If you ever decide to visit Ofcom personally I am hereby volunteering(in writing ) to come with you. I really want to sit there and discuss ANAL and LABIAL detail with them,giving them our point of view and common sense. I did study property law ha ha.. will that help? As we all know I talk
(all sorts).
Absolutely seriously no joking
Camilla
fav quote: "And i could go on all fecking day... "
you are just gorgeous...all of you
Thanks, Camilla, I'm sure your presence may attract a few more to the cause too.
Thank you ever so for the support.
You're the first on the attendee list!
Anymore out there want to pay Ofcom a visit (and meet SwedishCamilla...)?
Thanks hon.
Ian.
Ian, i'm also backing the letter because Ofcunt need to be told and I wish the gov would just give them the axe to help fix the defecit. OFCOM FUCK OFF!!!!
I would love to see ofcom in a question and answer session similar to the pre election debates that happened on the bbc and see just how they would handle the pressure of a live audience mainly consisting of the people on this forum.
You have a point there. I believe in face to face meetings and at least talking on the phone as letter writing takes a lot of time and can only get you so far. In my opinion few will take you seriously until you sit there across the table.
Negotiation without losing your cool and making constant sense is a great skill.
I just posted a little piece on the Mica thread about Ofcom and 'Rules' and it got me wondering - what generally accepted standards did Ofcom apply when deciding that, 'providing adequate protection to members of the public from the inclusion of offensive and harmful material in radio and TV programmes' (as reqd. by section 319(2)(f) of the Comms Act), can be achieved by, Rule 2.3 "offensive and/or harmful material must be justified by context"?
When does context ever provide adequate protection from the inclusion of offensive and/or harmful material?
What context would provide the most protection from the inclusion of offensive and/or harmful material?
May be some examples or hypothetical situations might highlight the pros and cons of Rule 2.3? For instance; If Dot Cotton suddenly did a striptease in the Vic and performed an exotic sex show with ping pong balls and cigars, this would likely cause a riot in and around every BBC centre and pickets outside Ofcom HQ. But if this outrageous behaviour were justified by the context that Dot believed she'd been possessed by an evil sex fiend demon it might just pass Ofcom's supposed 'adequate protection'. Of course, we all trust the BBC would never allow such a thing to be shown in any graphic detail, indeed, we'd expect rather more taste and decency from the writers and producers the BBC employ.
Now what if such a scene as above took place with a ravishing beauty in place of Dot and in the context of a late night sexually explicit horror spoof movie on an 'adult' sex channel? Surely now such scenes might be expected, indeed, they're wholly justified in such a context, aren't they? Well, aren't they? I believe so. I'm sure any rational person would agree so.
My question to you, and Ofcom, is this: What generally accepted standards state that providing adequate protection to members of the public from the inclusion of offensive and harmful material in programmes, can be achieved by allowing the inclusion of such material if it can somehow be justified by context?
Who wrote these standards? How are they supposed to work? What do they actually say about content the context and protection? Why do Ofcom believe this rationale satisfies their Standards Objectives? Does it indeed satisfy their Standards Objectives and how is this being tested, measured, reported and, if necessary, corrected or adjusted to meet their Standards Objectives?
And please folks, feel free to try and find these generally accepted standards, I'm sure we'd all love to see them. If its something obvious I've completely overlooked please correct my understanding.
I can fully appreciate what Ofcom's Code says and how showing 'naughty bits' can be justified in the context of sexual education and, of course, sexually explicit material of any kind. If potentially offensive sexual content is, as is clear to me, justified by any sexually explicit context, how can Ofcom keep claiming it isn't?
Sex ed programmes, like 'adult' entertainment, contain potentially offensive sexually explicit material - i.e. cocks and fanny to be blunt - at least all the ones I've ever seen did. What about you? What the hell have Ofcom been watching if they don't understand this simple premise?
I agree ofcom f-off,I'm more offended by Jeremy Kyle and Adrian Chiles,why can't you ban the real c**nts off the tv and leave the natural ones alone.
Just bubbling beneath the surface with Ofcon is this huge fear of sexual arousal. That's why they feel they need to censor the shows. "Protection of children" is just a smokescreen.
They are shit scared that the nation will turn into one big sex orgy. (Chance would be a fine thing).
Or, conversley, they are shit scared that they may actually enjoy the sexual arousal for them selves, as is a common trait with religious/moralistic people.
I may be wrong about this but I doubt it, the ones who make the decisions at Ofcom are probably Church Leaders, Lords, and others persons in charge of Children , etc, you know, the same people who have been abusing children and vulnerable people for decades.
They don't want the rest of the population being given access to porn, incase we turn into the same depraved sick bastards that they are.
YOU REALLY THINK OFCOM ARE THE PROBLEM?........THESE CHANNELS PUT OUT CONTENT THATS DESIGNED TO FRUSTRATE THE AVERAGE MALE IN AN ATTEMPT TO SELL THERE PAY PER VIEW CRAP.....OFCOM ARE JUST THE EXCUSE .... NUDITY IS ALLOWED ON TV BUT WHY GIVE IT AWAY FREE?