Ofcom Discussion

Perhaps, but if this was to happen, Ofcom could just say "Oh by the way, your license is revoke!", just like with Bang Babes.

Now, my alternative is for the women to be nude, but to be wearing prosthetic vaginas and bums, so that we can see what we like, without any real rules being broken

(21-08-2012 14:57 )mrmann Wrote:  Now, my alternative is for the women to be nude, but to be wearing prosthetic vaginas and bums, so that we can see what we like, without any real rules being broken

But that only makes sense if what you like just happens to be prosthetic vaginas and bums

(21-08-2012 14:54 )MARCCE Wrote:  Exactly what new information do you think they can add?

Well they could tell them that there are other alternatives to protect children from this content, although typical of my stupid self they could already have.

Reading comments from newspapers each week, most people seem to be tired of people being offended by the smallest of things. Its usually just 10 people that complain about certain things to Ofcom, but they are the minority, so why are their voices heard over the majority.

I will say it again, but parents need to start acting like parents and stop relying on Ofcom to do it for them.

Someone mentioned I think a few posts back that there could be more censorship over the internet.

I'm not sure if I'm reading this the wrong way, but Youtube is thinking about putting in rules for people to use their real names when writing comments. I could be analysing it wrong, but having people using their real names would discourage them to express themselves

Heres the article

http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/24/tech/socia...=allsearch

Where I'm going with this is that if people don't make their feelings be known about censorship, well then it could easily spread and become more excessive on tv and the internet

(21-08-2012 14:54 )MARCCE Wrote:  

(20-08-2012 23:09 )Scottishbloke Wrote:  Marcee what you are reading into here is media and government propaganda, I have yet to meet anybody who gives 2 shits about what is broadcast on the telly or shown on the internet, the majority of people worldwide are only interested in things that effect them personally and directly.

Most people accept the watershed and accept what the world presents to them. I hold absolutely no objections to extra safety measures in place to protect the minors of this world. So long as it doesn't have a knock on effect to what us grown ups like to view.

Alcohol for example you have to be over 18 to drink it. How would you like it if you were told tommorow that this was now forbidden because they needed to protect the minor's of this world.

We need common sense to prevail which ofcom show none of. To expect change to happen is not being unrealistic, to say otherwise is just being defeatist. Widespread harm and offence is a myth and is just some bullshit red tape which ofcom uses to justify it's role. This is reality and this is fact.

http://www.metro.co.uk/tech/898231-david...g-controls

This doesn't happen when people don't give 2 shits. And the fact is people do see this as affecting them directly because many of them are parents. The simple fact is the most vocal people with regards to this subject are the ones who want it heavily controlled both on tv and the internet. The government doesn't consider measures like that unless they think it's a possible vote winner. The people who don't give 2 shits either way are less likely to be vocal and are also not going to see it as a reason to vote against any party that brings in the measures.

And I know all that about alcohol and the rest of it. I've posted enough times on various threads about the situation.

What I have actually said is that change isn't going to happen from the channels having yet another meeting with Ofcom. In fact, based on previous history, the outcome of any further meetings with Ofcom is the likelihood of further restrictions! And the channels have argued all the points about harm and offence etc. Exactly what new information do you think they can add?

Change can happen but for it to happen the general public have to see the situation for what it is i.e. a restriction on their rights. And whilst the babe channel situation doesn't directly affect them if more and more people see the possible wider consequences then change could happen.

But it's not going to come about from the channels having another meeting nor is it going to change as a result of girls whipping off their knickers and pressing fannies up against the camera I'm afraid to say.

I think you're both off the mark. The rules wll not change until they are taken out of the sphere of political interference. A challenge in court will be needed to achieve a relaxation.
Ofcom has recently had its face kicked in in the High Court over its charges and directives against Sky's anti competitive monopoly over premium tv channels. Result was a 3000 page document highlighting incompetence and wilful misrepresentation of facts and other evidence.
Willful misrepresentation of research and facts - sounds very much like the original consultation document.
What this illustrates is that Ofcom may be able to bully if you accept their directives as the law - however, if a legal challenge is made their rules and process can be shown to be flawed.

There needs to be a clear separation between people who draw up the rules and ones who decide cases.

There also needs to be an independent appeals process.

(27-08-2012 23:04 )eccles Wrote:  There needs to be a clear separation between people who draw up the rules and ones who decide cases.

There also needs to be an independent appeals process.

The problem with having an "Independent" committee is it isn't always independent. The Independent Police Complaints Comission is one that sticks out like a saw thumb. I don't know if it is still the case now, but I know previous people involved with the IPCC weren't exactly impartial and or had previous in the force.

Just for information, the latest OFCOM Broadcasting Bulletin doesn't include any upheld complaints against phone sex channels (again)......

Due to such piss weak output naturally...

Thanks

Shylok

Yes well good news and also bad news as it might just encourage the channels to continue with their lameduck shows. I'd like to think now that the heat is firmly off them now that they might just relax and start to put on some half decent shows again but the pessimist tells me that the tame shows will carry on.

We are now in the second part of 2012 and we are no further forward than we were at the start of the year. Eccles petition has now officially come to an end so let's hope that those who signed it have at least made some small difference into changing attitudes at ofcom HQ.

The latest Ofcom Bulletin can be found here - http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binarie...obb212.pdf

The latest bulletin issue number 212 that came out today mentions thee babe channel licence's/owners .

Playboy TV UK Limited was found in breach for things shown/advertised/said etc on the Psychic Line show that used to broadcast on Sky channel 885 , (Playboy got the in breach ruling because they owned the channel and licence)

Ofcom have also started a new investigation for something shown on Elite TV on the 15th of July

Complaints were made against Playboy TV Chat on the 28th of July , Ofcom decided not to investigate the complaint further.

Another babe channel also had a complaint made against them , Ofcom decided not to investigate this complaint as well .

I watched last night to much dismay... I can't see a future for this rot anymore. I am honestly considering giving up watching.

So fucking depressing...

S