(30-01-2011 00:37 )Gold Plated Pension Wrote: [ -> ]Article 10: Right to freedom of expression
Article 10 protects your right to freedom of expression. This includes the right to hold and express opinions yourself as well as to receive and impart information and ideas to others.
As long as what is being expressed does not harm others. Ofcom will decide for you what is permitted.
(29-01-2011 13:36 )Tonywauk Wrote: [ -> ]Let's face it Ofcom are not going to ease up on the Babe shows at all while they are FTA - and I can't in all honesty say that I disagree with their stance.
Could you elaborate on that, Tony, and explain exactly
why you think Ofcom have got it right?
(30-01-2011 14:55 )StanTheMan Wrote: [ -> ] (29-01-2011 13:36 )Tonywauk Wrote: [ -> ]Let's face it Ofcom are not going to ease up on the Babe shows at all while they are FTA - and I can't in all honesty say that I disagree with their stance.
Could you elaborate on that, Tony, and explain exactly why you think Ofcom have got it right?
I just think it better that any overtly sexual material should, within sensible limits, have the restrictions lifted from it and put on encrypted channels where those who want them can watch them and without the possibility of them causing offence to anyone chancing on them or young children accessing them. Those who want them would then be given a better show rather than the restricted material currently available and those who do not want to view such material would have no chance of seeing it by accident.
Of course within a short while, with television soon to offer internet access the whole debate will become irrelevant. Just my thoughts.
TW
I am at a loss as to why so many people on this forum should choose to agree with the punishment meted out in recent weeks to channels that break laws set down by the watchdog. I am also at a loss when the very same people say that as far as they are concerned they are not in the least bit bothered by being deprived of seeing what to others is what these shows are all about, that being "tits and pussy". They say looking at pretty girls is all they want. These people surely don't then need to watch adult T V. Maybe they would be better tuning into Songs of Praise, where many an attractive girl can be seen singing in the choir. But if it's conversation they want, why not just phone a regular sex line instead. And if they do it while watching Songs of Praise just look at the money they would save.
I would also like to comment on how staid the channels have become since the crackdown started. With the exception of maybe one or two girls, the rest are being prevented from showing any sort of expression that you would expect from a programme of the nature of these, taking direction by someone in the studio seems now to be the way. That, or being obscured by some enormous on screen graphics.
And finally. Why is it now deemed a must that during the day the girls must be ultra cautious and dress in a way that is totally illogical for the job they do. And please don't insult my intelligence by telling me that's it's protecting the children. Should these children not be at school during the day? Given some reason they are not at school, should they not be accompanied by an adult? For me leaving a child home alone is a much graver crime than an attractive young lady showing her lady bits. And for the young teenage child, I wouldn't be bothering to much about them. Because they'll be having an Hilary Swank courtesy of the porn tubes.
(30-01-2011 15:39 )Tonywauk Wrote: [ -> ]I just think it better that any overtly sexual material should, within sensible limits, have the restrictions lifted from it and put on encrypted channels where those who want them can watch them and without the possibility of them causing offence to anyone chancing on them or young children accessing them.
So, like Ofcom, you think that those same children accessing gratuitous violence and torture on the other free-to-air channels is fine?
(31-01-2011 00:46 )StanTheMan Wrote: [ -> ]So, like Ofcom, you think that those same children accessing gratuitous violence and torture on the other free-to-air channels is fine?
I know, ridiculous
You know what I think? I think that if any of the channels ever get close to being shut down by ofcon, that they should go all out and give us the most explicit shows yet! Most of the women will still be able to make money from websites, photo and video shoots and magazines as well, so it's not like all will be lost for them if they are no longer on TV. I hope the channels take this into consideration.
(31-01-2011 00:46 )StanTheMan Wrote: [ -> ]So, like Ofcom, you think that those same children accessing gratuitous violence and torture on the other free-to-air channels is fine?
Do I? Thank you so much for telling me what I think. Very good of you!
(31-01-2011 11:30 )Tonywauk Wrote: [ -> ]Do I? Thank you so much for telling me what I think. Very good of you!
It was a question, Tony, indicated by the question mark on the end, which I see you managed to avoid answering.
(30-01-2011 15:39 )Tonywauk Wrote: [ -> ] (30-01-2011 14:55 )StanTheMan Wrote: [ -> ] (29-01-2011 13:36 )Tonywauk Wrote: [ -> ]Let's face it Ofcom are not going to ease up on the Babe shows at all while they are FTA - and I can't in all honesty say that I disagree with their stance.
Could you elaborate on that, Tony, and explain exactly why you think Ofcom have got it right?
I just think it better that any overtly sexual material should, within sensible limits, have the restrictions lifted from it and put on encrypted channels where those who want them can watch them and without the possibility of them causing offence to anyone chancing on them or young children accessing them. Those who want them would then be given a better show rather than the restricted material currently available and those who do not want to view such material would have no chance of seeing it by accident.
Understand where you are coming from Tony even if I dont agree with you 100%. There are only arguments against sex on TV, embarrasment etc to people who tune in by mistake and kids.
Personally I dont think that kids should be watching at 3am, and if they are they have bigger problems than a bit of flange, but I accept that some may still be up a 9 or even 10pm.
And I dont accept that an adult who flicks through channels at 3am has much to complain about either.
(The reason I say 3am is because there have been Ofcom cases about unsuitable material at 3am).
But there are much easier ways of preventing accidental viewing and kids access.
1) Ship Sky boxes with the Adult sector locked out.
2) Dont make the out-of-the-box-PIN the same as something else.
3) Even better, have a separate PIN for Adult channels and other stuff, so 16 year old kids can access cert 15 films (PIN protected to keep their 10 year old sister out) or Vincent Price movies, but not the strong stuff.
4) Make the whole Adult section an optional package at £1.12 a month like Arts and Documentaries. (There are a few problems with this).
Full blown encryption costs a packet with a hefty annual set up cost and a slice off each activation. Also it destroys channel hopping. Dont know about you, but I like hopping between 16 channels a night to see who is one, and there are another 5 channels I dont usually bother with. Imagine parting with your hard earned £5.99 only to find out you dont fancy the model, her costume does nothing for you, she looks like the boss and her accent really gets on your tits.
Quote:Of course within a short while, with television soon to offer internet access the whole debate will become irrelevant. Just my thoughts.
Unless things change Ofcom will control all TV on demand too.
(17-12-2010 12:32 )on 17 Dec beller Wrote: [ -> ]Just to let you know that, for what it's worth, I have now made an official Freedom of Information Act 2000 request to see what Ofcom's "generally accepted standards" are and who decides on them. They are legally bound to reply by 17th January 2011.
I encourage everyone else here to do the same. It's easy to do via the http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/ website.
I have also written to my MP this morning to ask her to follow up the sudden change in "generally accepted standards" which has been imposed upon the Babe Channels as from today. A sudden change in generally accepted standards sounds like a contradiction in terms to me.
Notice too that this publicly accountable, publicly funded organisation has imposed these changes without any public announcement.
Maybe the Daily Mail apoplectics are the public announcement. They seem to follow each other remarkably closely.
Did Ofcom ever come up with the goods? By my reckoning its been 50 days since this request was lodged.