I already have and heard fuck all since an acknowledgment letter around May - June time but in fairness alot has gone of since then. I personally think now, that the babechannels would of long since vanished by the time Ofcom have. The future is looking very bleak.
(09-12-2011 03:13 )eccles Wrote: [ -> ] (09-12-2011 00:36 )continental19 Wrote: [ -> ]Well this might be a futile act but I've decided to right to the Prime Minister and let him no my thoughts on Ofcom and with the needless regulation costing his government millions of £'s etc etc.
And if a 9yr old can write to the PM and get him to act then I think I'll give it ago, I'm a guy who is determined to save our beloved babe channels, i can't just to let them slowly slip away. Look I'm 38 yrs old i pay my taxes, and if I want to see beautiful naked woman on TV well I say F**K Ofcom and I'm going to give it a go and write a dam good letter to him.
Let's face it I've got nothing to lose.
We all should. I keep telling myself I will, havent got round to it yet. The outline of my message, short and polite, will be that in a civilised society broadcasting policy for the entire nation should not be revolve around one 10 year old who has the initiative to write to the top. Also adults are entitled to adult friendly entertainment during the day, provided it is not actually harmful to children. The concept that before 9pm everything on every channel should be suitable for all children is absurd. If applied even handedly many popular programs would be banned. Many relationship type shows discuss divorce, marital violence, casual sex and casual drinking. Divorce is a vary scary subject for children, particularly those who are going though or have been through it (affects Trisha, Jeremy Kyle, Loose Women and more). The supernatural scares some (Ghost Hunters International). Special Rescure Ops deals with mild peril. No, severe peril actually. Two And A Half Men is broadcast on Comedy Central from 11am but revolves around causual sex, heavy drinking, smoking, gambling and drug use. The X Files (Sky Atlantic 11am) can be scary. These are just a few examples that are not suitable for all children. Even QI, Top Gear and Have I Got News for You contain sexual references. Many adults work antisocial hours and cannot watch evening television. Many adults live in child free homes because their children have grown up, they have not had any yet, are infertile, or are gay. These people make a valuable contribution to the economy and society in general and are entitled to varied stimulating and entertaining television throughout the day. By all means keep the main 5 channels child safe, but please dont insisist that every channel, however specialised, is suitable for 10 year olds during the day.
me too i mentioned this in a recent post,300 and odd letters on his desk should at least raise an eye brow on the situation
I think the kids they are worried about don't really include the po faced offences of a 10 year old moraliser, but more likely the ones who develop sexual addictions to pornographic material at a formative time. Sure they can get it on internet but I guess Ofcom can only regulate what they are in control of.
As for all the mildly upsetting material out there, the difference between most of them and the babechannels are that if you get focus groups to comment on whether we should restrict access to them (Top Gear, Jeremy Kyle etc) they wouldnt want to. Or at least 40-60 not 90-10.
I'm sorry I must have a mild form of argumentative tourettes. I can't help jumping in to make points, even agaisnt the outcome I desire.
(09-12-2011 14:05 )Roquentin Wrote: [ -> ]I think the kids they are worried about don't really include the po faced offences of a 10 year old moraliser, but more likely the ones who develop sexual addictions to pornographic material at a formative time. Sure they can get it on internet but I guess Ofcom can only regulate what they are in control of.
As for all the mildly upsetting material out there, the difference between most of them and the babechannels are that if you get focus groups to comment on whether we should restrict access to them (Top Gear, Jeremy Kyle etc) they wouldnt want to. Or at least 40-60 not 90-10.
I'm sorry I must have a mild form of argumentative tourettes. I can't help jumping in to make points, even agaisnt the outcome I desire.
the soaps are as bad,7.10 pm last night had cain dingle calling a woman a s
lut,now i know they dont teach kids as young as 13 words like that at school so how do ofcom view language like that being used at that time of night?has anyone tried explaining what that means to a kid without getting into the birds and bees amongst fits of giggles from them!
I know there's only a handful of us here that bother with the Asian Babes thread, but I just thought I'd share this recent post from there:
(09-12-2011 09:39 )jbrum77634 Wrote: [ -> ]Show is hit and miss this week...called Candy a few days ago to be told that she wasnt even allowed to stand up...then she instigated a conversation about my job....FFS....that would be a boring chat in fluent English....ah well........
Yes, you read that right, 'wasn't even allowed to stand up'. As I've said in the thread itself, though, I don't believe even Ofcom have ordered this.
(09-12-2011 15:04 )shankey! Wrote: [ -> ]the soaps are as bad,7.10 pm last night had cain dingle calling a woman a cheerleader,
Just realised you probably didnt actually type "cheerleader" but something ruder. Help me out here because no two sylable swearwords beginning with C spring to mind.
Roquentin Wrote:As for all the mildly upsetting material out there, the difference between most of them and the babechannels are that if you get focus groups to comment on whether we should restrict access to them (Top Gear, Jeremy Kyle etc) they wouldnt want to. Or at least 40-60 not 90-10.
Ah, but the point wasnt about offense. It was about harm to children. Focus groups have fuck all to do with it when talking about harm, its over to the psychologists.
So to be analytical about all of this we have Ofcom claiming that these channels cause widespread harm and offence, on the subject of
harm, well they are right as they cause quite a lot of mental torture in not allowing us to see the good bits which is harmful enough when you take into account the sheer frustration that we all must endure night after night and on
offence, yes I am also very offended that I and others are being deprived of our basic human right to see adult entertainment watered down to such an extent, so do the babe channels cause widespread harm and offence, it all depends of what side of the coin you look at it from
Thanks Skateguy for clarifying the cheerleader. So cheerleader=s.lut. Seems fairynuf.
For what its worth Ofcom says
"Words referring to women’s sexual mores such as ‘slut’, ‘whore’, and ‘prickteaser’ were considered highly offensive to women, particularly when used by men."
Context matters. Words are at the lower end of the offence scale when "used by and within peer group, even words such as ‘nigger’, ‘paki’, ‘slut’, ‘bitch’"
They go on to say "Most women find this moderately to strongly offensive - like all words referring to sexual behaviour"
Assuming that Seth Dingle is not a woman, so the word is not used within a peer group, the word s1ut is moderately/strongly/highly offensive to women depending on exactly how it was used. Certainly not suitable for broadcast on teatime TV on a family show according to Ofcoms own logic.
But they play favourites.
I genuinely sense Ofcom's days are numbered - at the very least in terms of the power they've given themselves. I have nothing to back this up, other than my own perception of things, but a couple of things have led me to this.
Firstly, I think Ofcom are slowly hanging themselves, due to their much higher profile. It wasn't that long ago that the name Ofcom meant very little to your average Joe - with most people having no idea who they are or what they do, but now I think the regulator is seen by most as nannying busy-bodies and censors - the latter of which is not a position they've ever legally held. They are, in my opinion, fast becoming the modern day Mary Whitehouse in most people eyes, and I think demand very little respect from most.
Secondly, I think their ridiculous and out-dated views are something the general media have seen enough of. I don't know how many of you saw the excellent Charlie Brooker drama Black Mirror, but there were a couple of lines in that which back up my view. The first installment told of a high profile kidnapping - the demand being that the PM shag a pig on live afternoon television to ensure the safe return of the captive. During a scene where one of the television networks are discussing how best to handle the situation, one of them says, "This is ridiculous. We cannot broadcast bestiality on live afternoon television. Ofcom will go berserk!" To which the chief exec barks, "Fuck Ofcom!!"
Now granted, this was nothing more than a line in a fictional drama that probably went over most people's head, but I firmly believe Charlie Brooker saw this as an opportunity to highlight the general consensus and overall attitude to the regulators.
I hope you're right Stan, you have raised a very valid point though, i do believe the mainstream television industry has had bloody gut full of having to double check with Ofcom to make sure everything is all above board, i have a funny feeling that it might well be the mainstream TV industry might kick Ofcom where it hurts, and hopefully there pressure will force Ofcom to finally crumble ah HAPPY DAYS
