(28-09-2010 18:18 )Scottishbloke Wrote: [ -> ]Is there not some legal challenge these babe channels can go down, this ofcom saga has been going on for far too long now and for as long as these restrictions are in place for the channels can never really show us the full intent in which they were designed for in the first place. Eurotic tv for example don't have these restrictions at night anymore and if a show fails to deliver its the producers and directors of the show that get lambasted by the audience as right now a poor show can be counter argued that its ofcom to blame and not themselves, so long as the watershed rule is obeyed then none of these channels should be in breach of the code. I want to see an end to ofcom and censorship and power given back to the people, afterall the sole purpose of these shows is to entertain the viewing adult audience. 21st Britain has to be more tolerant these days and no prejudice should be aimed at any group of channels adult, religious or political.
The problem is that no one is been affected where it matters! This is why the status quo with OFCOM is unlikely to change. All of the logical arguments demonstrating the tyrannical, irrational, misogynistic demands of OFCOM; though irrefutable, cannot by themselves effect change against an opponent who is firmly entrenched in their position. What is required is ACTION!!! And this is why the status quo will not change.
The only action that is likely to affect change is viewers and callers boycotting these channels; forcing the networks to form an alliance to openly
defy OFCOM. But this will never happen because of human nature: sex is too powerful a drive for humans to resist. On top of which, the
imagination of many humans provides them the view that the content on screen does not. So those with this kind of imagination, and there seems to be plenty, are content with the status quo.
So, the fact that the product happens to be sex, safeguards the networks, even when they are offering
nothing whatsoever to the viewers, as a result of the bullying tactics from OFCOM.
Change of this magnitude, always requires sacrifice: THE SACRIFICE OF SELF-INTEREST.
(29-09-2010 01:16 )Intense1 Wrote: [ -> ]The problem is that no one is been affected where it matters! This is why the status quo with OFCOM is unlikely to change. All of the logical arguments demonstrating the tyrannical, irrational, misogynistic demands of OFCOM; though irrefutable, cannot by themselves effect change against an opponent who is firmly entrenched in their position. What is required is ACTION!!! And this is why the status quo will not change.
The only action that is likely to affect change is viewers and callers boycotting these channels; forcing the networks to form an alliance to openly defy OFCOM. But this will never happen because of human nature: sex is too powerful a drive for humans to resist. On top of which, the imagination of many humans provides them the view that the content on screen does not. So those with this kind of imagination, and there seems to be plenty, are content with the status quo.
So, the fact that the product happens to be sex, safeguards the networks, even when they are offering nothing whatsoever to the viewers, as a result of the bullying tactics from OFCOM.
Change of this magnitude, always requires sacrifice: THE SACRIFICE OF SELF-INTEREST.
You have a point, although I believe there are more people than you think who are willing to stop calling and watching. It might backfire, and maybe Offcom wants these channels to fail? Say we stop watching, and the channels start doing less censored shows, Offcom will just keep fining them into the ground until they fail. A reasonable person might take notice of our complaints, but at Offcom, I don't know if any reasonable person exists or has any interest in what we think. Unfortunately, I'm hoping that the websites will start showing uncensored material, and that the women who have their own sites will do so as well, because I'm doubtful things are going to change in our favor on the night shows.
(29-09-2010 02:15 )mrmann Wrote: [ -> ]You have a point, although I believe there are more people than you think who are willing to stop calling and watching. It might backfire, and maybe Offcom wants these channels to fail? Say we stop watching, and the channels start doing less censored shows, Offcom will just keep fining them into the ground until they fail. A reasonable person might take notice of our complaints, but at Offcom, I don't know if any reasonable person exists or has any interest in what we think. Unfortunately, I'm hoping that the websites will start showing uncensored material, and that the women who have their own sites will do so as well, because I'm doubtful things are going to change in our favor on the night shows.
What I am talking about is so far reaching that it will NEVER EVER HAPPEN. You fail to understand the power of the human imagination if you think that callers will ever stop ringing these channels.
But let us suppose that this was to happen. The networks cannot be viable without their income. They are then forced into action: it becomes necessary for them to go to
war with OFCOM. They have to consider what their most effective strategy will be. This will be to form an alliance and
defy OFCOM. Now, the ball is in OFCOM’s court. Let us say that they decide to hit every channel with fines. LET BATTLE COMMENCE!!! The networks ALL refuse to pay. Ball back to OFCOM: Do they now shut down the entire network…. They have the power. If they do this, then, of course the networks will start losing their income straight away (self-sacrifice). But it becomes a MAJOR talking point in the media; and it is from this platform, and this platform only, that those armed with logical supremacy have the opportunity to triumph and overthrow ignorance.
Lovely fantasy! thank you for that; it's important to imagine possible worlds - after all, are not the babe channel night shows themselves all about fantasy?
In fact, the only reason such a theory remains pure fantasy is because of the obvious elements of 'risk strategy' (see Alfred von Tirpitz) present in the scenario that you've outlined. If only OhBuggerOfcom could be so coerced into seeing the total futility of further resistance to the people(or, a small slice of it)'s will, but -Alas! - a quango is a law unto itself until proven otherwise.
But take heart! for soon they will be no more, so we are told and fervently hope / pray. Time... time is the key...
(28-09-2010 22:22 )eccles Wrote: [ -> ]But IanG whats wrong with agents of The State deciding which areas of free speech are allowed and which ones we need protecting from? They are wise and have our interests at heart.
I doubt they are wise. They may well be bigots though. They may even be ignorant prats and are certainly ignorant of the wishes of the people.
Exhibit A - The Public's View 2002 -
http://www.ofcom.org.uk/static/archive/i...w_2002.pdf
As we can see in Table 56(2), 76% of over 1100 people selected at random on the streets of Britain believe people should have the right to watch "particularly sexually explicit material" on channels they choose to pay for. As I've said before, "particularly sexually explicit" cannot refer to inexplicit softcore material and thus must mean 76% of people believe it is absolutely fine for an adult to watch hardcore R18-type programmes on so-called 'adult' channels.
Moreover, we also see in Table 56(5) that 68% of people do not think its right for an offended minority to dictate what the rest of us are 'allowed' to watch.
Indeed, Table 56(6) shows us that 78% of folks do not think its right to censor sex, violence or bad language in films shown after 10pm (we might assume that the term 'films' applies to all other content/programmes shown after 10pm also). And of course, just because its not alright with the majority of viewers to cut stuff after 10pm doesn't mean people want it cutting before 10pm.
The other Public's View reports going back to 1997 are here
http://www.ofcom.org.uk/static/archive/i...m#reports. They ALL show almost identical % to those outlined above which, I believe, constitute the Generally Accepted Standards of the typical British viewer.
Clearly, OFCOM don't have a fucking clue and are thus ignorant and prejudiced - not very wise at all, eccles
Further to my post above and in response to babefan29's post here
http://www.babeshows.co.uk/showthread.ph...#pid628809
Perhaps folks would like to compare and contrast OFCOM's comments to this show here
http://www.babeshows.co.uk/showthread.ph...051&page=5
Surely, 2 fit birds sucking boobs, touching each other and miming 'sexual acts' is potentially even more sexually arousing than the stuff found in breach on Paradiso?
I wonder if OFCOM ever considered the complaint against Paradiso was more about someone being offended at the sight of a black man with a white girl rather than the blatantly tame and non-sexual 'adult sex material' OFCOM presumed to say it contained?
OFCOM are a fucking travesty.
I think that it is important to note, that there is a definite need for a governing regulatory body within the Broadcasting Corporation. But it needs to adhere to SANITY, and not misogynistic bigotry, like the current regime.
If a boycott could be organised a few channels would go to the wall. Ofcom would looze precisely zero sleep over that; they are not duty bound to ensure that there is a supply of bouncy channels. If anything it would confirm their view that their is no demand for "that stuff".
The net effect would be small channels going bust, suppliers going out of business, but the big boys have other ways of earning money. If anything their revenue would increase as people switch to paid web streams, mags, DVDs.
A few months later someone might buy up cut price bankrupt stock and might even start up a new low budget channel or two. The big boys would get back into babe channels, have bigger market share and not have to work as hard to get callers.
(01-10-2010 22:23 )eccles Wrote: [ -> ]If a boycott could be organised a few channels would go to the wall. Ofcom would looze precisely zero sleep over that; they are not duty bound to ensure that there is a supply of bouncy channels. If anything it would confirm their view that their is no demand for "that stuff".
The net effect would be small channels going bust, suppliers going out of business, but the big boys have other ways of earning money. If anything their revenue would increase as people switch to paid web streams, mags, DVDs.
A few months later someone might buy up cut price bankrupt stock and might even start up a new low budget channel or two. The big boys would get back into babe channels, have bigger market share and not have to work as hard to get callers.
The point that I am making is that it would
never be possible to organize the kind of boycott necessary to effect change (due to human nature). So what you are talking about here is not the kind of boycott that I outlined above.
