Antonia, hate to tell you this but I am a subsriber to the Live XXX site. In the two weeks I have been a member I have suffered major access problems to large parts of the site, but I have always been able to watch the live shows.
They are HUGELY disappointing.
I have watched most nights in the last two weeks and I have not seen one single full insertion shot. I have tried all 5 of the camera angles on offer to regular subscribers, at times from 10ish through to well past midnight, and nothing remotely like penetration has been shown.
Now, maybe I'm just unlucky, or maybe to actually see anything you have to watch using the "Robocam", which you have to pay extra for, which I think is a rip off.
Incidentally, Jacques is right. The only thing preventing broadcast of R18 material is the Ofcom CODE (not law), and even that says the reason is simply they do not believe the pin protection of adult channels is good enough.
On top of that, every time any channel shows a close up of cunnilingus, which Live XXX (and other channels) do every single night, they are breaking the Ofcom code, because the BBFC classify cunnilingus as R18. Ofcom is aware of this, but refuses to do anything about it, so it is easy to see why people believe there is a nice little deal in place between Ofcom and the adult channels.
Babestation Livexxx Etc
Ofcon?
Jacques wrote:
> The ITC (they used to be ofcon)
>
You keep referring to ofcon which I'm assuming you understand to be Ofcom.
I think you got that the wrong way around as "The ITC has ceased to exist from 18 December 2003 and its duties have been assumed by Ofcom" (http://www.itc.org.uk/).
I would dearly wish for R18 quality broadcasts in the UK but as things are currently there seems to be sufficient safeguards in place that prevent this from happening.
The way I understand it, broadcasters are bound by The Ofcom Broadcasting Code as part of their licence agreement.
The Code states "1.25 BBFC R18-rated films or their equivalent must not be broadcast." on page 15 (http://www.ofcom.org.uk/tv/ifi/codes/bc ... g-code.pdf).
Broadcasters can be fined and ultimately have their licences revoked if they breach the code.
Personally I use the likes of Babestation when I'm in the mood for that type of entertainment and likewise I go elsewhere when I want to see hardcore.
> The ITC (they used to be ofcon)
>
You keep referring to ofcon which I'm assuming you understand to be Ofcom.
I think you got that the wrong way around as "The ITC has ceased to exist from 18 December 2003 and its duties have been assumed by Ofcom" (http://www.itc.org.uk/).
I would dearly wish for R18 quality broadcasts in the UK but as things are currently there seems to be sufficient safeguards in place that prevent this from happening.
The way I understand it, broadcasters are bound by The Ofcom Broadcasting Code as part of their licence agreement.
The Code states "1.25 BBFC R18-rated films or their equivalent must not be broadcast." on page 15 (http://www.ofcom.org.uk/tv/ifi/codes/bc ... g-code.pdf).
Broadcasters can be fined and ultimately have their licences revoked if they breach the code.
Personally I use the likes of Babestation when I'm in the mood for that type of entertainment and likewise I go elsewhere when I want to see hardcore.
Re: Ofcon?
Yes I do mean ofcom but really they should be called ofcon.
The ofcon code is not law - it has not been laid before parliament and is not on the statute books. The Human Rights Act recognises that states have the right to enforce a system of licensing of broadcast television, however, this right does not extend to the censorship of legal content from broadcasts. This fact is illustrated by case law from the European courts (Groppera 1990). All UK law must comply with European case law and R18 is legally available so the code cannot be justifed in censoring R18 or eqivalent material.
Reference 1.25 of the code:
If this were strictly followed there would be no need for any PIN protection as 18 rated softcore material can and is broadcast without encryption. These channels are using PIN protection then with no need to as they are all 'following' the published ofcon code. Now if anything that is shown that would be ratedas R18 by the BBFC then thses channels are breaking the code and therefore should be fined, proscirbed etc. But it does not happen very often does it?
The last channel that was actually proscibed was Xtasi way back in 2000 (i think, possibly 2001). The last channel that was finned was Playboy.
The announcement of the ?25,000 fine for showing R18 material was made in early February 2005. On the 20th January Ofcon had a meeting to discuss "The hearing and determination of a complaint", the full public available minutes are shown below:
Present
Richard Hooper Chairman
Matthew MacIver Member
Adam Singer Member
Pam Giddy Member
Kip Meek Senior Partner, Competition and Content
In Attendance
[Withheld from published minutes]
By Invitation
Appearing on behalf of The Number
[Withheld from published minutes]
Appearing on behalf of [Withheld from published minutes]
[Withheld from published minutes]
Observers from Ofcom
[Withheld from published minutes]
Preliminary points
1. [Withheld from published minutes].
2. [Withheld from published minutes].
The Hearing
3. [Withheld from published minutes]
4. [Withheld from published minutes]
All very mysterious - did they breach the 'secret' code?
So to sum up these channels must by definition be showing 18 rated 'soft' material and not anything that would be rated as R18 as ofcon would surely step in with fines etc as can be seen with Playboy and soon probably Explicit.
So you decide are they following the published code, the 'secret' code or are they ignoring the code all together? Because what they say they broadcast on a nightly basis would not get an 18 rating from the BBFC. And if they say it's stronger than 18 rated material then are they then not conning you into subscribing because they are not by 'definition' allowed to show it?
But if they do show it they get finned ala Playboy. So why did they pay up? Well we'll never know because the minutes of the meeting are not available so there must be some sort of agreement with the adult channels which means that the publically published ofcon code is not worth the paper it is written on.
The ofcon code is not law - it has not been laid before parliament and is not on the statute books. The Human Rights Act recognises that states have the right to enforce a system of licensing of broadcast television, however, this right does not extend to the censorship of legal content from broadcasts. This fact is illustrated by case law from the European courts (Groppera 1990). All UK law must comply with European case law and R18 is legally available so the code cannot be justifed in censoring R18 or eqivalent material.
Reference 1.25 of the code:
If this were strictly followed there would be no need for any PIN protection as 18 rated softcore material can and is broadcast without encryption. These channels are using PIN protection then with no need to as they are all 'following' the published ofcon code. Now if anything that is shown that would be ratedas R18 by the BBFC then thses channels are breaking the code and therefore should be fined, proscirbed etc. But it does not happen very often does it?
The last channel that was actually proscibed was Xtasi way back in 2000 (i think, possibly 2001). The last channel that was finned was Playboy.
The announcement of the ?25,000 fine for showing R18 material was made in early February 2005. On the 20th January Ofcon had a meeting to discuss "The hearing and determination of a complaint", the full public available minutes are shown below:
Present
Richard Hooper Chairman
Matthew MacIver Member
Adam Singer Member
Pam Giddy Member
Kip Meek Senior Partner, Competition and Content
In Attendance
[Withheld from published minutes]
By Invitation
Appearing on behalf of The Number
[Withheld from published minutes]
Appearing on behalf of [Withheld from published minutes]
[Withheld from published minutes]
Observers from Ofcom
[Withheld from published minutes]
Preliminary points
1. [Withheld from published minutes].
2. [Withheld from published minutes].
The Hearing
3. [Withheld from published minutes]
4. [Withheld from published minutes]
All very mysterious - did they breach the 'secret' code?
So to sum up these channels must by definition be showing 18 rated 'soft' material and not anything that would be rated as R18 as ofcon would surely step in with fines etc as can be seen with Playboy and soon probably Explicit.
So you decide are they following the published code, the 'secret' code or are they ignoring the code all together? Because what they say they broadcast on a nightly basis would not get an 18 rating from the BBFC. And if they say it's stronger than 18 rated material then are they then not conning you into subscribing because they are not by 'definition' allowed to show it?
But if they do show it they get finned ala Playboy. So why did they pay up? Well we'll never know because the minutes of the meeting are not available so there must be some sort of agreement with the adult channels which means that the publically published ofcon code is not worth the paper it is written on.
quis custodiet ipsos custodes
-
Karina Currie
- Posts: 228
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: Babestation Livexxx Etc
Well that certainly made interesting reading didn't it folks
especially when it points out that the "CODE" has been put together following various "ACTS" which i have always been led to believe are "LAWS"
oh and what about the bit in "general guidence of the CODE" where it says about broadcasters needing to seek legal advice on compliance issue's that arise, I thought you didn't need legal advise if you havn't broken any laws?
hmmmmmmmmmm
The case continues
luv n hugs to all
Karina
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
especially when it points out that the "CODE" has been put together following various "ACTS" which i have always been led to believe are "LAWS"
oh and what about the bit in "general guidence of the CODE" where it says about broadcasters needing to seek legal advice on compliance issue's that arise, I thought you didn't need legal advise if you havn't broken any laws?
hmmmmmmmmmm
The case continues
luv n hugs to all
Karina
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
A Lady on the streets but a Whore between the sheets aka Karina C.
Porn is an art form. The most Basic, natural human expression, displayed for the pleasure of others. Everyone can do it, but not many do it well
Luv what you do and Fuck like you mean it
Porn is an art form. The most Basic, natural human expression, displayed for the pleasure of others. Everyone can do it, but not many do it well
Luv what you do and Fuck like you mean it
Re: Babestation Livexxx Etc
A code of pratcice is NOT LAW it is merely guidance to stay within the boundaries of LAW and the ACTS that made them. The idea being that if you comply with a code of practice you do not fall foul of the law. Now if the law says one thing and the code says another, which one do you follow?Perhaps that is where and why you need your legal advice?
Now you consider the code to be law, so you must be following it religiously for fear of being fined by ofcon?
Live XXX "promises hardcore action after the freeview, the like of which you?ll not find anywhere else". But by following the code you can only show 18 rated material. So do you show 18 rated material? Something stronger? Do you follow the code that you say is law? Do you follow the 'secret' code?
The case certainly does continue........
Now you consider the code to be law, so you must be following it religiously for fear of being fined by ofcon?
Live XXX "promises hardcore action after the freeview, the like of which you?ll not find anywhere else". But by following the code you can only show 18 rated material. So do you show 18 rated material? Something stronger? Do you follow the code that you say is law? Do you follow the 'secret' code?
The case certainly does continue........
quis custodiet ipsos custodes