Now that Jeremy Hunt has been appointed secretary for sports and media does that now mean as David Cameron promised an end to ofcom and hopefully commonsense prevail, if so I sincerely hope that bangbabes media take those ofcom bastards to court and demand compensation back for those baffling fines inflicted on them as they were unjustified in terms of this being an adult channel and went against the freedom which this democracy is supposed to stand for. Please lets for once and for all end this censorship and allow channels the right to broadcast material that is supposed to deliver what we want to see.
Why don't all the owners of these channels get together in a hotel and negotiate a coalition treaty!!! where they don't grass each other up for six months and then see how many actual "complaints" come in.
(13-05-2010 09:05 )sweetsugar007 Wrote: [ -> ]Why don't all the owners of these channels get together in a hotel and negotiate a coalition treaty!!! where they don't grass each other up for six months and then see how many actual "complaints" come in.
Exactly.
No need for a treaty or the six month timescale in my opinion. It's common bloody sense really.. do they not know that complaining about other channels is only going to be detremental to themselves anyway?
(13-05-2010 09:05 )sweetsugar007 Wrote: [ -> ]Why don't all the owners of these channels get together in a hotel and negotiate a coalition treaty!!! where they don't grass each other up for six months and then see how many actual "complaints" come in.
This is one coalition that the encrypted channels would not be a party too unless the free channels only showed breast and didn't deliver any sexual arousal displays.
Who would pay to watch a channel if you could get one off on a free channel where you can relate to the performer either being a page 3 model or british porn star.
The finger of suspicion points at the encrypted channels complaining to ofcom when the free channels try push the limit.
I thought there was already a body that represented the majority of the free channels.
(13-05-2010 18:45 )Gold Plated Pension Wrote: [ -> ]I thought there was already a body that represented the majority of the free channels.
It represents Babestation, Bang Babes, Babeworld and Sport.
So in light of the need to save money, what should the new government do about Ofcom?
Do they scrap Ofcom, which would mean big savings.
Or do they give Ofcom more powers and fine all offending stations, thereby money into the treasury.
This fine is a contridiction, why the hell else would anybody watch an adult channel other than to watch adult material, I'm not a religious man so I choose not to watch any of the god type channels but I fully respect that there is a market for them in which I have no problem with. The ofcom rats should fuck off and respect that everybody has different tastes. The 900's all have an option of pin protection in which to switch them off. If explicit material was being aired on lets say one of the mainstream channels such as channel 4 during the day then ofcom would have every justification in which to hammer them with a hefty fine in which I would fully support as it would be breaking the broadcasting code but picking on the adult channels is nothing short of facist and discriminating especially when even with the pin protection option they all still obey the watershed rules in place. Fuck ofcom.
I think double standards springs to mind when talking about ofcom. They come down hard on issues the majority of people dont give two flying fucks about and at the end of the day if the babe channels offend you what are you doing in the 900 channel area and why not just switch over and not watch again. If they have conceres that under 18's could potentially watch babe channels all I have to say to that is Sky now has as part of its settings parental control locks so a pin is required for any channel or series of channels that a parent would deam as unsuitable. So ofcom have no cause for concern at all. Ofcom are only leading an attack on a babe channel because they deem it a easy target to make it looks as though they are actually doing some work for a change. Instead of (What they actually do) skimming off public funds by making deals with large coporations and networks to say they is no cause for concern with many shady activities phone companies such as vodafone get up to (Their advertisement of unlimted texts when you only get 3000 for example).
(13-05-2010 21:55 )Charlemagne Wrote: [ -> ]So in light of the need to save money, what should the new government do about Ofcom?
Do they scrap Ofcom, which would mean big savings.
Or do they give Ofcom more powers and fine all offending stations, thereby money into the treasury.
Common sense would be to scrap ofcom, as if anyone needs to make a serious complaint about issues they is nothing wrong with writing a letter direct to westminster.
(14-05-2010 23:49 )BigBen Wrote: [ -> ]Common sense would be to scrap ofcom, as if anyone needs to make a serious complaint about issues they is nothing wrong with writing a letter direct to westminster.
Who at Westminster did you have in mind?