(17-06-2010 11:30 )jonny20009 Wrote: [ -> ]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.
The 'attitude' that - when people call us liars in a public forum and demonstrate plainly that they have no knowledge upon which to base that accusation - their error should be corrected, seems to be both sensible and reasonable.
How do
You think a producer - or you - should react to being called a liar when there is no justification for doing so ?
You seem to acknowledge that our last point demonstrated a lot of knowledge about the law. So we have added good information to the debate.
What do
you say is wrong with that ?
Yes Bluebird man, I'm questioning the truth of your posts. And?
You claim Ofcom cannot be challenged. At all. That's just plain wrong.
You can challenge them on the grounds of whether their code is reasonable.
You can challenge them on whether thay are actually applying the law correctly in the first place (see IanG's post in the Ofcom thread for examples).
You could broadcast something you know they'll pull you up for, refuse to pay the subsequent fine, and when they try and take your license challenge that in court, arguing that they have no right to do so becuase their interpretation of both the code and the law is flawed.
You claim none of this is possible because of some flim-flam about whether it is a reasonable belief that any other reasonable ofcom would come to the same reasonable decision, and yet you yourself (or one of your clones) has stated in this very forum that "the majority of people on the forum, even the majority of people in the country, would accept harder broadcasting" (I'm paraphrasing, but that's what you said.
So, if the majority of people would accept stronger material being broadcast, then Ofcom's decisions on R18, by definition, do NOT reflect the will of the majority and cannot be called reasonable.
Finally you claim the challenge by the radio chap is completely different because it is about political statements. Read the post again. He is challenging them regarding their application of what is "harmful and offensive". If he can challenge the definition of what is harmful and offensive, why can't you.
I'd LIKE to believe that you want to challenge but think it is too costly and or too risky, and not worth it in the long run because you would have spent all the money and, if you win, ALL channels will benefit.
However, I actually believe you are just happy to be milking the status quo. And that makes you no different than all the other channels who say things like "we're much harder after midnight" and "want to see me f**ked by 6 men, subscribe now" when all you get is a close up of the family aspidistra.
Bottom line - ALL law is challengable in this country, by anyone. It just takes time and money. If you said "we're not doing it because the certain costs outweigh the potential benefits, but we'll do the best we can with what we have" you'd have my respect and probably a subscriber too. But if you persist with this "it can't be done, there is no way in law to challenge it", then I, and a fair number of others, will find it very hard to believe anything else you say.
Here's a perfectly reasonable question to end on. When you have your promo slots and your freeview bits on your encrypted channels, will you be honest about what subscribers get, or will you, as all the other channels do, imply that you can see hardcore material if you subscribe? You know, things like "see Danny f**k me up the a**e after encryption.
(18-06-2010 10:47 )Grawth Wrote: [ -> ][blah blah my unqualified opinion of what the law is etc etc]
Here's a perfectly reasonable question to end on. When you have your promo slots and your freeview bits on your encrypted channels, will you be honest about what subscribers get, or will you, as all the other channels do, imply that you can see hardcore material if you subscribe? You know, things like "see Danny f**k me up the a**e after encryption.
In answer to that, we have been stating on these Threads for weeks exactly what we will - and won't be showing.
[Moderator Notice : When quoting another member's post, please don't replace part/all of the text with your own interpretation]
Isn't all of this defined by the broadcasting and or comminications act which Ofcom are responsible for enforcing. I know what I am getting when I switch on to one of these channels which is why if i want something harder then i go and buy it or watch it on the internet. Every now and again channels like Television X really bend the rules but ultimately they are a business and are not going to pay unecessary fines and or lose their license to give probably what most of the public who watch TV after 10.pm at noght would be prepared to watch.So whatever Bluebird promise I just use it as a marketing message and hope the actual product is watchable and entertaining.
(19-06-2010 04:04 )BLUEBIRD OFFICIAL Wrote: [ -> ] (18-06-2010 10:47 )Grawth Wrote: [ -> ][blah blah my unqualified opinion of what the law is etc etc]
Here's a perfectly reasonable question to end on. When you have your promo slots and your freeview bits on your encrypted channels, will you be honest about what subscribers get, or will you, as all the other channels do, imply that you can see hardcore material if you subscribe? You know, things like "see Danny f**k me up the a**e after encryption.
In answer to that, we have been stating on these Threads for weeks exactly what we will - and won't be showing.
blah blah arrogant assumption of any qualifications I might or might not have, coupled with unshakeable belief that you are always right with a side order of refusing to accept the right of others to hold a differing opinion blah blah
didn't ask you what you have said here. I asked what your on screen promos will be like, you know, for the 90% of your audience that don't read this forum, but hey, don't let that stop you wittering on about something you weren't asked.
(19-06-2010 10:53 )Grawth Wrote: [ -> ] (19-06-2010 04:04 )BLUEBIRD OFFICIAL Wrote: [ -> ] (18-06-2010 10:47 )Grawth Wrote: [ -> ][blah blah my unqualified opinion of what the law is etc etc]
Here's a perfectly reasonable question to end on. When you have your promo slots and your freeview bits on your encrypted channels, will you be honest about what subscribers get, or will you, as all the other channels do, imply that you can see hardcore material if you subscribe? You know, things like "see Danny f**k me up the a**e after encryption.
In answer to that, we have been stating on these Threads for weeks exactly what we will - and won't be showing.
blah blah arrogant assumption of any qualifications I might or might not have, coupled with unshakeable belief that you are always right with a side order of refusing to accept the right of others to hold a differing opinion blah blah
didn't ask you what you have said here. I asked what your on screen promos will be like, you know, for the 90% of your audience that don't read this forum, but hey, don't let that stop you wittering on about something you weren't asked.
You can hold and express whatever opinion you like.
You cross the line when you call us 'liars' and repeat it.
And your on screen promos will be . . .
a) completely truthful about what can and can't be seen on your Sky and Freeview channels or
b) suggestive, hinting at far stronger material if you pay money, containing phrases similar to "we get so much harder after encryption" and "if you want to see me f**ked by 6 guys at once, subscribe now"
Well? After all it's only the third time I've asked.
(20-06-2010 00:51 )Grawth Wrote: [ -> ]And your on screen promos will be . . .
a) completely truthful about what can and can't be seen on your Sky and Freeview channels or
b) suggestive, hinting at far stronger material if you pay money, containing phrases similar to "we get so much harder after encryption" and "if you want to see me f**ked by 6 guys at once, subscribe now"
Well? After all it's only the third time I've asked.
This reminds me of those tv interviews with politicians
Why don't you just answer the man's question, Bluebird? It seems a perfectly fair one to me.
(20-06-2010 00:51 )Grawth Wrote: [ -> ]And your on screen promos will be . . .
a) completely truthful about what can and can't be seen on your Sky and Freeview channels or
b) suggestive, hinting at far stronger material if you pay money, containing phrases similar to "we get so much harder after encryption" and "if you want to see me f**ked by 6 guys at once, subscribe now"
Well? After all it's only the third time I've asked.
You can keep asking. We're exercising Our right not to enter any further dialogue with you. Until you apologise for calling us 'liars'.
(20-06-2010 00:58 )StanTheMan Wrote: [ -> ]This reminds me of those tv interviews with politicians
Why don't you just answer the man's question, Bluebird? It seems a perfectly fair one to me.
If someone else wishes to ask the question we'll be happy to answer. We are entering into no further dialogue with Grawth until he apologises for calling us 'liars'.
Seems a bit extreme! Was he banned for poor punctuation? 