As I've said before, I deal with government departments in my day to day job. They seem to slavishly follow courses of action even if they have no logical basis. I can't see what there is to gain from driving the babechannels out of business or into a regime regulated abroad. The first will potentially produce a possible reduction in their staff numbers and the second will be counterproductive in respect of what they purport to be trying to achieve because eventually they would have ni influence on what is being broadcast.
It just doesn't make sense - I hope Scottishbloke is right but I have to say I'm not holding my breath waiting for change.
(04-07-2011 20:00 )Scottishbloke Wrote: [ -> ][snip] ... also reading through the so-called breaches I can't recall seeing a show as explicit as anything noted, ofcom have made these channels sound like hard core porn ... [snip]
This talk of 'explicit' shows by Ofcom angers, amazes and amuses in equal measures. Where are all these 'explicit' shows Ofcom talk of??? I certainly never see them.
It would be great to see (next time someone posts details of an Ofcom bulletin) the bits in their report that describe these rule-breaking shows.
Ofcom is a confused bunch! I remember reading their rules statement on what was allowed, and they even mentioned that slips were OK, as long as they were infrequent, yet they then go ahead and investigate a channel for simulating oral sex
Ofcom's findings against these channels is an illusion, if their so called explicit shows were indeed true why the hell would we still be whinging about how dull they all are, as far as I'm concerned ofcom's days are numbered now, I think sooner or later time is going to be called on this needless quango. Outside of the adult channels it seems you can pretty much show and do what you please, you only need to look at the number of complaints that are not withheld, I've yet to see them wave away any complaints towards the babe channels whether it be from themselves or MrFucking Smith who accidently stumbled across this channel but still chose to watch it for a further 2 hours and then elaborating on this by fabricating information about the show that actually never happened. I've yet to see any evidence of any of the channels ever being in breach and this includes Bangbabes who were hounded out for no good reason or just cause.
(12-07-2011 01:18 )Scottishbloke Wrote: [ -> ]Ofcom's findings against these channels is an illusion, if their so called explicit shows were indeed true why the hell would we still be whinging about how dull they all are, as far as I'm concerned ofcom's days are numbered now, I think sooner or later time is going to be called on this needless quango. Outside of the adult channels it seems you can pretty much show and do what you please, you only need to look at the number of complaints that are not withheld, I've yet to see them wave away any complaints towards the babe channels whether it be from themselves or MrFucking Smith who accidently stumbled across this channel but still chose to watch it for a further 2 hours and then elaborating on this by fabricating information about the show that actually never happened. I've yet to see any evidence of any of the channels ever being in breach and this includes Bangbabes who were hounded out for no good reason or just cause.
I wish that was the case, but it seems as if David Cameron is their best bud now, considering the phone hacking scandle
With Ofcon busy battering Murdoch to death this would be an ideal time for the channels to up the ante......if they have the cojones to do it mind you...
(12-07-2011 01:18 )Scottishbloke Wrote: [ -> ]Ofcom's findings against these channels is an illusion, if their so called explicit shows were indeed true why the hell would we still be whinging about how dull they all are, as far as I'm concerned ofcom's days are numbered now, I think sooner or later time is going to be called on this needless quango.
Indeed, its a lot like the old witch trials. There's no actual evidence of any wrong doing - i.e. causing harm - yet because these channels go against the 'traditional' "no sex please we're overpaid middle class cuunts of the highest order" beliefs of OFCOM they get hammered for showing the odd pubic hair.
Quote: Outside of the adult channels it seems you can pretty much show and do what you please, you only need to look at the number of complaints that are not withheld, I've yet to see them wave away any complaints towards the babe channels whether it be from themselves or MrFucking Smith who accidently stumbled across this channel but still chose to watch it for a further 2 hours and then elaborating on this by fabricating information about the show that actually never happened.
Clearly, if its OK to show cocks, arseholes and fanny on mainstream TV after 9pm then it SHOULD be possible to show the same on so-called 'adult channels' after 9pm. What we have here is absolute PROOF of discrimination against adult programming and adult channel viewers.
Quote: I've yet to see any evidence of any of the channels ever being in breach and this includes Bangbabes who were hounded out for no good reason or just cause.
Indeed, OFCOM have time and again claimed to see "labial and anal detail" that simply is not visible in the majority of cases they claim to have investigated. They have also twisted the meaning of their own pathetic 'guidance' in order to file a breach where NONE existed - and susequently fined the channel in the tens of thousands of pounds - which is outright FRAUD. OFCOM are a law unto themselves - or at least they seem to believe they can do anything they damn well please whether it conforms to the laws and legal precedents of the land or not. OFCOM are a bunch of liars, fantasists and con men.
OFCOM have produced no evidence whatsoever to support their claims to be protecting anyone from any so-called offensive and harmful material. What they have done is CORRUPT what the law actually says to allow them to impose a censorial regime in which they alone get to decide what can and cannot be shown on TV. OFCOM are thus acting as illegal censors, using powers they were never granted to impose their own brand of 'decency' upon the masses.
The law says OFCOM are to provide adequate protection to the public from the inclusion of offensive and harmful material. However, OFCOM claim in their Code that they are "to provide adequate protection from the inclusion of harmful and/or offensive material" - that's NOT what the law says or means. Indeed, PROOF that OFCOM have misinterpreted and misapplied the law is clear BECAUSE OFCOM say "offensive material must be justified by the context". Allowing offensive material where justified by some arbitrary interpretation of 'the context' clearly does not provide any protection whatsoever to viewers from the inclusion of such material, thus OFCOM are NOT OBEYING THE LAW.
I think Ofcom will have to go a long long way to beat their 'in breach' findings againsts Asian Babes earlier this year, when they investigated a complaint suggesting one of the girls wasn't wearing knickers, only to discover when viewing the recording that she was, in fact, wearing flesh coloured pants and not revealing any 'detailed genitilia' as the complaintant claimed. Despite these facts, they still found them in breach because they claimed the channel was purposely misleading viewers into believing she was naked.
I know that was discussed at length at the time, but I thought it worth mentioning again in case anyone missed it. You couldn't make it up... and I'm not.
Indeed, Stan, OFCOM have often gone to extraordinary lengths to uphold a single viewer complaint against any of the channels operating in the 'adult section of the EPG'.
Does anyone believe OFCOM are so perfect and Godlike that they never make mistakes?
Does anyone believe OFCOM are so detached and objective that they never allow personal prejudice, distaste, religious beliefs or outright intolerance to affect their judgement?
Does anyone believe OFCOM are so all-knowing and omniscient that they can know what the feelings and 'limits' of the vast majority of a particular audience are?
If you answered 'No' to any of the above then it should be obvious that OFCOM cannot be trusted to act as rule maker and enforcer without a totally independant appeals panel and process. The risk of injustice, bias, prejudice, ignorance and incompetence is far too great to allow a single body free reign over all our TV viewing. OFCOM do not represent the people and they are most certainly not qualified to represent 'the law'.
OFCOM have been allowed to act as unmonitored dictators. Their decisions have at times been unbelievable, unethical, totally biased, lacking any factual basis and relying solely upon their own personal prejudices and incompetence.
OFCOM claim that PIN protection doesn't work to protect the under eighteens from adult material. They then proceed to demand mandatory PIN protection on everything from 12 rated movies before 8pm to broadcasting softcore shite on so-called 'adult channels' after midnight. Either PIN protection works to protect the under eighteens or it doesn't. OFCOM MUST believe PIN protection does work else demanding mandatory PIN would be a totally pointless exercise that simply acted as a pain in the proverbial arsehole for every viewer. OFCOM's decision to impose the apparently useless mandatory PIN is thus a sign of their total incompetence and inability to make logically sound decisions - and that's a sure sign of their insanity.
Of course insanity is nothing new to 'Britishness'. After all, what sort of deranged creature decides parts of its own body and natural behaviour are 'offensive and harmful'?
(15-07-2011 17:53 )IanG Wrote: [ -> ].. parts of its own body and natural behaviour are 'offensive and harmful'?
Parts of the body and natural behaviour that have been fundamental in
any of us being here!?
And fundamental to ensure our species continues to be here too.