(03-12-2011 01:45 )Scottishbloke Wrote: [ -> ][...] all the focus is on trying not to engulf the wrath of Ofcom[...]
That's fucking brilliant, SB! It wasn't until I read that, that I realised this is
precisely what irritates me and leaves me so utterly cold these days. All the time you're watching, you're noticing either the girl on screen or the cameraman doing little things to ensure nothing is revealed. It is now literally impossible to watch these shows without Ofcom being on your mind at all times.
(02-12-2011 17:46 )StanTheMan Wrote: [ -> ]Watching a bit of The Wright Show this morning and a rather worrying story pops up for discussion. It was featured in the Daily Star and had the heading 'Porn Before Nine'. I got quite excited and thought it was going to be something to do with Ofcom, but it was just the story of a 10 year-old boy who (it is purported) phoned the PM and asked him to ban the showing of raunchy music videos before 9pm. They didn't really go into the story or what the outcome was.
It's beyond ridiculous and to make a story like this up, with the sole purpose of fanning the flames of a situation that is already getting out of hand, plunges new depths of low. The moral brigade will stop at nothing, will they?
Found it
http://www.dailystar.co.uk/posts/view/22...hy-videos/
BOY, 10, BEGS PM: BAN RAUNCHY VIDEOS
Quote:A BOY of 10 has called on the Prime Minister to ban raunchy music videos before the 9pm watershed.
Ben Marklew wrote to David Cameron saying he was shocked by explicit footage of stars such as Rihanna, 23, and Lady GaGa on afternoon TV.
The PM, 45, replied saying the complaint had been passed on to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport.
But Ben, from Silsden, North Yorks, is writing back demanding the Government outlaws the films before 9pm.
He said: “I think the videos are disgraceful and felt so strongly about it that I wanted to write. I said I did not like porno-graphy in these music videos and that children had access to them on television 24-7 because there was no parental lock.’’
Ben claimed the worst culprits were Rihanna and Lady GaGa, 25.
He said it was wrong that their videos were shown on free-sat channel 4Music at the same time as children’s TV.
His grandmother Lydia Larkin said: “He said he thought the music videos being shown were inappropriate for children of his age.
“He knew there was a 9pm watershed and thought it was wrong that they should be shown before it.’’
Ben’s mum Sue said: “I think it’s out of order that they are showing these images.
Its good that the PM is listening to the public, but hes a bit out of touch if he thinks 10 year olds have votes.
Seriously though, what 10 year old writes "children had access to them on television 24-7 because there was no parental lock" unless they hear those words all the time? And was he concerned about himself, or does he have a little brother or sister?
Im tempted to thank Cameron - bear with me - for not saying a single word in support. He has passed it on to the DCMS who should pass it on to Ofcom saying "this should have been sent to you" neither supporting it or rubbishing it. Ofcom should treat it as what it is, one letter from one ordinary member of the public. Neither David Cameron or the DCMS should be able to say "Deal with it" as Ofcom is supposed to be an independent body. I doubt that a letter passed to a judge would be taken as an instruction.
However it wouldnt hurt if loads of people wrote in saying there are adult locks and the childs parents should have used them. Also if he is so concerned he can change channel. The content is no worse than can be seen on British beaches.
(03-12-2011 03:54 )eccles Wrote: [ -> ]Seriously though, what 10 year old writes "children had access to them on television 24-7 because there was no parental lock"[...]
The kind of fucked-up one that will be working at Ofcom 25 years from now. And someone should remind the little shit and his parents that 24-7 includes 9pm - 05:30 when adults should take over and make the decisions on what is watched and by whom.
(03-12-2011 03:54 )eccles Wrote: [ -> ]Ofcom should treat it as what it is, one letter from one ordinary member of the public.
They should, but they won't. There's not a cat in hell's chance Ofcom won't pounce on this like a fucking leopard and use it to further justify their treatment of the babeshows.
This is what Ofcom continually use as an arguement Babeshows exposing under 18s to adult material before the watershed and arguing that there's parental locks does'nt wash with them.
Ofcom are going to use this as validation that what they are doing is just.
This 10yr old has obviously been hearing his mum and gran moaning about this.(Who are probably a couple of junkie toothed hunchbacks)
I'am all for protecting the innocent and niave from harmful material but to use your bairn to exploit a political issue is not on.
Obviously he was on about music videos but we all know that Ofcom lumps it all in the same pot.They are going to keep on pushing for all the babeshows to be encrypted or they have killed off every babeshow.
(03-12-2011 14:19 )GIBBS LUVS DANI O Wrote: [ -> ]This is what Ofcom continually use as an arguement Babeshows exposing under 18s to adult material before the watershed and arguing that there's parental locks does'nt wash with them.
Ofcom are going to use this as validation that what they are doing is just.
This 10yr old has obviously been hearing his mum and gran moaning about this.(Who are probably a couple of junkie toothed hunchbacks)
I'am all for protecting the innocent and niave from harmful material but to use your bairn to exploit a political issue is not on.
Obviously he was on about music videos but we all know that Ofcom lumps it all in the same pot.They are going to keep on pushing for all the babeshows to be encrypted or they have killed off every babeshow.
best of it being the kid probably has their cd"s in his xmas stocking of the artists named,i dont believe this letter was written for minute by the 10 year old ,more like his mother
(03-12-2011 15:06 )shankey! Wrote: [ -> ] (03-12-2011 14:19 )GIBBS LUVS DANI O Wrote: [ -> ]This is what Ofcom continually use as an arguement Babeshows exposing under 18s to adult material before the watershed and arguing that there's parental locks does'nt wash with them.
Ofcom are going to use this as validation that what they are doing is just.
This 10yr old has obviously been hearing his mum and gran moaning about this.(Who are probably a couple of junkie toothed hunchbacks)
I'am all for protecting the innocent and niave from harmful material but to use your bairn to exploit a political issue is not on.
Obviously he was on about music videos but we all know that Ofcom lumps it all in the same pot.They are going to keep on pushing for all the babeshows to be encrypted or they have killed off every babeshow.
best of it being the kid probably has their cd"s in his xmas stocking of the artists named,i dont believe this letter was written for minute by the 10 year old ,more like his mother
if i was the pm she would get a quick swift and stern (pm) response....
just saying simply that......its her responsibility !
----------------------------------------------
[quote='eccles' pid='953785' dateline='1322880854']
Found it
http://www.dailystar.co.uk/posts/view/22...hy-videos/
BOY, 10, BEGS PM: BAN RAUNCHY VIDEOS
[quote]A BOY of 10 has called on the Prime Minister to ban raunchy music videos before the 9pm watershed. ... He said it was wrong that their videos were shown on
free-sat channel 4Music at the same time as children’s TV.[/quote]
Two things spring to mind (slowly - after several days. Look, Im under a lot of pressure. Its never happended before.)
Just how raunchy was the clip?
Was this a subscription channel? (Sky 360)
A quick look at todays Broadcast Bulletin reveals a few themes. About 5 broadcasters have broken the Broadcasting Code, but said sorry and been let off with a Resolved. I suspect that does not go on the record against them. A babe channel can make a minor slip and is threatened with sanctions, sometimes a major broadcaster drives a coach and horse through the rules and is let off with a gentlemans agreement.
Complaints have been made against about 6 babe shows and rejected but a few are still under consideration.
Just read the dailystar link eccles and it's a sad day when kids even start complaining about racy material on the telly, I actually think his parents put him up to this, what a fucking shambles this society has now become for that to make headline news, excuse me if I'm wrong on this but wasn't Cameron on record as saying that if he came to power that Ofcom as we know it would cease to exist and that his Government would treat adults as adults and not as Children, what a contradiction that turned out to be
(06-12-2011 08:06 )Scottishbloke Wrote: [ -> ][..] excuse me if I'm wrong on this but wasn't Cameron on record as saying that if he came to power that Ofcom as we know it would cease to exist and that his Government would treat adults as adults and not as Children, what a contradiction that turned out to be
What? A government promising changes just prior to the election and then disregarding them as soon as they're in?? That's a scandalous accusation!!