A lot of these official documents and consultations are all well and good... But when you're dealing with "schemers & control freaks" in positions of power like OFCOM, they will "rarely reveal their true intentions"... Behind closed doors they're probably planning something else...

Winston Wolfe

Hey guys... been reading through these posts realy interesting they are but nobody seems to have mentioned sky? there are more than twenty babe channels that must be a hell of an income for them surely they wouldnt be pleased if an ofcom ruling took that revenue from them? excuse me if that sounds a bit simple of me im new yu know Lol

Rufus.D.H, I suppose there may be something to this. I'm not sure what $ky charges to use their platform but, its 'only' 20 channels that don't really generate monthly subscriptions for $ky in the way their own movies and sports channels do.

There are questions on another thread about why there should be differences between Freeview shows and $ky shows - I think the answer to that is most certainly some form of palm greasing between $ky and the babe channels. The more people that get a $ky box and abandon Freeview the merrier as far as $ky are concerned. I believe $ky are trying to build a monopoly as digital switchover is rolled out - that's not good for us viewers. If these differences have anything to do with Ofcom then this clearly stinks. Moreover, if Ofcom are doing nothing to ensure parity of services on Freeview and $ky then this similarly stinks. Clearly, in either event Ofcom are failing to protect consumers and the investment many must have already made in digital TVs and Freeview STBs.

Good point. I'm sure I have heard that it costs £50,000 for a channel just to get on the EPG. 20 x £50k = £1M, hardly peanuts but not a large fraction of Sky's income either.

If I was Sky I would want to give the public every possible reason to sign up. Kids shows. Soaps, fashion and chatshows for women. Pop music and horror films for teens. And S-E-X to get men to sign up. But beening seen as a porn dealer is bad publicity, so get someone else to do it at arm's length. Take that away and "churn" increases - the number of people who cancel. And fewer people sign up because they like what they have heard. I certainly did.

So it is in Sky's best interests to have sex shows that keep people signed up, even if it does not directly profit.

(20-10-2009 21:22 )DanVox Wrote:  So it is in Sky's best interests to have sex shows that keep people signed up, even if it does not directly profit.

BSkyB did throw a little weight into last years consultation:
http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/...es/sky.pdf

(21-10-2009 00:28 )vostok 1 Wrote:  

(20-10-2009 21:22 )DanVox Wrote:  So it is in Sky's best interests to have sex shows that keep people signed up, even if it does not directly profit.

BSkyB did throw a little weight into last years consultation:
http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/...es/sky.pdf

vostok1, I've been thinking about starting a petition on the No 10 website. I don't know how many of the near 20,000 members here are still active but we'd need that many to get Parliament to take note of what adult service viewers want and what Ofcom are illegally denying us access to. Six years of rights abuses under Rule 1.24 etc. is quite long enough.

I don't know if I can get ahold of Paul Tavener who headed-up the original Ofwatch campaign (and I'm not sure if he'd want to go though the whole process with these lying gits again). I'm afraid my diplomatic tact is non-existent. I can pull an argument to pieces but, doing so in a way that doesn't raise eyebrows and burn bridges isn't really my style - I'm more of a bull vs china shop...

Somewhere Paul has an 'admission' from the old head of the ITC (the woman's name escapes me) that they (the ITC) would probably have to review the Code in light of ECHR rulings and so forth with regard to "legally available material" (i.e. R18). As I've indicated before elsewhere on these forums, the ITC's decision to change "no real sex" to "no R18", which gave Ofcom the idea of the 'status quo', was in fact unlawful - and just before the ITC's demise, they were made to recognise it in writing.

I can't quite remember if it was Grawth or someone else who got Ofcom to admit the 'precationary approach' was necessarily unjustified and probably heavy handed - it is in effect acting without any real evidence of any real harm just because you feel you should rather than needing to for good reason. This is buried away in a forum archive with luck or, perhaps the web master might have a copy of the original correspondence. (I don't know if you'd like to join-in at http://www.melonfarmers.co.uk ?)

There's quite a bit of unexploded (perhaps unexploited) ammo lying around you see. Stuff from their own lips no less.

So, what do you say we work on the text for a petition? There seem to be a fair few like-minded individuals here that are not happy with the current state of affairs. Complaining to Ofcom about their code is a futile exercise - questions need to be asked from above. The DCMS are also a bunch of useless tools, indeed, they seem to believe "The UK doesn't want hardcore on TV" - I think they need to undergo a 're-education exercise'.

It's not good enough that Ofcom simply choose to believe their code is correct and can now be strengthened on the basis of the wrongs they did 6 years ago. The restrictions on adult sex material are totally arbitrary - there's no reason for them to pick on sexual material bar the fact this is supposedly the 'British thing to do'. British kids are no more susceptable to porn than any other children in Europe so, for Ofcom to act in an arbitrary manner requires extraordinary justification - and that is seriously lacking. Indeed, its all based on cultural fantasy and backward beliefs that really need dragging into the 21st century.

We know the reason the likes of the BBFC and Ofcom can get away with abusing our right to free expression with regard to porn is because British people are brought up to be embarassed to talk about sexual matters. This is all part and parcel of our cultural brainwashing, which is reinforced by the censorial attitudes and twisted minds of those in positions of power and influence. It is a self-sustaining system of repression that must be broken - and of course the only way to do that is to get sex and porn out in the open so that we can feel happy to discuss it and gripe about our censor's irrational phobias over the most natural and important part of any living being's entire existence.

Hi Ian. Still here, still pissed off at the powers that be!

Here's a (slightly off topic) thought. The BBC is currently making a big thing about letting the BNP on Question Time, saying (with the support of many politicians) that to ban them is censorship and people have to be allowed to form their own views of the party. I'm willing to bet that there are a great deal more people offended by the views of the BNP than there are at the idea of, say, sex on the telly, and yet banning sex is apparently NOT censorship, it is preventing people from possible harm.

Don't quite see how these two positions sit together, but maybe that's just me!

Grawth, no I don't see how they sit together either, especially as we know from the ITC/Ofcom public surveys of the last 13 years or so that 75% of people on the street think those that want to watch "particularly sexually explicit material" on TV should be allowed to do so. Only 22% think it should be banned.

It certainly doesn't add up.

As for the BNP, the only problem with allowing people to judge the BNP for themselves is that the BNP lie and distort the truth - much like Ofcom. But then that's the way of control freak, power mad fascists.

Completely off topic but, I was wondering how the Electoral Commission could allow the BNP to stand for election if the BNP Constitution isn't legal - its bizarre isn't it?