Does anybody remember the days when the likes of Mary Whitehouse tried to censor the tv and was nothing more than a standing joke. I also remember the days of Baywatch on at 5pm on a Saturday and was met with no objection, infact it was family viewing in my house the only programme of the week that nobody squabbled over watching as it had everything for everybody along with good acting!! and a really good plot!!! As far as last weeks X Factor go's yes going back to a point made by Stoly with democracy comes freedom and yes I'll admit last weeks show did from a male perspective get the pulses racing but no more than Baywatch did when I was growing up in the early 90's and it never did me any harm. I'll personally pay for the flights for these ofcom complainers to be sent to Afghanistan and see what kind of entertainment they get on the tv. Give them a week and they'll see just how lucky we are not be subjected to the ridiculous levels of censorship where a women can't even show their face in public or face arrest and stoning to death.
(17-12-2010 20:16 )Scottishbloke Wrote: [ -> ]Does anybody remember the days when the likes of Mary Whitehouse tried to censor the tv and was nothing more than a standing joke. I also remember the days of Baywatch on at 5pm on a Saturday and was met with no objection, infact it was family viewing in my house the only programme of the week that nobody squabbled over watching as it had everything for everybody along with good acting!! and a really good plot!!! As far as last weeks X Factor go's yes going back to a point made by Stoly with democracy comes freedom and yes I'll admit last weeks show did from a male perspective get the pulses racing but no more than Baywatch did when I was growing up in the early 90's and it never did me any harm. I'll personally pay for the flights for these ofcom complainers to be sent to Afghanistan and see what kind of entertainment they get on the tv. Give them a week and they'll see just how lucky we are not be subjected to the ridiculous levels of censorship where a women can't even show their face in public or face arrest and stoning to death.
In all fairness to Whitehouse, at least she was prepared to stand up and face everybody with her views. With Ofcon we have another scenario, a faceless organisation who cannot be ridiculed for their censorous stance as nobody knows who they are. Ask Joe Public and what'll you get? Who are Ofcon?
Clever tactics from the faceless arseholes, you gotta admit.
(17-12-2010 23:17 )Scottishbloke Wrote: [ -> ]Here is an article from last year prior to David Cameron coming to power. Proof that the man is nothing but a fucking lying bag of shit.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/jul...id-cameron
All politicians lie to get into power. David might have meant what he said about Ofcom, but once in power, realised that it wouldn't be very easy to get rid of them.
Night shows are starting a bit tamer than usual, as there's been no toplessness until exactly 10pm, even though the women are allowed to go topless at nine.
This is another article published today by ofcom and I know reading it at the moment it has no effect on the babe channels as yet but could it be a stepping stone which would effectively put a lot out of business if it starts to target all premium numbers.
http://thenextweb.com/uk/2010/12/17/ofco...m-mobiles/
Night shows are starting a bit tamer than usual, as there's been no toplessness until exactly 10pm, even though the women are allowed to go topless at nine.
[/quote]
No topless allowed until after 10pm now.
(17-12-2010 23:17 )Scottishbloke Wrote: [ -> ]Here is an article from last year prior to David Cameron coming to power. Proof that the man is nothing but a fucking lying bag of shit.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/jul...id-cameron
My thoughts entirely. I hope we have a general strike by April, to throw these shite bags out. With the next twats getting in only if they live up to their election pledges.
Question...If the World Bank, and the International Monetary Fund have all this money to shelve out to Governments, why didn't they bail out the Banks. Instead of us ?
(18-12-2010 00:02 )stoly Wrote: [ -> ] (17-12-2010 23:17 )Scottishbloke Wrote: [ -> ]Here is an article from last year prior to David Cameron coming to power. Proof that the man is nothing but a fucking lying bag of shit.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/jul...id-cameron
My thoughts entirely. I hope we have a general strike by April, to throw these shite bags out. With the next twats getting in only if they live up to their election pledges.
Question...If the World Bank, and the International Monetary Fund have all this money to shelve out to Governments, why didn't they bail out the Banks. Instead of us ?
They announced 2 months ago that they were dropping or watering down these 8 powers and laying off 170 staff. Not the 8 that you or I would put top of the list, but 1,5,6 and 7 represent a lot of loss of control. But no word of progress of content yet.
[1]Amend the duty for Ofcom to review public service broadcasting...
[2]Allow Ofcom flexibility to implement changes to its governance structures...
[3]Remove the duty on Ofcom to promote development opportunities for training and equality of opportunity...
[4]Change the regional Channel 3 networking arrangement review from an annual review to a reserve power...
[5]Amend the duty for Ofcom to review the media ownership rules...
[6]Remove the requirement for public service broadcasters to provide annual statements of programme policy...
[7]Amend the duty on Ofcom to review a “change of control” to a Channel 3 licensee or Channel 5...
[8]Enable Ofcom to charge fees for satellite filings made to the International Telecommunications Union...
(17-12-2010 23:34 )gator8 Wrote: [ -> ]Night shows are starting a bit tamer than usual, as there's been no toplessness until exactly 10pm, even though the women are allowed to go topless at nine.
No topless allowed until after 10pm now.
[/quote]
They have always said there should be a gradual transition after the watershed, so toplessness at 9:01 has never been permitted. But they have never been arsed to say when it does become acceptable. 10pm when strong sex is permitted on PPV? 10:30 as set by the babeshow industry body as Watershed II for stronger content? Or guesswork? Personally Id be happy with 9:30, half an hour is plenty enough time to flip the channel over. But no, we get guesswork uncertainty and inconsistency.
