue pub in Portsmouth, has appealed against her conviction for screening Premiership
football via Greek channel Nova Supersport.
But Lord Justice Stanley Burnton and Mr Justice Barling decided to refer the case to the European court.
The case against foreign satellite suppliers AV Station and QC Leisure has also been referred to Europe.
The written judgement said: If the geographical restriction is held to be unlawful, it may be difficult to see why the subscription charge exacted by BSkyB for its service (to which the Appellant did not subscribe) should be treated as
‘applicable' to the Nova programme screened by the Appellant.
If it is not so applicable then the offence under s. 297(1) would not be established. This may need to be the subject of further argument depending on the outcome of the reference which we propose to make.
Section 297 (1) states that a programme has been received dishonestly with intent to avoid payment of any charge applicable.
Murphy's lawyer Paul Dixon, of Molesworth Bright and Clegg, claimed it was a powerful judgement. The FA Premier League should immediately abandon its campaign of criminal prosecutions against honest, decent and hardworking publicans who
purchase and use legitimate European satellite television decoder cards in their pubs.
However, a Premier League spokesman said the prosecutions would continue: The use of foreign satellite equipment has not been legitimised. Lord Justice Pumfrey's December judgment remains valid as does the use of section 297. It remains
the case that Mrs Murphy has been found guilty of a criminal offence.
When the European Court has reached a decision the matter will then have to return to the High Court here for a decision after which it will be open to either side to mount appeals. The process could take up to two years.
Ofcom define the rules for promoting adult websites from licensed UK adult TV services
Ofcom specify the rules for website links shown on licensed TV service
before 21:00 watershed, no adult website links allowed
After 21:00 watershed, links to pages for subscription to services related to the broadcast channel are allowed. But only if all hardcore content is protected by physical age verification, not just self certification.
For years UK adult TV has been characterised by being softcore promoted with the misleading suggestion that it is hardcore. Who is going to trust these companies with their credit card without seeing some hardcore trailers first?
Ofcom and the BBFC seem to be stacking the odds against UK adult companies even before Internet TV has had a chance to establish itself. Who wants to type in a whole load of verification details just to take a look what is on offer at a site.
It seems so much safer to use foreign websites where ID checks are not stashed away in databases and there is an openness about the material on offer. This openness tends to give confidence that you will get what you expect when you hand over your
Red Hot TV Trailer
Red Hot TV, 13 February 2008, 20.00 – 22.00
Red Hot TV is a subscription-based, i.e. encrypted, adult service. In common with most such services it is promoted with free-to-air trailers broadcast on a loop from 20.00 onwards.
Throughout a trailer, broadcast between 20.00 and 22.00, verbal and on-screen text references were made to the broadcaster's websites www.redhottv.com and www.televisionx.com. From 20.00 verbal references to the websites were made primarily to
encourage subscriptions to the broadcast service. However, the accompanying on-screen text reference to the websites remained on-screen for the majority of the trailer. Further, after 21.40 the trailer included several additional verbal references
specifically promoting the “uncut” and “uncensored” content on the websites, in particular for Red Hot WebTV.
Ofcom received a complaint that the websites featured sexually explicit, “hardcore pornography" which could be readily viewed without registration to the websites.
Although this material was not broadcast on-air, Ofcom was concerned that it appeared on a website being promoted on the Red Hot TV trailer pre-watershed from 20.00.
Red Hot TV promotes its websites within its licensed TV service as a means for viewers to subscribe to the service and to access previously broadcast programming and unedited versions of these programmes. Ofcom's concern in this case was whether
the content of these websites was suitable for promotion pre-watershed and whether the more explicit imagery was suitable at all to be promoted, even indirectly, on a licensed television service.
While the content of the websites is not in itself broadcast material, and therefore not subject to the requirements of the Code, any on-air references to the websites are clearly broadcast content. Such references must therefore comply with the
However, when accessed – merely by clicking “enter” on the site's front page – the two websites contained extremely explicit material (equivalent to BBFC ‘R18'-rated content). This did not require registration to view and could be seen by
under-eighteens. Registration and credit card verification was only required if the user wished to download the material in full. The promotion on television of this website was therefore of serious concern to Ofcom.
Ofcom concluded that the inclusion of promotional references to a website containing highly explicit ‘adult' material on a service regulated by Ofcom was a breach of the Code
Ofcom wishes to emphasise that it does not regulate the content of websites such as www.redhottv.com but that it does regulate on-air references to where such content may be found. It is therefore able to require a broadcaster to remove such a
Further, and mindful that the trailer for Red Hot TV – and other ‘adult' services' trailers – is only available in the ‘adult' section of the electronic programme guide (“EPG”), it is Ofcom's view that references to a website for genuine
subscription purposes, and not for the promotion of any other website content, may be an acceptable way to publicise a service that Ofcom requires to be encrypted. But where websites are used to enable subscription, the viewer should be taken
directly to the relevant page(s) (otherwise Ofcom's rules on the undue promotion of goods and services may be infringed) and the websites must not contain unprotected R18-standard material.
Therefore it is Ofcom's view that any ‘adult' websites promoted on an Ofcom licensed service, even those that take the viewer to a subscription-only page, should not be broadcast until after 21.00 post-watershed. In no circumstances may such
websites contain unprotected R18 material if they are promoted on a licensed service. Appropriate protection will be, for example, the need to purchase access to the stronger material by using a credit card or similar means that allows an age
check to be done.
TV censors Ofcom have fined Square 1 £175000 for a scene on a free to air babe channel. Square 1 operate the channel Smile TV
which has since renamed to Blue Kiss TV.
Ofcom received a complaint about the explicit sexual nature of the content broadcast on Smile TV on 22 May 2007 at around 22.25. The complainant referred to shots in which a female presenter appeared to insert her fingers into her anus several
times and masturbate for a number of minutes.
In the material complained of the presenter wore only a thong and appeared to carry out the actions described by the complainant. There were also prolonged shots of her lying on her back, with her legs wide apart in front of the camera, apparently
masturbating through the thong. She also encouraged viewers to call her by saying, for example: Well, I tell you what, you're not lasting a second tonight guys. Maybe it's all my oil on my shaved minge…If you'd like to hear some explicit chat
tonight, while you're having a good old tommy tank… [rhyming slang for ‘wank' – i.e. masturbation].
Ofcom concluded that the sexual content on the programme was so explicit and prolonged, particularly the visual images, that it was 'adult-sex' material. This meant it fell within Rule 1.24 and accordingly should have been broadcast under
encryption. The programme was not protected by encryption or in line with the other requirements of Rule 1.24 and therefore the broadcaster had breached Rule 1.24 of the Code.
Given that the material appeared on a free-to-air unencrypted channel, Ofcom also decided that it breached Rules 2.1 and 2.3 of the Code. These require broadcasters to protect viewers from material that is harmful or offensive and which cannot be
justified by the context. In Ofcom's view the breaches were sufficiently serious that the case should be referred to the Committee for consideration of a statutory sanction.
Rule 1.24: Premium subscription services and pay per view/night services may broadcast ‘adult-sex' material between 2200 and 0530 provided that in addition to the other protections named above:
there is a mandatory PIN protected encryption system, or other equivalent protection, that seeks satisfactorily to restrict access solely to those authorised to view
and there are measures in place that ensure that the subscriber is an adult
Rule 2.1: Generally accepted standards must be applied to the contents of television and radio services so as to provide adequate protection for members of the public from the inclusion in such services of harmful and/or
Rule 2.3: In applying generally accepted standards broadcasters must ensure that material which may cause offence is justified by the context
Anti-terrorism investigators in Paris are probing threats against a leading French cable TV channel over pornographic films it
airs that can be viewed in North Africa, a judicial official said.
Canal-Plus, France's first pay-TV channel, received letters from one or more people claiming to be Muslim and threatening to blow up its headquarters if it continues to broadcast once-a-month adult films, the official said.
Canal-Plus filed a legal complaint about the threats late last month, which prompted the anti-terrorist probe. No other details about the threats were available.
Canal-Plus and its sister channels show a range of programming, much of it family-friendly. It can be viewed via satellite in largely Muslim North Africa, where French is widely spoken.
As a new broadcaster in 1984, Canal-Plus introduced hardcore films on the first Saturday of the month to build its image as a more exciting alternative to France's traditional channels.
Pubs and bars fighting Sky's monopoly on Premiere League football coverage will get to air their complaints on a European stage.
A group of bar owners is fighting for the right to use overseas viewing cards to show Premiere League football games, which cost far less than Sky's commercial subscriptions.
Bar owners claim Sky's commercial subs are too costly, and claim Sky is operating a monopoly.
Sky and the FA Premiere League have prosecuted several bar owners recently, usually for using DigitAlb cards which cost less than one-tenth of a commercial subscription. The FA has also acted against importers of foreign satellite equipment and cards.
It's not illegal to use an overseas card for private viewing, but in a commercial premises it usually goes against the original terms an conditions of the subscription.
Chris Forrester, of Rapid TV News, said: The defendants in the case have argued that, under European single market rules, the FAPL is not entitled to stop the decoder cards being imported to the UK.
In the London High Court of Justice, Mr Justice Kitchin agreed to the defendants' request to have the case referred to the European Court of Justice. The judge told the Court that he tended to agree with the points of law argued by the defendants. A win
for the pubs and bars would inevitably lead to a significant loss of income for BSkyB."
The French media authority CSA says it has written a letter to satellite operator Eutelsat demanding all necessary information about the seventy porn and adult channels that transmit over one of their satellites.
The regulator wants to identify all these broadcasters and their place of origin, apparently in a move to better control the channels.
The CSA wants to identify all such broadcasters and see if they operate with a proper broadcasting licence.
Lately, in some European countries there has been some uproar about the large number of adult channels available free to air on satellite.
The girls on the Sky babe channel, Babecast, announced on the 31st of May that this would be their last nightr.
And on the 1st June the channel was duly replaced by Bluekiss TV.
Ofcom have been turning the screws both in terms of prohibiting adult material on free to air channels and also proposing that they should not be allowed to become rolling adverts for premium rate numbers.
Turn On TV, 28 October 2007, 07:15 – 09:00
Turn On TV (now broadcasting as Tease Me) is a free-to-air unencrypted channel shown in the “adult section” of the Sky Electronic Programme Guide (“EPG”). It broadcasts programmes based on interactive chat services: viewers are invited to contact
on-screen female presenters via premium rate telephony services (“PRS”).
A viewer complained that the presenter on the channel'
s Early Bird programme broadcast in the early morning was shown rubbing her crotch over a pair of skimpy knickers and tweaking and blowing on her nipples to make them erect. The complainant objected that the presenter'
s behaviour was unsuitable for the time of broadcast.
Ofcom has repeatedly made clear its concerns about inappropriate, sexually explicit content being shown on “babe” channels whose programmes are based on interactive “adult” chat. Turn On TV has itself previously been found in breach of the Code for the
inappropriate scheduling of sexual content (Ofcom Broadcast Bulletin issue number 85).
In this case, Ofcom considers that the actions of the presenter were not explicit. However, they were clearly sexual in nature and unsuitable for the time of broadcast. We note the broadcaster has taken certain remedial steps as a result of the
complaint, but are concerned that at the time of these breaches it did not have sufficient procedures in place to satisfy itself that the material it transmitted was fully compliant with the Code.
The Judge in the landmark High Court legal battle between the Premier League and foreign satellite suppliers QC Leisure and AV Station
has retired to consider his verdict.
The Premier League is seeking a ban on importing, selling, hiring, advertising, installing and maintaining decoders.
The defendants deny breaking copyright law and claim that the attempt to stop them selling the decoder cards is in breach of the EC Treaty, which guarantees the right of free trade between member states.
It is not known when Mr Justice Kitchin will deliver his verdict.
A new blog watching UK adult TV get screwed by Ofcom
The Ofrum blog is intended to give viewers of adult services available via Sky a chance to air their views and opinions about the treatment they receive Ofcom
From Billy on Ofrum
It is my opinion that media regulators, Ofcom, are doing everything in their power to bring to an end the broadcasting of pay-per-view and free-to-air adult channels, currently available through the adult section of Sky's EPG. However, because an
outright ban is not an option, Ofcom have opted for a 'bullying' tactic by continually targeting these shows, often hitting them with hefty fines for even the mildest of offences. Meanwhile, mainstream channels that break similar regulations, often
escape with little more than a warning.
The boss of a firm that supplied foreign satellite football systems to pubs has been given a 10-month suspended sentence.
Mark Elsdon of Digisales was also ordered to do 150 hours unpaid work and pay £6,000 costs at Caernarfon Crown Court.
In March, Elsdon pleaded guilty to four offences relating to breaches of the copyright and fraud act in a landmark case at Mold Crown Court.
Elsdon was the first supplier to be arrested back in July following a raid on his premises by Conwy police and trading standards.
He faced 18 counts of offences against the Copyright Designs & Patents Act, Fraud Act and attempting to pervert the course of justice.
Elsdon pleaded guilty to four specimen counts of supplying unauthorised ART (North African) decoder cards and four specimen counts of offering unauthorised Nova (Greek) decoder cards for sale for receiving Premier League football.
Judge Hughes told the court in March that the offences were serious and crossed the threshold for a custodial sentence.
The Premier League has launched a High Court action yesterday to ban cheap live televised matches. The League is seeking damages and an order to stop companies supplying equipment which enables British viewers to receive the games via a foreign
broadcaster rather than the more expensive domestic broadcaster BSkyB.
James Mellor QC, representing the Premier League, told Mr Justice Kitchin at the London court: It is a good old-fashioned rip off. He said QC Leisure and AV Station are supplying domestic decoding cards from Greece and North Africa which allow
British viewers access to broadcasting services to which they are not entitled. In this country you can watch Premiership football courtesy of Sky. You pay your Sky subscription.
He said that if publicans want to show the matches to customers, they have to pay a more expensive commercial subscription. If a publican takes a domestic Sky card and uses it to display Premiership football in his pub, he is obtaining unauthorised
access. It is a breach of contract and a criminal offence. There have been upwards of 180 prosecutions of publicans who have used domestic Sky cards for commercial purposes.
The companies claim that European law allows the free movement of goods throughout the community and if the cards are available on the market, then they can be sold anywhere within the EC.
Mellor said the case is not about free movement of goods but about illegal infringement of copyright. It is about dealers making a fat profit. All they do is get hold of a foreign card and apply a substantial mark up of up to 100 per cent. They are
just acting as a postal service. How do they get hold of these cards? They get them through deception.
He said the defendants provide false names and addresses in Greece and North Africa to apply for the cards. The cards cannot be sold outside the particular country where they are issued and when the authorised suppliers find out about the deception, the
contracts are terminated and the service is switched off, he said.
If the Babe channels go PIN protected then surely they could at least offer softcore fun. Surely PIN protection would restrict the number of viewers but allowing softcore may make it worth typing in a PIN
Babe channels featuring scantily clad women enticing viewers to call premium-rate phone lines will be forced out of business if new rules from Ofcom work as planned.
The communications regulator wants to crack down on the 17 “babe TV” channels, which can be found, free to watch, on the outer reaches of cable and satellite services.
It is part of an exercise to control television phone-ins, which were hit by a series of scandals last year. As mainstream broadcasters have already cut back on phone-ins, its principal impact is on unconventional broadcasters and channels such as
Babe-station and Babeworld TV.
The new rules state that phone-ins can be used in programmes only whose primary purpose is editorial , such as Big Brother . The “babe” channels, which transmit only phone-line advertisements, can continue only if they opt to be governed by
similar rules as home-shopping channels. This means they will be allowed to remain on air only if viewers have to enter a PIN to access the channel.
I must admit, it's come to something when Playboy One have even started digital fogging of the girls front bums. It's not even like they're doing open-leg stuff either. It would seem the merest glimpse of a wizard's sleeve is deemed likely to be harmful
to us in some way.
But if that's the case, how come it'd be quite safe for us to view exactly the same kind of female anatomy on TV if it were shown in some arty European movie like Sex & Lucia or Beyond The Clouds ?
It's all a load of utter bollox. We've all either got a vagina ourselves, have seen someone else's up close and personal, or failing that, emerged from one at the beginning of our lives, so what on earth is there to be so afraid of? It's time the people
who decide what is acceptable to be shown on TV (AFTER the watershed, I might add) just fucking GREW UP!
Thanks to the narrow-minded fools at Tosscom... sorry, that should be Ofcom, the babe channels are currently about as dull as you can imagine. Several fines and warnings issued by the watchdogs mean that none of the channels are prepared to test the
Night after night, these 'presenters' (and I use the term quite wrongly) sit there on their beds, trying their very best not to look bored, and failing miserably.
The producers of these shows shouldn't be too concerned, however, the girl's desperation is nothing compared to the viewer's.
Playboy One have just started blurring the pubes of the girls from Naked News.
Naked News is shown at 10pm and Playboy have been digitally blurring the pubes of some presenters (not all). It is a mystery as to which hairstyles offend the TV censors, Ofcom.
Playboy is shown free to air (or at least open to general entertainment subscribers) on UK satellite (and presumably cable). Ofcom have recently issued 3 statements restricting what can be shown on open TV.
First the censors whinged about the Babe Channels, then they banned erotic thrillers and softcore erotica from general film channels. And most lately, they have been whinging about the free view advertising segments on the adult subscription channels.
Ofcom's basic policy is that any material created with the intention of sexual arousal, however mild, is banned from open TV. And for those that pay subscriptions for PIN protected adult specialist channels, then all you get for your money is lame
The final part of licensee Karen Murphy’s foreign satellite football appeal will be heard on 25 and 26 June.
High Court judges will hear arguments on the legality of screening football in pubs using foreign satellite systems under European competition law.
Judges ruled against Murphy last December, saying the satellite signal was broadcast from England and the fee payable was to Sky and not Greek channel Nova.
But Murphy’s team were told they could argue their case under European competition law at a later date.
The cases are being prosecuted under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, which centres on whether the publican dishonestly receives a programme provided from a place in the UK, with intent to avoid payment of any charge applicable to the
reception of the programme.
The installers say that their clients are not avoiding making a payment because they are paying the European broadcasters - and in any case, have no charge to avoid since there is no UK broadcaster providing games live at 3pm on a Saturday.
A foreign satellite supplier has pleaded guilty to four offences relating to breaches of the copyright and fraud act in a landmark case at Mold Crown Court.
Mark Ronald Elsdon of foreign satellite supplier Digisales has been remanded on bail until 11 April for pre-sentence reports but Judge Mervyn Hughes warned a custodial sentence could be on the cards.
Elsdon was the first supplier to be arrested back in July following a raid on his premises by Conwy police and trading standards.
He faced 18 counts of offences against the Copyright Designs & Patents Act, Fraud Act and attempting to pervert the course of justice.
Elsdon pleaded guilty to four specimen counts of supplying unauthorised ART (North African) decoder cards and four specimen counts of offering unauthorised Nova (Greek) decoder cards for sale for receiving Premier League football.
Judge Hughes said it was extremely unfortunate and ill advised for Elsdon to have sought the advice of the European Satellite Television Association (Esta).
A Premier League spokesman said: This sends out a clear message to the trade that supplying cards as well as using them is illegal. It also confirms that Esta and its propaganda message should be disregarded.
Ofcom make it clear that all free-to-air sex is banned
A ban on free views will surely hit the UK channels hard. The ban on satellite hardcore means that the channels surely cannot appeal to many regular viewers. They therefore rely on snagging new viewers who are gullible to the misleading free view
advertising suggesting that they will be subscribing to hardcore.
Interesting also to note that Ofcom don't say a word about the blatantly misleading promotional material suggesting that people are subscribing to hardcore when the channels are in fact softcore by dictate of Ofcom
Ofcom issued the following 'no sex warning' about 'free views' for encrypted channels
In Broadcast Bulletin 95 (published 22 October 2007 ), Ofcom highlighted its concerns about compliance by channels that transmit in the ‘adult' section of the Sky Electronic Programme Guide (‘EPG'). In that Bulletin, which
made specific reference in findings to ‘babe-style' channels, Ofcom also noted its serious concerns about some free-to-air content on encrypted channels. The following findings are the result of investigations into this area. In addition to the
cases detailed below, Ofcom has a number of other on-going investigations. These concern both encrypted and unencrypted channels in the ‘adult' section of the EPG. Some may result in consideration of further regulatory action.
All providers of encrypted channels which also offer free-to-air content should study the findings below carefully. Ofcom strongly reminds all such channels that the broadcast of sexually explicit material within free-to-air content is not
normally acceptable and that any breach of a similar nature by an encrypted channel in future is likely to result in consideration of further regulatory action. Providers of ‘babe-style' channels should also take careful note of these findings for
the guidance they provide on compliance with Rules 1.2, 2.1 and 2.3 of the Code.
Red Hot Amateur , 26 July 2007, 22:00
The Red Hot and Fantasy channels are shown in the ‘adult' section of the Sky Electronic Programme Guide (‘EPG') and broadcast encrypted sexual material after 22:00 . The channels also broadcast 10 minute free-to-air promotions each hour between
22:00 and 00:00 - between encrypted material - which promote content on the station encouraging viewers who are not subscribers to sign up for the service.
A complaint stated that this channel showed full nudity and an erect penis within its free-to-view promotion. The complainant also said one of the female presenters encouraged viewers to watch the dirtiest hardcore fucking ever shown on TV.
Ofcom noted that the material included various sequences involving sexual activity, including a promotion called Rim Junkies , which showed men and women having their buttocks spread apart before their partners' heads approached them from
behind, as if about to lick their anuses. There was also an extremely brief image (of a half second or less) of a woman masturbating a man with an erect penis. The language included terms such as You'll get nothing but hard fucking all night
and We've got women of all shapes and sizes getting properly fucked.
Fantasy 1, 26 July 2007 , 21:30
A complainant said the channel showed full nudity and simulated sex, with viewers being told women would be seen getting “fucked”.
Ofcom noted that the material included various sequences involving sexual activity, including one promotion called Man Bitch , which appeared to showcase aggressive sexual behaviour. It contained shots of men being stripped and ordered to
perform sexual tasks, including being approached from behind by a woman with a strap-on dildo and, separately, a man being ordered: Come lick me out, you bitch. The language also included a woman in a promotion saying Fantasy. I'm
dripping with excitement and I'm Suzy, and you can see me getting fucked good and hard on Fantasy.
In both the above cases, Ofcom asked the owner of the channels, Portland Media Group to comment on how the content complied with the following Code rules:
* Rule 1.2 (protection of under eighteens);
* Rule 2.1 (generally accepted standards); and
* Rule 2.3 (offensive material to be justified by content).
Portland said, in general, the content complained about was no stronger than material that had been broadcast on the channels for “over a decade”, without attracting regulatory interest. It believed all of the material was appropriately scheduled
bearing in mind protection of under eighteens and that the content was within generally accepted standards for free-to-air content broadcast in the ‘adult' section of the Sky EPG. Portland added that it considered the material was justified by the
context in which it was broadcast.
Portland accepted that showing a brief image of a woman masturbating a man with an erect penis would not generally be acceptable for broadcast. It said this was an isolated incident and the result of human error, as the image was so fleeting
(approximately a third or half a second in duration) that the editor and compliance officer missed the material. Portland apologised for this error.
The broadcaster defended the material within the Rim Junkies segment. It commented that the sequence was edited together to give an impression of a theme of programming common in the adult genre. It said the sequence was fast paced and did
not actually feature any contact between any actor or actresses' face and buttocks/anuses. It added the content did not show any “‘spread leg' shots or visible genitalia or anuses.
With regard to the Man Bitch sequence, Portland said it was mindful that overly aggressive sexual behaviour is potentially highly inappropriate. However it considered the sequence did not contain any of the kind of sexual violence that
would cause viewers harm or offence. Portland said there was no suggestion any of the performers were engaged – or even appeared to be engaged – in non-consensual activities. It said the promotion was for an encrypted fetish programme, where there
is dominant/submissive role-play which would be in line with audience expectations on any adult channel, but that this was fantasy-based material which did not depict or encourage sexual violence towards non-consenting people.
It is a requirement of the Code that content which is considered to be ‘adult-sex' material must be pin protected and encrypted (Rule 1.24). In both these cases, Ofcom did not consider the content complained of to be ‘adult- sex' material. This
decision was reached taking all the relevant circumstances into account, including the sexual explicitness and nature of the images (including such factors as their length and editing) and language, the purpose of broadcasting this material and
the overall context in which it was broadcast.
Red Hot Amateur, 26 July 2007 , 22:00
The offensive language was not particularly prominent and, although it was scripted and pre-recorded material that was presented by topless females, it appeared unlikely that it would have exceeded viewers' expectations of a channel found within
the ‘adult' section of the EPG.
However, Ofcom was concerned about the content of the Rim Junkies promotion. It repeatedly showed the same situation, involving different couples: either a man or a woman had their trousers or skirt removed by their partner, who then
approached the participant from behind to spread their bottom and put his/her face between their open buttocks. While there was no explicit nudity or actual contact between the actors' faces and the anuses of the other participants, the whole
segment had a graphic sexual element to it.
Ofcom concluded that it went beyond generally accepted standards of what is acceptable to broadcast free-to-air, even in a channel within the ‘adult' section of the EPG and shown over an hour after the watershed.
With regard to the brief image of masturbation (erect penis), we acknowledge both the apology made by Portland and that such a brief sequence could have been missed by a compliance officer. However, the use of material potentially suitable for
broadcast only under encryption in promotional trails shown free-to-air requires particular care, precisely to avoid the inclusion of inappropriate material, however brief. We therefore found this sequence, although extremely limited, had not
complied with generally accepted standards.
In summary, both the Rim Junkies promotion and the promotion containing the image of male masturbation breached Rules 2.1 and 2.3 of the Code.
Fantasy 1, 26 July 2007 , 21:30
The ‘background' material in the information provision sections showed images of each woman licking and touching the body of the other and sucking and licking dildos. These ‘background' images in the promotions, in that they focused on the women's
bodies and each woman fondling the other, were very sexually suggestive and were in Ofcom's view inappropriate to be broadcast at 21:30 (so soon after the 21:00 watershed). Additionally, the strong language used in this self-promotion segment
contained a very strong sexual element which was inappropriate for broadcast at 21:30 . The licensee also failed to protect adequately under-eighteens from potentially harmful and offensive sexually explicit imagery and offensive language and was
in breach of Rule 1.2.
We take into account Portland 's view that the Man Bitch sequence showed dominant and submissive sexual behaviour rather than aggressive sexual behaviour or allusions to sexual violence. However, the sequence contained the overt use of
fetish accessories. Images also included a man and, separately, a woman, approaching their partners from behind to spread the cheeks of their buttocks and put his/her face between them. The entire Man Bitch sequence was unacceptable for
broadcast on a free-to-view channel, even one located in the ‘adult' section of the EPG. Considering the time the material was broadcast, the Fantasy channel also failed to protect adequately under-eighteens from potentially harmful or offensive
This sequence therefore breached Rules 1.2, 2.1 and 2.3.
18 Plus Movies promotion
British Sky Broadcasting, 29 August 2007, 22:00
18 Plus Movies is a pay-per-view encrypted film service operated by British Sky Broadcasting which shows adult material of a sexual nature, and is broadcast within the ‘adult' sector of the Sky electronic programme guide (“EPG”). Before these
films are broadcast late at night, a trail of different film clips is broadcast without encryption. Ofcom received a complaint that the content of the free-to-view trail broadcast on 29 August 2007 showed explicit sexual scenes.
Sky said that material was carefully edited to ensure it met with Rule 2.3 and that it believed the content was in line with viewer expectations on the promotional and other free-to-view material available on other services in the ‘adult' sector
of the EPG. In addition, it felt the name of the channel and the clear warning given immediately before the complained of material would have alerted viewers to the nature of the material to be shown and minimised any potential offence.
However, in light of the complaint, and Ofcom's general concerns regarding free-to-view material in the ‘adult' sector of the EPG (communicated to Sky shortly after it had been informed of the complaint), Sky removed the promotion featuring these
trailers from the service and it has not since been broadcast. In addition, in response to Ofcom's general concerns, Sky said it is conducting a review of the content of its free-to-view promotions on the channel.
In this case Ofcom did not consider the content complained of to be ‘adult- sex' material as referred to in the Code. This decision was reached taking all the relevant circumstances into account, including the sexual explicitness and nature of the
images (including such factors as their length and editing) and language, the purpose of broadcasting this material and the overall context in which it was broadcast.
Ofcom notes the promotion was preceded by information which alerted viewers to its sexual content and that it was broadcast late in the evening on a channel within the ‘adult' sector of the EPG and it took these factors into account.
However, while the trailer lasted only one minute forty seconds, it was shown on a loop between repeated listings information and the warning. Therefore the chance that viewers could come across the material unawares was increased.
The material itself consisted of a montage of brief sequences where naked and semi-naked actors engaged in representations of various sexual activities, including oral sex and intercourse. This was interspersed with voiceover promoting the channel
and its content.
Ofcom accepts that a promotion for encrypted material within the ‘adult' sector of the EPG will contain a certain amount of sexual activity. Nevertheless, even though the individual shots lasted no more than a few seconds, the trailer included a
number of portrayals of sexual intercourse which largely focused on the actors' bodies and shots of other sexual activity. Although not very explicit, the frequency and nature of the images went beyond what was acceptable free-to-air.