Look we all no things, and I've said this before Ofcom are not going to be around for ever. We all no that they've F**KED up everything, however we must all live and hope in the knowledge that they'll come a time when either a different regulator, or a change at the top will happen, and in doing so we hope a more tolerant view will be reached.
I'm just thankful that we have the amount of channels we have left, albeit not the same amount we had back in 2006 and 2010, however hope springs eternal
(12-05-2012 16:19 )continental19 Wrote: [ -> ]Look we all no things, and I've said this before Ofcom are not going to be around for ever. We all no that they've F**KED up everything, however we must all live and hope in the knowledge that they'll come a time when either a different regulator, or a change at the top will happen, and in doing so we hope a more tolerant view will be reached.
I'm just thankful that we have the amount of channels we have left, albeit not the same amount we had back in 2006 and 2010, however hope springs eternal
How do you know Ofcom will not be around forever, doesn't it depend on whoever is in government if they want or don't want to keep the people currently running Ofcom?
(12-05-2012 16:35 )dan g 27 Wrote: [ -> ]How do you know Ofcom will not be around forever, doesn't it depend on whoever is in government if they want or don't want to keep the people currently running Ofcom?
Point taken Dan, I guess I'm just trying to be optimistic mate, you can't blame me for trying
(12-05-2012 16:58 )continental19 Wrote: [ -> ]Point taken Dan, I guess I'm just trying to be optimistic mate, you can't blame me for trying
I don't blame ya for being optimistic thats all you can do is hope for the best and hope one day that out of the blue Ofcom are dismantled or a least someone in charge of Ofcom that is less strict. But it has to be the right people in charge of government that can make this happen, maybe the UKIP
(12-05-2012 17:46 )dan g 27 Wrote: [ -> ]I don't blame ya for being optimistic thats all you can do is hope for the best and hope one day that out of the blue Ofcom are dismantled or a least someone in charge of Ofcom that is less strict. But it has to be the right people in charge of government that can make this happen, maybe the UKIP
You've hit the nail on the head Dan, it needs to be the right people, it's no good if you get a different set of people with the same mind set as this current bunch.
Labour encouraged a blame someone else culture rather than taking responsibility for yourself and they encouraged parents to complain to Ofcom who fined the channels, rather then encouraging parents to take action to ensure that their kids did not have access to inappropriate material. The tools to do so on Sky, freeview, mobile phones and the internet are already there, what is needed is more on educating parents, insuring salesperson selling these devices are taught to show buyers how to use adult controls on these devices.
We should not be letting parents/guardians shirk their responsibilities and put the onus on regulators and broadcasters to do their job because they are too lazy to do it themselves.
(11-05-2012 19:28 )blackjaques Wrote: [ -> ] (11-05-2012 18:29 )continental19 Wrote: [ -> ]We all no Ofcom have been in power since 2003 courtesy of F**kin labour, which means they've been in power for 9yrs. My question is does anyone no how many yrs ofcom have left being in power?
We no that the ITC lost out to labour, hence Ofcom was founded, but I was curios to no if Ofcom have a time limit in power?
Why blame Labour? They are not in power now.
The Tories are just as bad.
(12-05-2012 16:05 )mr mystery Wrote: [ -> ]I think eccles was only being sarcastic when he mentioned the religion stuff , he just gave a example of how censorship in this country could go and the comment was made tongue in cheek and wasn't meant to be taken so seriously .
Well I threw in speculation about increasing censorship and tried to avoid the obvious - covering up cleavage, bums and legs. To avoid offence I even tried to avoid association with any particular religion. And still I offended someone!
Seriously I doubt there is a
clear religious agenda, though about half the objections in previous consultations have come from a few organised Church groups.
However there may well be an unspoken religious attitude among complainers, regulators and legislators.
Many MPs make a show of attending Church and pander to selection committees who would make Anne Widdicombe seem radical. Many objections to adult content come from people who regard sex as inherently sinful, or who regard sex as a "sacremement" to be "celebrated" in private, preferably in the dark.
Most of the restrictions date from Labour. They were led by someone who had a religious conversion. Tony was followed by someone with a religious background and little obvious sex drive* - Gordon's religion might have been subconcious but he did refer to his "moral compass" and "inspiration" from his parents. (* MP at 32. Married at 49).
The immediate "presenting" issue is how the channels are being treated and how rules are implemented in contravention of enabling legislation and background research, but there is a religious element behind that. Ignoring one of several causes wont make it go away.
No idea where the idea that the babes would attend court and present evidence came from.
After years of gradual relaxation there was a step change when a new Ofcom stepped in and banned Babestar. At regular intervals since they reappear and assert their authority. Inbetween people relax and are fooled into thinking the problem has gone away. It hasnt and it wont until there is a radical rethink. That might be abolition, a court case or a slap down from MPs.
regarding the religious side of things ,do ofcom keep an eye on what they are practising and preaching on all their channels ? i can just imagine camerons face if they were to go cap in hand asking for interpreters to monitor the stuff they yabble on about ,after practically cutting the right arm of the nhs and police forces,
(13-05-2012 00:01 )eccles Wrote: [ -> ] (12-05-2012 16:05 )mr mystery Wrote: [ -> ]I think eccles was only being sarcastic when he mentioned the religion stuff , he just gave a example of how censorship in this country could go and the comment was made tongue in cheek and wasn't meant to be taken so seriously .
Well I threw in speculation about increasing censorship and tried to avoid the obvious - covering up cleavage, bums and legs. To avoid offence I even tried to avoid association with any particular religion. And still I offended someone!
Seriously I doubt there is a clear religious agenda, though about half the objections in previous consultations have come from a few organised Church groups.
However there may well be an unspoken religious attitude among complainers, regulators and legislators.
Many MPs make a show of attending Church and pander to selection committees who would make Anne Widdicombe seem radical. Many objections to adult content come from people who regard sex as inherently sinful, or who regard sex as a "sacremement" to be "celebrated" in private, preferably in the dark.
Most of the restrictions date from Labour. They were led by someone who had a religious conversion. Tony was followed by someone with a religious background and little obvious sex drive* - Gordon's religion might have been subconcious but he did refer to his "moral compass" and "inspiration" from his parents. (* MP at 32. Married at 49).
The immediate "presenting" issue is how the channels are being treated and how rules are implemented in contravention of enabling legislation and background research, but there is a religious element behind that. Ignoring one of several causes wont make it go away.
No idea where the idea that the babes would attend court and present evidence came from.
After years of gradual relaxation there was a step change when a new Ofcom stepped in and banned Babestar. At regular intervals since they reappear and assert their authority. Inbetween people relax and are fooled into thinking the problem has gone away. It hasnt and it wont until there is a radical rethink. That might be abolition, a court case or a slap down from MPs.
It still only one thing ofcom bans is fanny lips,,violence or operations or blood or swearing is all allowed except the FANNYLIP..It is what a women was born with yet they deen it unfit for viewing yet we see all the penis aand testicles with the mans legs apart..What is so special about a fanny lip thats cause offence because it part of the womens anatomy why do they ban it..
There is no reason,ofcom are sexist cunts and made up a stupid rule that dates back years where they said labia majora in,labia minora out ..As i have said if ed sexist richards was in front of me i would twat him and ask him why he is sexist cunt,then twat him again and so on..Unless he is a bum boy like them lot at channel 5...Big Bro is back on soon so my complaints head is in gear for total rant at them till they report me.
They have to have a valid reason why they show all male genatalia in shot but ban female genatalia..Sexist wanking fuckwits.
Now I've been away from the forum now for a couple of days due to the stress's of work which brings about it's own politics which I won't go into, let's just say I'm relived I'm off now until Thursday.
Now into the Ofcom and censorship arguments I've just read an interesting article into the attitudes on nudity from the German side of things and this really hit the nail on the head, we've been blaming the government for this nanny state and highly regulated state for some time now, although their is no denying that they are certainly doing their best to take away any late night erotic fun that could be seen.
The big issue could really be simply within our own society, we the British have allways been prudish unlike our European cousins. I'll give you an example here, I was standing having a piss in a male toliet in the Neitherlands and in walked some females, I was highly embarrassed and said to them do you speak english, and they said yes and I said in my country it is not commonplace for females to walk into a male toliet, I was mortified that my privacy had been invaded, I'm just one example of the British mold of thinking. I'm not for one minute saying that this should happen in this country but what I am saying is that if we had a more liberal attitude on nudity in this country then it would have a snow ball effect and people like Ofcom wouldn't be making such a fuss about the babe channels that they do at present.
The old saying the stiff upper lip couldn't be any truer than it is at present, the ironic thing is when I went into a strip club in Prague a few years ago the majority of the punters were like myself British, so we clearly have an appetite for it, just don't let anybody else realise that fact and that's allways been our attitude.
I've also allways maintained that if Ofcom are here to stay then in the future they could be less strict on the late night channels as no doubt the present committee will change and at some point they are bound to get some more liberal minded individuals who'll hopefully relax the rules more in the forthcoming years and I bet you that's exactly what the babe channels are holding out for rather than taking the present Ofcom members on, take them on and they might very well get the backing of the government and it could spell the end for the babe channels who I get the feeling are perhaps just not willing to risk such a scenario at present.
This is the article I found on the bbc website
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-18021714