The UK Babe Channels Forum

(05-06-2010 01:13 )BLUEBIRD OFFICIAL Wrote: [ -> ]No. Their 'case' is that they have been delegated the rule making power by Parliament, to exercise that power within the scope of their discretion. You can only challenge the exercise of that discretion if you can show that no reasonable Ofcom would decide what it has decided.

They commissioned research & undertook consultation precisely to demonstrate that they acted "reasonably".

You can argue with the conclusions they drew from that research and consultation. But that does not alter the reasonableness - for judicial review purposes - of what they decided.

Remember, they received consultation responses saying that no babechannel material should be transmitted. They rejected that and drew a 'halfway' line.

That is how they justify reasonableness.

You don't agree. Most of the Forum doesn't agree. We don't agree. Perhaps 50% or more of the British public does not agree. And that is often going to be the case when a body vested with discretionary power exercises that discretion.

You say you disagree with Ofcom's decision, but your view of the status quo seems to be one of ambivalence. The logic of your argument suggests you believe Ofcom can implement any rule or regulation it wishes and as long as they can demonstrably prove the decision-making process was "reasonable", regardless of the veracity of the decision, or it's effect, the aforementioned decision will be very difficult to overturn.

Since you, as a broadcaster, will be regulated by Ofcom is the situation, as described above, something about which you are also ambivalent?

Or, is that a question you would rather not answer?

Also,

If, or when, Ofcom starts hitting you with it's "big stick" regulation, which may or may not, disadvantage you against your competitors and consequently, may or may not, have a detrimental effect on your business, will you still say, "It's the law; nothing can be done!"?

(08-06-2010 09:52 )dildo daggins Wrote: [ -> ]You say you disagree with Ofcom's decision, but your view of the status quo seems to be one of ambivalence. The logic of your argument suggests you believe Ofcom can implement any rule or regulation it wishes and as long as they can demonstrably prove the decision-making process was "reasonable", regardless of the veracity of the decision, or it's effect, the aforementioned decision will be very difficult to overturn.

Since you, as a broadcaster, will be regulated by Ofcom is the situation, as described above, something about which you are also ambivalent?

Or, is that a question you would rather not answer?

Also,

If, or when, Ofcom starts hitting you with it's "big stick" regulation, which may or may not, disadvantage you against your competitors and consequently, may or may not, have a detrimental effect on your business, will you still say, "It's the law; nothing can be done!"?

We are not going to start commenting on hypothetical matters concerning regulation on a public noticeboard. We have stated that we disagree with Ofcom's reasoning. That is not ambivalent.

(08-06-2010 13:23 )BLUEBIRD OFFICIAL Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-06-2010 09:52 )dildo daggins Wrote: [ -> ]You say you disagree with Ofcom's decision, but your view of the status quo seems to be one of ambivalence. The logic of your argument suggests you believe Ofcom can implement any rule or regulation it wishes and as long as they can demonstrably prove the decision-making process was "reasonable", regardless of the veracity of the decision, or it's effect, the aforementioned decision will be very difficult to overturn.

Since you, as a broadcaster, will be regulated by Ofcom is the situation, as described above, something about which you are also ambivalent?

Or, is that a question you would rather not answer?

Also,

If, or when, Ofcom starts hitting you with it's "big stick" regulation, which may or may not, disadvantage you against your competitors and consequently, may or may not, have a detrimental effect on your business, will you still say, "It's the law; nothing can be done!"?

We are not going to start commenting on hypothetical matters concerning regulation on a public noticeboard. We have stated that we disagree with Ofcom's reasoning. That is not ambivalent.

Oops!...touched a nerve there, methinks

Quote:We are not going to start commenting on hypothetical matters concerning regulation on a public noticeboard. We have stated that we disagree with Ofcom's reasoning. That is not ambivalent.

Oops!...touched a nerve there, methinks
[/quote]

No - just touched a loss of basic commonsense.
Good think you're not in charge of forward deployment in Helmand Province.
Dildo Daggins: I know ! Let's think up some possible conflict situations and then go tell the other side exactly what our tactics and strategy will be !

I asked that the other day and so did some others and he said the following just found it:

Freeview channel options are still under review.

From Gold Plated Pension on an Ofcom thread

"Ofcom today find themselves in the High Court to defend their 'Generally Accepted Standards' and 'Offensive Material' policy following a ruling they made against an interview carried out by radio presenter John Gaunt.

Gaunt was presenting TalkSport in November 2008 when during a live interview with councillor Michael Stark about Redbridge Council's decision to prevent smokers from becoming foster parents accused him of being a "Nazi", a "health Nazi" and an "ignorant pig".

A total of 53 complaints were received by Ofcom who decided in May 2009 that Gaunt had breached Generally Accepted Standards.

The ruling is in Ofcom Broadcast Bulliten number 133 dated 11th May 2009.

http://www.ofcom.org.uk/tv/obb/prog_cb/o...sue133.pdf

Following this ruling Gaunt lost his job at TalkSport but won the right in January 2010 to judicial review the Ofcom decision with the backing of Liberty, a human rights and civil liberties organisation.

Gaunt also found an unlikely backer in Shami Chakrabarti, the director of Liberty, whom he once branded "Britain's most dangerous woman".

Chakrabarti attended the hearing, and said afterwards that the case was a very significant test of free speech in Britain.

"This is not about one journalist and one politician," she said. "There is a big principle here. People do not have the right not to be offended. It's a very dangerous right to assert."

She said it was "a chilling moment" when Ofcom's barrister argued that Gaunt's interview did not represent "political speech". "Ofcom needs to wear its power with a little more humility," she added.

Gaunt himself criticised Ofcom as an unnecessary regulator that curbed freedom of expression. "We don't need Ofcom, we have got an off switch," he said. "We have a draconian, unelected, expensive to run quango of do-gooders who can stand there and say 'this is good taste and decency'. We don't need them

The review is set to last two days and it will be very interesting to see what evidence Ofcom presents to defend it's decision, especially when they have just relaxed their stance on offensive language following a consultation of just 130 people.

If i had been aware of this case last week i would have happily taken two days off work and made the twenty minute journey from my office to the High Court to listen to the evidence and Ofcom's justification.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/jun...port-ofcom

I for one fully support Gaunt's view of Ofcom and people's ability to use the off switch.

Watch this space it may have more impact on Ofcom's code than just the right of free speech. "


Are you reading Mr Bluebird? Ofcom in court defending their Generally Accepted Standards and Offensive Materials policies.

These would be the people and policies you claim couldn't be challenged as they were all about European directive's and whether Ofcom is "reasonable".

Well, looks like they can be challenged after all, as I and a number of others suggested.

What a surprise, you seem to be just another adult channel making claims that aren't true.

(17-06-2010 10:27 )Grawth Wrote: [ -> ]....

Are you reading Mr Bluebird? Ofcom in court defending their Generally Accepted Standards and Offensive Materials policies.

These would be the people and policies you claim couldn't be challenged as they were all about European directive's and whether Ofcom is "reasonable".

Well, looks like they can be challenged after all, as I and a number of others suggested.

What a surprise, you seem to be just another adult channel making claims that aren't true.

Yes we're reading.

Ofcom is 'challenged' day in and day out. So what ?

Again, you fail to see the difference between CONTEXTS. And the Ofcom broadcasting rules are all about CONTEXT. Try reading them.

Tommie Jo isn't known for making political speeches about issues of the day. Her performances constitute sexual expression. Maybe you can't tell the difference and you spend your night hours turning yourself on to parliamentary debates.

The Applicant's argument in this case is that Ofcom should not be allowed to chill free political speech. What you then need is a ruling which says that freedom of any kind of expression is permitted, subject only to libel and obscenity laws. But that rule does not exist in English or European law. It does not even exist in US law, where "sexually prurient" material has been ruled by the Supreme Court as being outside the Constitutionally guaranteed right of free expression.

So before you call us liars, take that time out. Go visit the Law Courts and go learn at least the basics about constitutional and human rights law.

(17-06-2010 11:24 )BLUEBIRD OFFICIAL Wrote: [ -> ]Yes we're reading.

Ofcom is 'challenged' day in and day out. So what ?

Again, you fail to see the difference between CONTEXTS. And the Ofcom broadcasting rules are all about CONTEXT. Try reading them.

Tommie Jo isn't known for making political speeches about issues of the day. Her performances constitute sexual expression. Maybe you can't tell the difference and you spend your night hours turning yourself on to parliamentary debates.

The Applicant's argument in this case is that Ofcom should not be allowed to chill free political speech. What you then need is a ruling which says that freedom of any kind of expression is permitted, subject only to libel and obscenity laws. But that rule does not exist in English or European law. It does not even exist in US law, where "sexually prurient" material has been ruled by the Supreme Court as being outside the Constitutionally guaranteed right of free expression.

So before you call us liars, take that time out. Go visit the Law Courts and go learn at least the basics about constitutional and human rights law.

Yet again your attitude really comes across this post. My guess is that Bluebird Official is also the owner of Bluebird and same person as Hiwatt that posts on another forum. Obviously Bluebird Official knows a lot about the law the way his posts read, and the owner of Bluebird is also a lawyer / solicitor, so I am guessing they are the one and same.

is bluebird under ofcom rules cellcast are not there from holland

^^^^ That must be some sort of record.