(29-04-2012 22:36 )MARCCE Wrote: [ -> ]I'm far from getting het up about it I can assure you.
And yes we know all that, there's 132 pages of this thread saying the same thing over and over again.
Now, now MARCCE. Being all reasonable and sensible is not the form that matters on online forums.
Provocative, and better yet tasteless comments keep the forum bubbling along nicely.
Good and interesting posts today. I still can't believe I've got sucked back into this old discussion.
I need a £1.63 a minute call line to help me get over this need to pontificate.
(29-04-2012 22:17 )Captain Vimes Wrote: [ -> ]There is lots of crap on satellite channels that we disagree with but being an adult I pick and choose what to watch.
I think therein lies the answer, As a nanny state, we aren't deemed responsible enough to think for ourselves, we need protection by our government at all times. We aren't adults with free minds, we need someone to tell us what to watch, how to think and what to buy!
(29-04-2012 22:36 )MARCCE Wrote: [ -> ]My original post was highlighting the fact that expecting the channels themselves to do the challenging is not an option.
You've said this many times and it's something I'll never agree with as it makes no sense at all.
Yes, the bigger picture has to change but to put forward the view that the people who make the product and consequently get fined remorselessly should not have a key responsibility to effect change is ludicrous.
Whether they do or don't challenge things is immaterial - they
should. That's the point.
(29-04-2012 22:36 )MARCCE Wrote: [ -> ]And yes we know all that, there's 132 pages of this thread saying the same thing over and over again.
The point is what exactly can be done to persuade Ofcom, or indeed the politicians, that your argument, my argument and everyone else who has contributed to this thread's argument is entirely reasonable?
My original post was highlighting the fact that expecting the channels themselves to do the challenging is not an option.
Quite right about 132 pages, this section only gets read by people who already agree with the idea, and every now and then we get frustrated and chip in with something new.
If it doesnt cause personal embarrasment we can persaude people on other forums including Facebook and DigitalSpy. Facebook will only work for people who are part of active conversations - joining and olny talking about TV censorship wont attract a following. I dont know if they allow pseudonyms, but the use of one could be justified to allow frank discussion and avoid relationship and work problems.
DigitalSpy has a wider readership than this forum and simply asking why censorship is being imposed will make people think. There are broadcasting professionals among the membership and some will be worried about Ofcoms arbitrary powers. The odd keyword search can turn up interesting discussions.
Unfortunately I missed Countess Dracula, but the irony is that in the 70s sex was added to the films to boost sales and some films were designed as an excuse to show female nudity. The dramatic justification was just a figleaf. (Poor choice of words there).
As for harm and offence, its been said before but the average 15 year old finds nudity just as horny whatever the context and the average Daily Mail reader finds it just as offensive.
I think what piss's us all off most is the unfair rules all across the board of channels, just been watching Lolita 2000 on the horror channel which contained plenty of sex and nudity, if Ofcom were to use the same rule of thumb that kids could be watching to the rest of the channels then they'd be told in no uncertain terms to sling their hook a sort of fuck you it's way past their bed time and fuck you too it's past the watershed too. So irrespective of what classification the babe channels fall under shouldn't this watershed rule apply to all including each and every single Adult channel whether it be FTA or encryted. When is this rule going to be challenged, it doesn't take brain surgeon to figure it out. Infact any half decent lawyer out there could argue this case pretty convincingly in a court of law.
No channel is going to challenge anyone. It would cost a fortune in legal fees and the most likely scenario is that you will lose.
What do you mean they'd lose, if you ask me they should all hire a no win no fee lawyer, what Ofcom have been doing to the babe channels for years now has in effect been breaking the law. Like the high court ruling in 2000 regarding selling hardcore pornography had a successful outcome so would the issue regarding Ofcom are their ridiculas rules regarding the babe channels, I know who I'd put my money on and it wouldn't be Ofcom that's for sure.
(30-04-2012 05:03 )rj242 Wrote: [ -> ]No channel is going to challenge anyone. It would cost a fortune in legal fees and the most likely scenario is that you will lose.
In a "straight fight" Ofcon's child protection (bullshit) claims would be rubbished so bad and laughed out of court.
The only way the channels would lose is if the government put pressure on the judge to find in Ofcon's favour.
Trouble is, I could see the latter scenario happening. I really could.
schoolkids are watching Two Girls, One Cup on their mobiles, but it's the babeshows that are doing the real damage(!)
(30-04-2012 13:22 )blackjaques Wrote: [ -> ] (30-04-2012 05:03 )rj242 Wrote: [ -> ]No channel is going to challenge anyone. It would cost a fortune in legal fees and the most likely scenario is that you will lose.
In a "straight fight" Ofcon's child protection (bullshit) claims would be rubbished so bad and laughed out of court.
The only way the channels would lose is if the government put pressure on the judge to find in Ofcon's favour.
Trouble is, I could see the latter scenario happening. I really could.
Yes so could i , so fuck the UK courts take it to the European court instead , Ofcom would really get shown up if they did , Ofcom allowed film 4 to show a film the other week (mentioned on this forum) were a girl smashes a object into a man's bollocks , then when he is unconscious she proceeds to wank him off in graphic detail with the erect penis being shown , then a close up of her vagina is shown while she cuts her clit off , this is perfectly OK with Ofcom because it's all part of the film plot and is shown after the watershed , whereas on a free to air adult channel clearly in a section marked adult in the EPG if a girl was shown tastefully full frontal in the same manor that eUrotic tv shows their girls this would not be allowed , were is the common sense in this decision ? , it's all supposed about protecting minors isn't it ? , surely if a child came across scenes like the one in the film i mentioned they are more likely to be affected by it than seeing a naked girl tastefully shown on a adult channel , the context stuff is a load of bollocks , young children don't understand this context stuff or part of a plot , the visual impact whether part of a film plot on done on a babe channel is still the same to the child , Just imagine the scenario a European judge is handed a recording of the film i mentioned and told this is perfectly OK to be shown on a non adult part of the EPG by Ofcom , the judge is then handed a recording of eUrotic tv and told this is to explicit for UK tv viewers because it would be shown on a adult channel in a clearly marked adult section of Sky tv were children may come across it , i wonder what opinion they would have of the UK regulator ? . I can't see anyway the channels could lose if taken to the European courts , Ofcom's rules just don't make sense to any impartial person .
PS , i know the channels since 2010 are classed as teleshopping by Ofcom , but they were not allowed to show what can be seen on non adult channel before this date .