(20-08-2012 01:54 )Scottishbloke Wrote: [ -> ]If only the channel boss's would stand up to the fuckers and started listening to what the punters wanted for once.
Any Ofcom fine will cost them much, much more than any lost revenue from someone annoyed with the logo popping up.
Yes but the thing is they weren't doing anything that was going to get them an ofcom fine in the first place, fuck me I didn't know that mild titillation was such a crime, I was wrong
One can only dream what type of show we would have got if only the models were allowed off the leash
(20-08-2012 01:54 )Scottishbloke Wrote: [ -> ]If only the channel boss's would stand up to the fuckers and started listening to what the punters wanted for once.
They are running a business and are not stupid enough to antagonize the regulators. When they tell you to "jump" the only correct response is "how high?"
Had a think and I've got a theory, when channels are found in breach, they kinda have to assure that it wont happen again and they're putting certain measures in to stop it happen again, maybe the logo trick is away of saying to ofcom 'look here's what we do when something happens' so they pop it up every now n again and keep a record for ofcom to view, sounds stupid but could work
(20-08-2012 01:54 )Scottishbloke Wrote: [ -> ]If only the channel boss's would stand up to the fuckers and started listening to what the punters wanted for once.
Do you really expect them to ignore the regulations and potentially receive a massive fine or have their licence revoked just to make a stand against Ofcom?
The only punters the channels care about are the ones who tune in and call, they couldn't care less about the show aspect as long as they're getting plenty of callers.
(20-08-2012 01:54 )Scottishbloke Wrote: [ -> ]I allready have aimed my anger at ofcom Rammy but ultimately the babe channel boss's should be taking a stand. This channel is intended to be viewed by adults and it's nothing short of a bloody insult to see this patronising show going on.
If only the channel boss's would stand up to the fuckers and started listening to what the punters wanted for once. I'll never call another babe channel again until I see positive moves being made about it and seeing the studio66 logo appear so many times is a bloody insult to make their intentions so blatantly obvious and especially to somebody that is being charged £1.53 a minute for the privilege of it.
Studio66 have proved tonight that censorship and this channel clearly doesn't work as it's getting nobody nowhere with this farce that's going on.
wrong target again scottishbloke its ofcom that are making the shows what they are and not the studio66 bosses and as has been said they dont want to get a massive fine or even get their licence revoked. id rather a channel stick to the rules and stay on the air rather than do what you want them to do which is screw the rules and therefore get a fine and eventually their licences revoked
they put the logo up when they think there will be a risk of breaking the rules which is why you didnt see anything
thought studio 66 had another good night last night and was the channel of the weekend
(20-08-2012 05:11 )-PJ- Wrote: [ -> ] (20-08-2012 01:54 )Scottishbloke Wrote: [ -> ]If only the channel boss's would stand up to the fuckers and started listening to what the punters wanted for once.
Do you really expect them to ignore the regulations and potentially receive a massive fine or have their licence revoked just to make a stand against Ofcom?
The only punters the channels care about are the ones who tune in and call, they couldn't care less about the show aspect as long as they're getting plenty of callers.
i think what scottishbloke is trying to get at is the channels, maybe together, should challenge the legality of ofcoms restrictions. surely less restriction would be in all their financial interests.
its daylight robbery what the channels are charging and what the viewing punter is getting, simple as that , i actually think the channels hide behind ofcom and use them as an excuse and will carry on doing so as long as some people still ring in to watch daytime shows on an evening , the likes of storm seem to be able to let their girls perform without interference without breaking any rules , the rest take the piss
The cost of any challenge is more than most channels could afford (even if they banded together - and do you think they will agree to split the costs equally?). Even if Ofcom lost they could tie the whole process up in appeals for years while the outcry from Daily Mail readers, Mumsnet etc would ensure that the government would simply tighten the legislation as 'saving children from porn' is an easy vote winner. The channels are content to fly under the radar and will continue to do so as long as they remain profitable.
(20-08-2012 10:22 )rj242 Wrote: [ -> ]The cost of any challenge is more than most channels could afford (even if they banded together - and do you think they will agree to split the costs equally?). Even if Ofcom lost they could tie the whole process up in appeals for years while the outcry from Daily Mail readers, Mumsnet etc would ensure that the government would simply tighten the legislation as 'saving children from porn' is an easy vote winner. The channels are content to fly under the radar and will continue to do so as long as they remain profitable.
i wouldnt have thought any of them would consider it, but maybe a mediation meeting with ofcom and reps from the channels could be a step forward , at the very least they would be able to find out exactly what the rules are and maybe challenge them across a meeting table , reasonable discussion never did any harm