£25,000 fine for Babeworld

Published Monday, Dec 3 2007, 12:10 GMT | By James Welsh

Warning: This article contains language and/or sexual references that younger readers are advised to avoid.

Ofcom has fined adult satellite station Babeworld £25,000 for "serious and repeated" breaches of the broadcasting code.

The station breached 7 rules in the code ranging from rule 1.2, pertaining to the protection of under-18s, to 10.3, which bans the promotion of products and services in programmes.

Ofcom investigated the channel after a mother found her son and his friends watching a Babeworld programme at around 9:15pm on February 12.

Having reviewed the tapes, Ofcom said that the "presenters" were "dressed provocatively in underwear" and behaving "in an extremely sexual manner, for example thrusting their breasts and buttocks directly at the camera and appearing to masturbate."

In an effort to encourage callers to ring a premium rate number, the "presenters" suggested: "I want you to sp*nk in my mouth. It makes me really horny"; "she needs a nice hard c*ck up there"; and rounded the ensemble off with: "... maybe you just want to bend me over and stick it up my arse".

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

Because the material went out unencrypted and free to air, Babeworld breached rules 1.2, 1.3 and 1.24 of the code, which pertain to protection and scheduling. The advertisement of a premium rate number in a manner that did not relate to the programme's "editorial content" breached rules 10.2 and 10.3, relating to product promotion. Rules 2.1 and 2.3, pertaining to "generally accepted standards", were also breached.

Ofcom noted that Babeworld had previously breached the rules and as such "it was appropriate and proportionate in the circumstances to impose a financial penalty".