egafd.com

Chrome

You recently replied to a post on this forum, stating...

I directed that show, so I know what Guilbert says is correct. The girls in question were Angel Long & Crystel Lei. Many of you will have worked with them and know they don't do half measures so it might give you some insight as to whether Guilbert is telling the truth. This was of course in the encryption between 12 and 1am. And as far as I know Guilbert has no connection to the show or its owners.

My question to you is:
If you can show the type of material that Guilbert says he saw, why do the 'adult' channels only show this kind of stuff once in a blue moon? Why not all the time, since that is what most viewers want to see?
Playboy, Adult Channel etc never show anything this explicit (even though it is not at all explicit by European standards), but why not?
Whilst I think the 'adult' channels are a total rip-off, I would genuinely be interested in your answer.

Who knows... perhaps the opther channels don't have as clear understanding of the Ofcom rules? We work up to and within the rules without breaking them. I'm sure many channels are sh*t scared, simply because they don't really know what they can or cannot do. Or perhaps the directors are scared of losing their jobs?

Even in the encrypted sections we are careful to stay legal, but certainly do push the boundaries. As you say, we may not be explicit by 'euro standards' but we get as near as we can in the UK, making us the hardest you will currently see in our encrypted shows.

It has been suggested on other threads that much is faked, but I will dispute this at least for us. When you have seen Crystel Lei with another girls foot almost ankle deep in her pussycat, Victoria Brown or Angel Long with a huge toy shoved up more than one hole and they come time and time again and again (sometimes squirting buckets - in the case of Crystel; she's a VERY naughty girl!!) you would realise that faking it would be harder than actually doing it for them. We usually try to show them so you can see clearly it's not faked; these girls have too much of a reputation to lose if it was.

Oh and why do I encourage them to do it when I'm directing? Because I can I want to produce as good a show as we can and give the viewer something worth watching.

Hope that helps

Now hold your horses Chrome - Ofcon Code specifically states that R18 or equivalent material may not be broadcast (I even have a letter confirming this from Fran O'Brien - Standards Manager at Ofcon). What Guilbert has shown on the other thread would be classifed at R18 by the BBFC.

So what Code are you working to if you are working "up to and within the rules without breaking them"?

From `The Published Code`:

1.23 Pay per view services may broadcast up to BBFC 18-rated films or their equivalent, at any time of day provided:

there is a protection system pre 2100 and post 0530 (a mandatory PIN or other equivalent protection), that seeks satisfactorily to restrict access solely to those authorised to view when material other than BBFC U-rated or PG-rated or their equivalents is shown;

1.25 BBFC R18-rated films or their equivalent must not be broadcast.

So are you seriously saying that you never broadcast R18 eqiuvalent material as those are the rules imposed by Ofcon? Or are you saying that you braodcast within the Ofcon Code provided to you and not made public?

I have asked this before and was fobbed of by you - would you care to answer this time as we have irrefutable proof that R18 equivalent material is broadcast and is not allowed according to Ofcon?

My answer was for Bob's question and I believe I did that.

I'm certainly NOT going to get into a long drawn out discussion on this matter; I don't have the time for that kind of crap. Whilst I have read the rules a number of times, I don't personally interpret the rules, that is for the show's owners to do, I simply direct within the brief I'm given; simple. Take it up with them I'm buggered if I will walk into your ambush.

As for fobbing you off before, I don't remember discussing it with you personally.

That's the last I'm sayin g in this thread...

To everyone here, especially those I have worked with (I hope you know who you are), Happy Xmas

It was a simple question, "what code do you work to?" because either your interpretation is incorrect, you work to an unpublished code or you choose to ignore the code as it is not legal anyway and if you do this you can go full R18 or equivalent.

Tell you what then as you "won't walk into my ambush" (and yes you're right I set you up good and proper just like last time when you declined to answer) I'll ask Fran O'Brien at Ofcon.

I'll tell you what she says on BGAFD.

As there has been nothing done outside of the 'published' rules then you won't get a fine and we'll all know what we can and can't veiw on UK broadcast channels.

Jacques says...

'we have irrefutable proof that R18 equivalent material is broadcast and is not allowed according to Ofcon?'

Well, I have never seen any R18 strength material on $ky, broadcast by the 'adult' channels. Sportxxx etc do, however, broadcast stuff stronger than Ofcon's code allows, which is BBFC18 strength.

Which proves beyond doubt that some 'adult' channels do work to a different code. One which is approved within the cosy little arrangement that the 'adult' channels and Ofcon have devised.

My original question was 'why don't all the adult channels have the same cosy arrangement?'
Chrome didn't answer that, but suggested that not all the channels know how far they can go. Bollox!
He also said that they were afraid of being fined. Bollox!

We all know the truth, we just want the channels to come clean. Some chance of that-wouldn't do to blow the Ofcon deal, would it chaps?

BobB wrote:


> Well, I have never seen any R18 strength material on $ky,
> broadcast by the 'adult' channels. Sportxxx etc do, however,
> broadcast stuff stronger than Ofcon's code allows, which is
> BBFC18 strength.


The content shown by Guilbert would if it went to the BBFC be classified as R18, I asked. Therefore R18 is being broadcast and the Published Code says you can't. Period.

So, have Sport decided to ignore the guidelines - in which case why haven`t they ignored them completely? Have they received special approval for this content - in which case why aren`t the other channels doing the same, and why haven`t the guidelines been changed to reflect this, and why are they not public? If Sport aren't fined for this, then that further cements the 'cosy little arrangement' with Ofcon.

And heaven forbid someone admits to there being a 'Second Code', imagine the consequences.......

Anyone watching a paid UK 'Adult' broadcast is being lied to by Ofcon and the DCMS and conned by the broadcaster.

Three possibilities:
1) They were chancing their arm - and may well get fined
2) Someone made a mistake - and they may well get fined
3) There is a second code, or more likely a specific way of interpreting or hair splitting that is not immedately apparent. If this is true then a complaint should resolve the issue one way or the other.

I actually went to the trouble (and cost) of watching Sportxxx last night, as these same two 'girls' were on again and, yes, there was a bottle, and a shoe, and a squirt, and a dildo.

BUT

at no time were any penetration shots shown, or anything remotely close. This show was, in fact, no more explicit than any other of these 'live' shows. It was more explicit than BBFC18, but not, in my opinion, anything like you should expect from an R18 rated program.
I have said it before, and I'll say it again, don't give your hard-earned cash to these lying thieves. Save up and install a euro system aimed at Hotbird.

If it was more explicit than 18 then it may not be broadcast:

1.23 Pay per view services may broadcast up to BBFC 18-rated films or their equivalent...

Now if it is "no more explicit than any other of these 'live' shows", well that would imply that all the channels broadcast at above 18 rated material and that is not allowed.

The only other category beyond 18 is R18 which simply means 18 rated material that is restricted in supply under the VRA due to it's explicitness. Therefore the broadcast was R18 because it couldn't be 18 and:

1.25 BBFC R18-rated films or their equivalent must not be broadcast.


So shall we see what Ofcon have to say about it all?