(27-02-2013 23:03 )eccles Wrote: [ -> ]Because they have to.
It is the reason sex shops got licences in the 1980s despite the Thatcher Government being completely against them. Even then legal advice was that a blanket ban on sex shops would be wide open to challenge under the European Convention on Human Rights. Paradoxically sex shop licencing was introduced so the number of sex shops in an area could be kept low, high licencing fees and restrictive rules. A blanket ban would be against the free speech provisions, tight control would not be.
Another analogy is that of strip club licensing. Local authorities have to 'consider' applications but many use 'high licensing fees and restrictive rules' to deter those applications and make them fail. They pay lip service. AKA Bullshit.
My guess is that all these restrictions are based and interpreted upon the whims of a few narrow-minded cunts in 'offices of power'. Welcome to OFCON the state censor. A few in power don't like babe TV so we all have to suffer BIG TIME.
These junket loving fuckers can massage and manipulate data/statistics until the cows come home to argue their case... The 'Liberal' Party supported Government have done nothing (zip) to further freedoms in our land. I was so duped by Clegg on a host of matters... (I and millions of others won't be again come election day).
Thanks
Shylok
(28-02-2013 09:19 )shylok Wrote: [ -> ]Another analogy is that of strip club licensing. Local authorities have to 'consider' applications but many use 'high licensing fees and restrictive rules' to deter those applications and make them fail. They pay lip service. AKA Bullshit.
If a council did that it would be illegal. An appeal could be made to a court to review the council's behaviour.
(28-02-2013 15:00 )elgar1uk Wrote: [ -> ] (28-02-2013 09:19 )shylok Wrote: [ -> ]Another analogy is that of strip club licensing. Local authorities have to 'consider' applications but many use 'high licensing fees and restrictive rules' to deter those applications and make them fail. They pay lip service. AKA Bullshit.
If a council did that it would be illegal. An appeal could be made to a court to review the council's behavior.
Just bending the rules to suit IMHO. They do it in other walks of life too e.g. planning applications. Agreed, if they get challenged they can come a cropper in the courts... SO COULD OFCON!
The problem is that OFCON rarely - if ever - does get challenged in the courts on matters of 'taste and decency' that's why were all here whining about it 24/7...
At least us lot try to do what we can to 'further the cause' of less restrictive policies unlike the fucking lazy arsed babe channels themselves...
Ultimately its all about money $$$. If their making enough of it, fuck the punters, 'just keep your minutes up girls'...
The real problem is a 'dictatorial regulator' combined with a 'don't give a fuck babe channel' equals a downward spiral to increasing programme mediocrity. AKA the shite we have now.
Thanks
Shylok
A lot of the time, it'd be more expensive to go to court, than pay the fine, for the smaller fines anyway.
I do think there needs to be an independent complaints procedure, which there currently isn't.
(28-02-2013 19:34 )RCTV Wrote: [ -> ]A lot of the time, it'd be more expensive to go to court, than pay the fine, for the smaller fines anyway.
I do think there needs to be an independent complaints procedure, which there currently isn't.
Hi RCTV, i've been reading your posts that you've been posting, and it does make for interesting reading to say the least. As you and i no Ofcom in my opinion have medelled unnecessarily over the yrs and my question is for what? the needless fines imposed on bangbabes was utterly pointless, and as the yrs have gone on Ofcom have tightened the noose round the rest of the current babe channels!
Ofcom claims that a female Vagina may cause harm and offense to some viewers?, however a mans penis is A OK according to Ofcom!! you talk about double standards. You said in one of your recent posts that if Ofcom wanted to revoke all the babe channel licences they could, well i guess we should be grateful for small mercies
I mean lets face it RCTV the current material is so tame these days it's gone beyond the joke! there's no 241's anymore the handthong seems to have been long gone except for babestation ( Dutch License ) and to top it all off Ofcom have classed the babe channels under the shopping channel license, oh come on do me a favour
At the end of the day what the heck is the point of a 9pm watershed when ofcom says that a woman can't show there boobs from 10pm then go naked after 11pm, you talk about laugh a minute, ofcom might as well be running a sitcom
Oh here's a good one Ofcom don't class the 4 digit PIN code as suffient security, what a load of bullshit that is, it's down to the parents to be responsible for there children not ofcom! The PIN code is ample security to block the Adult channels and ofcom no this! they in my opinon are making the rules and regs as they go along.
To conclude i could go on and on however i think i've made my point to you, one last point i would like to make, and i don't no if you no the answer to this, but what future do the current babe channels have under the current oppressive rules? will ofcom relax there current laws, or will it remain much of the same, with the same tame crap we've been subjected to for the last 3 yrs or more?
Many thanks
(28-02-2013 15:00 )elgar1uk Wrote: [ -> ] (28-02-2013 09:19 )shylok Wrote: [ -> ]Another analogy is that of strip club licensing. Local authorities have to 'consider' applications but many use 'high licensing fees and restrictive rules' to deter those applications and make them fail. They pay lip service. AKA Bullshit.
If a council did that it would be illegal. An appeal could be made to a court to review the council's behaviour.
Councils have been doing it for years. There have been recent court cases but only because of an EU law change in 2009.
Until 2009 when the EU made it law that fees could not exceed the administrative cost, it was perfectly legal for councils to charge high fees. They could argue that fees were set at a level that distinguished between serious operators and businesses that just wanted to hoard licences or use them for a small part of their business. Councils were - are - also allowed to limit the number of licences issued to a number appropriate to the area. This used to be based on the number of residents. Soho has a high number of people passing through the area but the same population as East Anglia, which resulted in a drastic reduction in sex shops.
Current fees for a new sex shop licence in
Westminster are £18,072 and £7,027 for an annual renewal.
These are current fees. There is an interesting
article about sex shop owners suing Westminster council over high fees. Fees were set at £29,102 back in 2005 (
Appeal)
(28-02-2013 22:00 )continental19 Wrote: [ -> ] (28-02-2013 19:34 )RCTV Wrote: [ -> ]A lot of the time, it'd be more expensive to go to court, than pay the fine, for the smaller fines anyway.
I do think there needs to be an independent complaints procedure, which there currently isn't.
Hi RCTV, i've been reading your posts that you've been posting, and it does make for interesting reading to say the least. As you and i no Ofcom in my opinion have medelled unnecessarily over the yrs and my question is for what? the needless fines imposed on bangbabes was utterly pointless, and as the yrs have gone on Ofcom have tightened the noose round the rest of the current babe channels!
Ofcom claims that a female Vagina may cause harm and offense to some viewers?, however a mans penis is A OK according to Ofcom!! you talk about double standards. You said in one of your recent posts that if Ofcom wanted to revoke all the babe channel licences they could, well i guess we should be grateful for small mercies
I mean lets face it RCTV the current material is so tame these days it's gone beyond the joke! there's no 241's anymore the handthong seems to have been long gone except for babestation ( Dutch License ) and to top it all off Ofcom have classed the babe channels under the shopping channel license, oh come on do me a favour
At the end of the day what the heck is the point of a 9pm watershed when ofcom says that a woman can't show there boobs from 10pm then go naked after 11pm, you talk about laugh a minute, ofcom might as well be running a sitcom
Oh here's a good one Ofcom don't class the 4 digit PIN code as suffient security, what a load of bullshit that is, it's down to the parents to be responsible for there children not ofcom! The PIN code is ample security to block the Adult channels and ofcom no this! they in my opinon are making the rules and regs as they go along.
To conclude i could go on and on however i think i've made my point to you, one last point i would like to make, and i don't no if you no the answer to this, but what future do the current babe channels have under the current oppressive rules? will ofcom relax there current laws, or will it remain much of the same, with the same tame crap we've been subjected to for the last 3 yrs or more?
Many thanks
Ofcom don't seem to be aware that there is an invention called parental controls on Sky digiboxes, thus stopping the little darlings and baybees from accidentally tuning into a babe channel in the middle of the night....more likely of course that Ofcom is an organisation filled with repressed retards who probably faint at the sight of a bare ankle!
Spare us! I am sick to the back teeth of having decisions on what I can and can't watch made for me by some tinpot, little Hitler Nannying bunch of puritanical halfwits who have their collective heads so far up their arses they couldn't find the nearest light switch even with the aid of a guide dog.
Oh come on folks. Ofcom are just looking after us. I mean us grown up's have all got to be civilised functioning members of society and we really ought to be listening to Radio 3 more to put us in the mood to get a full night's sleep. I mean chugging away all night to this despicable smut that we pass off as entertainment is just well.......just disgraceful
We should all be broadening our great minds with the likes of bach and mozart in order to discuss the merit's of their fine music and thus giving us a more educated understanding of the world. While we're at it why not thrown in a bit of late night polka music in which to whine away the wee hours of the morning.
Women should be covered up at all times. I say ban the whole bloody lot. Get this filth off of our telly now. The campaign starts here folks
PS - Don't forget to watch Songs Of Praise this Sunday in order to purify our minds even further, maybe with a little bit of Antiques Road Show thrown in for good measure. All good clean fun
(28-02-2013 22:53 )Carl43a Wrote: [ -> ]Ofcom don't seem to be aware that there is an invention called parental controls on Sky digiboxes, thus stopping the little darlings and baybees from accidentally tuning into a babe channel in the middle of the night....more likely of course that Ofcom is an organisation filled with repressed retards who probably faint at the sight of a bare ankle!
Spare us! I am sick to the back teeth of having decisions on what I can and can't watch made for me by some tinpot, little Hitler Nannying bunch of puritanical halfwits who have their collective heads so far up their arses they couldn't find the nearest light switch even with the aid of a guide dog.
How many parents are aware of these controls? Also is there parental controls on freeview? I don't have freeview on so don't actually know.
Thought I might take a wider view of the Ofcom problem today!
Ofcom's basic premise is the Precautionary Principle, which is to say that because there is a chance some children might know the sky pin number, and some of those might use it to watch adult channels, and some of those might be harmed by it, then that is enough to ban the whole thing. Just because the numbers involved would be tiny doesnt matter - the possibilty of SOME harm is enough to ban ALL R18 material.
However (and it's a fairly big however) this Precautionary Principle is NOT applied in other areas of society. For example, some children drink their parents alcohol, and some of those are DEFINITELY harmed by it, but we do not ban alcohol sales. Some children drive their parents' cars, and some children are harmed by that, but we do not ban cars. Some children succeed in buying cigarettes / alcohol in shops, but we do not require every purchaser to show ID. And there are many other examples as well.
So, why the difference? Simply put it is because a large enough section of society are uncomfortable with or offended by R18 strength porn. Tell people they cant have alcohol or tobacco or cars because of the Precautionary Principle and there would be riots - tell them they can't have porn on the telly and they will shrug and turn to the internet or DVDs.
There is also a matter of COMPARATIVE risk which does not appear to have been considered. Is the risk of a child knowing the sky or credit card pin and using it to access TV porn greater or less than the risk of a child discovering the stash of DVDs and watching them, or finding porn on the internet? Obviously the TV risk is far smaller, and yet it is the only one with excessive control measures in place.
It's a bit like telling someone they can't have a glass of water because you fear they might drown . . . and then offering them a bath!
So, to sum up, unless there is a change in society (very unlikely) or a court challenge on the grounds that R18 (and stronger) material is MUCH more easily accessible online or on DVD than would ever be the case on TV, then there is very little chance of the rules changing.
As always, those in power pick the game, pick the playing field, choose the teams and won't even tell you the rules!