(20-10-2011 02:53 )rockey Wrote: [ -> ]you cant watch the president of iran speak much on western tv but when he does its twisted and misrepresented he appeared on larry king a couple of years ago was asked about his desire to see the destruction of israel his answer was he bore no ill will towards the people of israel what he wanted to destroy was zionism .....a political ideolgy of racism and ethnic cleansing.....thats very different from whats being reported that he wants to get illegal nukes and destroy them........he was also asked about denying the holocaust his answer was how would he know? iran had nothing to do with the holocaust.......which makes perfect sence....you should be able to watch the interview on youtube......but anybody watching this closely the most conservative newspapers in america as of this week are not really reporting the iranian assasination attempts on the saudis in washington plot as even they think its laughable , the same papers that reported the lies for iraq non stop......but the war drums will continue to beat to make sure iran never gets nuclear power of any type .....even if that means israel using its illegal nukes on them.....the hypocrisy is unbelievable............and as far as i know irvine did go to jail and his books burnt the guy was seen as the leading historian in the world on ww2 untill he wrote that book now hes just that nazi lol mel gibson should have taken notes
Spot on Old Boy, spot on.
Check page 12 of this
http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binarie...obb192.pdf
Seems ofcom don't like cocks either
I've never really read these bulletins all the way through, can't believe some of the shit people complain about, 4 complaints about a 118 ad, haha some people
(02-11-2011 10:22 )gazfc Wrote: [ -> ]Check page 12 of this http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binarie...obb192.pdf
Seems ofcom don't like cocks either
I've never really read these bulletins all the way through, can't believe some of the shit people complain about, 4 complaints about a 118 ad, haha some people
Top class adult erotic entertainment in the UK has absolutely no chance of ever being shown whilst we have these arseholes at Ofcon. They are on a driven mission.
Equally painful are the po faced essays that Ofcom write evaluating stupid complaints. "Research has shown that fuck and its derivatives is among the most offensive language..." No shit sherlock. I read a Fairness complaint by a sofa company about a some undercover shopper show, they said they had been treated badly, Ofcom then evaluated at length if 3 examples were representative or not. The company were vindicated after many pages.
(04-11-2011 03:05 )eccles Wrote: [ -> ]Equally painful are the po faced essays that Ofcom write evaluating stupid complaints. "Research has shown that fuck and its derivatives is among the most offensive language..."
And yet the comedians on panel shows/chat shows/stand-up shows are permitted to use it to their heart's extent
Their logic really does defy belief - they're targeting a set of channels, saying they're not allowed to broadcast EXACTLY what anyone tuning in would be expecting to see. It's like fining a music channel for playing songs.
As I see it, one of the problems that we have in this country is the number of QUANGO's such as OFCOM. These organisations are run, for the most part, by what used to be called "the great and the good". In truth these individuals are political time servers and brown noses. Many of these people believe that they know what is good for us, but few have ever had the guts to stand for election to public office and put that belief to the test.
It has to self evident that OFCOM have decided that the Babe Channels are not to their taste and therefor have to go. But, cowards that they are, don't dare come out and admit it, rather impose new and ever more burdensome regulations on a regular basis until the shows become so tame as to make them unviable.
So what would I do if I was advising the Babe Channels.
1) Babestation, Elite, Red Light Central, Storm - all join force in a common front.
2) Begin to push the existing OFCOM rules by allowing the use of explicit language, full nudity and models interacting with each other (to a similar level to what is shown in top shelf magazines) after 11pm.
3) When OFCOM come knocking on the door, tell them where to get off.
4) Retain the services of a top media lawyer and apply for judicial review, challenging OFCOM's role of rule maker, overseer and enforcer. Also this will give the channels a chance to force OFCOM to justify how it arrives at its common standards.
I no longer see any other alternative to the above. Either the Channels stand together to fight the arbitary regulations OFCOM constantly seek to impose and win, thereby safeguarding the 900 channels future, or stand by and watch as the viewers and callers dry up and they go down the tubes.
The time for action as arrived. Viewers down, call numbers down. Soon Babe Channels down, I fear.
(06-11-2011 10:00 )CumbrianTom Wrote: [ -> ]It has to self evident that OFCOM have decided that the Babe Channels are not to their taste and therefor have to go. But, cowards that they are, don't dare come out and admit it
Actually they have admitted it. They wanted the babe channels to become encrypted broadcasts only, but couldn't find a way of implementing such a ruling as it wouldn't be practical for the channels to be encrypted.
If they went down that route Cumbriantom, I think we would quickly see black screens as Ofcom push Sky and others to switch off. Then when it comes to the media battle you imagine, I think there would be a few voices challenging the Ofcom view (guessing ones like Matthew Wright on channel 5 etc.) but even they would know they were being a bit avant garde doing so. Most newspaper views would probably be less sympathetic to essentially what is a phone sex service. The courts wouldnt challenge a quango as they are set up and overseen by governments who are elected.
Honestly I'm certainly not being dismissive about it, it is an interesting question on how do we see that route being played out. Just giving my expectation on it. How do others think that route would go down?
(06-11-2011 12:10 )Roquentin Wrote: [ -> ]Just giving my expectation on it. How do others think that route would go down?
I like CumbrianTom's soloution, in theory. He's certainly correct when he says that time has come to make Ofcom answerable to their actions, and the fact that the Babeshows, for whatever reason, are reluctant to stand together and take on Ofcom as one (as he suggests they should) is ridiculous.
One channel rep recently said on here that the burden of fighting Ofcom was now down solely to the viewers. That's a cop-out and just his way of saying that the channels are too frightened to rock the boat. I don't believe for one second that the channels have done everything in their power to fight Ofcom - in fact I see no evidence that they've even started.
Of course that's easy for me to say - I'm not the one risking thousands of pounds in doing so. Any form of court battle with Ofcom isn't going to come cheap. However, so long as the channel lie back and allow themselves to be dictated to by Ofcom, nothing is going to change.
Good ideas from Roquentin but there are alternatives. The channels will no more join forces than cats will hunt in packs. Think of Ofcom as the agressive neighbourhood dog if it helps.
Legal action would work, but could take years and require hundreds of thousands of pounds set aside. In the interim Ofcom could harrass the channels out of existence. Bear in mind that money from phone lines is paid 3 months in arrears so some channels are profitable but only in arrears and live hand to mouth day by day. Some channels are even rumoured to be slow paying models, perhaps because of cashflow problems. While waiting for the court case and inevitable appeals to be resolved a channel that broke ranks might get favourable treatment and would clean up.
Some of the people who put up money for the channels are businessmen after a regular profit, not evangelists, and they will go for the safe if modest profit in the near future rather than gamble on more a long time away.
An alternative to taking Ofcom on head to head is to go round them. Appeal to their bosses. Get a bandwaggon going, eventually the politicians will order Ofcom to obey the law. The bandwaggon might be cost savings, freedom of speech/Arab Spring, deregulation, who knows.