(11-03-2013 02:11 )eccles Wrote: [ -> ] (11-03-2013 01:35 )RCTV Wrote: [ -> ]Can't wait for the UK to leave the EU, will be the best day as EU makes things so much worse for the UK. Great crested newts for example aren't endangered in the UK, yet they have to be treated as endangered due to most of the continent they are rare, and for planning in the UK great crested newts can't be reason for not allowing planning. This links trust me, as if you convert that to the babe channels, the UK has more babe channels than most EU countries and the EU are trying to tar the UK with the same brush as the rest of Europe which it shouldn't be.
One size fits all policy makes sense for aeroengines and food processing, both of which have strong international aspects, but not for local matters like planning consent, criminal law or morality.
That's why I used planning to relate it to babe channels because of the links.
Now what I found very interesting today is that David Cameron has disbanded all talk about press regulation in light of the leveson inquiry. The freedom of the press will continue. Personally speaking I am delighted with this announcement.
Yes a lot of journalists out there are indeed scum and will do anything and write anything just to sell a paper and story but like anything in life it's not without it's flaws but press regulation for me was yet another step in the direction of further censorship being implemented within the UK.
Glad to see some common sense prevail. David Cameron simply walked away from any further discussion to the dismay of the Labour and Lib Dems. This to me has provided further evidence that ofcom regulation is really something that I'm sure Cameron would be happy to see an end to also.
Full story on David Cameron and press regulation can be found here.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21785611
Its hard to know what to make of this. Is Cameron taking a moral stance, or is it just grandstanding? I suspect the latter and the closer we get to the next election (or bad byelection results) the more the Tories will make a big fuss about differences between them and Lib Dems.
I really hope he is sincere because the argument in favour of a Royal Commission is that it is harder for the government of the day to tinker with it. Statutory regulation would require mandatory newspaper registration, as in free democracies like Zimbabwe, Russia and Iran. It would also require a legally watertight definition of what a newspaper is. What if a local community group puts out a monthly newsletter, pushing it through letterboxes and leaving copies in public places? Do they have to formally register and sign a document committing them to fines of up to £1m? What about magazines? Or foreign papers like Watchtower, the Catholic Herald, New York Times and Le Monde? [/rant]
I really hope he is sincere because ... it reinforces freedom of speech by reducing the scope for tinkering by busybody politicians of the day and having a truly independent arms length regulator with proper independent appeals procedures.
Firstly in reference to eccles post it does seem a bit strange now that the Lib Dem's chose to form a partnership with the Conservatives to form the coalition government when for a very long time they have tended to side with the Labour Party. I'm sure if Clegg was given a time machine then he would never ever have colaborated with David Cameron.
Secondly and I do know that it's all for charity but then why should it be ok for the BBC to break the rules when it come's to the watershed rules. I'll tell you why I'm saying this. Just after 8PM Rowan Atkinson was doing a sketch for Comic Relief and this is what he said and I quote. "Jesus said love your neighbour, not shag your neighbour" so why is this OK when it's obviously gone past the point of innuendo.
Fact - This type of show will have millions of family's watching throughout the UK and I'm willing to bet that a few awkward questions have already been asked by the children to the parent. "Mummy what exactly did he mean by the word shagging" But hey ho..........If it's on the BBC and it's all for a good cause then it's OK.
The victimisation of the babe channel's will continue whilst the BBC will most likely get away with a light slap on the wrist and a half hearted apology for the timing of the broadcast.
They also said "Shit" at 8:30. But that's OK because it is humour. And a mild swearword according to people on another forum. Its a bit like no rules night, kids stay up late, broadcasters swear and the BBC gives Rymans and British Airways plugs. Not to mention advertising for Comic Relief products. But thats ok because noone is profiting from it.
As for the Lib Dems, I suspect they had a choice between two unpalatable outcomes. Help Labour or the Tories get into government. Either way they could demand their pet policies got approved and try to moderate Labour/Tory excess. Other things being equal (they werent) they could either let Labour carry on doing more of what they had been doing for the last 17 years or go for change.
What we are seeing now is that being in coalition does not mean supporting every big party policy, just the ones in the agreement, including the budget.
Maybe the babe channels tonight should have got in with the spirit of comic relief also tonight. They could have renamed it comic hand relief
It could have been a no ofcom rules for one night only in the name of charity ofcourse
For every call they recieved they could have donated 50% of it to charity. Only snitch being is that they must show us the pussy up close and personal. It would have been an interesting challenge to ofcom.
I mean if the BBC are allowed to break all the rules for one night only. IE - Advertising and product placement which is strictly forbidden hence the reason we pay for a TV licence then why not the babe channels
The White Horse used to have charity nights when the strippers would donate their earnings to charity, so this isnt too far fetched.
During the day they could use red noses instead of nipple pasties.
Late at night they could push them up their jacksies. Convert two into vibrating love noses. Or string half a dozen together and pop them somewhere else. (Round their neck as a necklace. What did you think I meant?)
There could be sponsored readings of 50 Shades of Grey. (Ring in to get them to stop).
Zoe Ball could do a turn.
Seriously though, it is a positive sign that all the supermarkets are stocking mummy porn. Most wont even stock the Sport.
Ofcom's latest broadcast bulletin came out today, issue number 226 and dated 18/03/13 .
Iv'e just been having a look through it and i can't see any babe channel mentioned in it whatsoever, no babe channels have been found in breach, no new investigations are being launched, in fact unless i have missed one not one single complaint has been made about the babe channels at all, there isn't even any babe channels mentioned in the complains made that Ofcom assessed but didn't think were worth investigating , there was various complaints made against regular programs such has EastEnders, Coronation Street, Top gear, The Alan Titmarsh Show etc , but non against the babe shows .
So unless iv'e missed a complaint it looks like the channels may have finally given up grassing each other up ? .
(18-03-2013 18:51 )mr mystery Wrote: [ -> ]Ofcom's latest broadcast bulletin came out today, issue number 226 and dated 18/03/13 .
Iv'e just been having a look through it and i can't see any babe channel mentioned in it whatsoever, no babe channels have been found in breach, no new investigations are being launched, in fact unless i have missed one not one single complaint has been made about the babe channels at all, there isn't even any babe channels mentioned in the complains made that Ofcom assessed but didn't think were worth investigating , there was various complaints made against regular programs such has EastEnders, Coronation Street, Top gear, The Alan Titmarsh Show etc , but non against the babe shows .
So unless iv'e missed a complaint it looks like the channels may have finally given up grassing each other up ? .
Either that or the babeshows are now so watered down and overegulated they dont present the same threat to children or so-called generally accepted standards.
Much as I would love to believe Ofcom have had a change of heart, they focus on themes when they can, saving up cases with a similar theme. That allows them to look consistent and sends a message to a sector, but does mean an apparent lack of action in the run up.
dont forget it is only 2 weeks since Ofcom said they would be monitoring channels, and it can take 4 to 6 months to investigate, reach a decision and publish.