25-11-2010, 16:30
Due to recent events with Bang Media I have decided that one final post is necessary.
A damning indictment against OFCOM’s current practice:
Adult entertainment is licensed to be broadcast. Adult entertainment is all about providing sexual gratification for the general public; therefore, if anyone complains about the material being broadcast - whether it be a member of the public, a rival channel, or members of OFCOM who scrutinize these shows to find any perceived infringes - their complaint needs to be put into context.
Anyone who finds these shows to be offensive, immoral, beneath contempt… simply have no case against any of the material that is being shown: for the simple reason, if they have a case against this material being broadcast, then they need to demonstrate their case and get these licences revoked. As long as these licences are being granted, then these broadcasters should be afforded their right to broadcast their product without interference from those who simply dislike the product.
All other issues, such as safeguarding the young and general public from coming into contact with this material unawares, are issues for the broadcasters and the government (OFCOM included) to put their heads together and come up with the best solutions…But under no circumstances should moralizers be allowed to interfere and complain against material that has being given authorization to be published…….How explicit that material can be, again, is a separate issue; but complete nudity and the showing of genitalia has to be the minimum requirement for channels whose sole purpose is sexual titillation.
Now, if the argument that I have made here was to be espoused and fought for by any politician worth their salt, there is no way that it would not eventually triumph over the nonsense that is currently OFCOM. Unfortunately, selling sex is an ignoble profession; for the simple reason that it is not only one of the partners involved in sex who has benefit to offer. So, no politician is likely to do more than just write a discreet letter on behalf of their constituents. But under no circumstances will they make a public spectacle in its defence. This is the main reason why OFCOM are allowed to thrive upon their current abuse and irrationality. OFCOM are not just simply safeguarding what is being broadcast; they are actually dictating their moral standards unto the rest of the general public….But, as I have already stated, anyone who has a case against sex being broadcast, need to make their case and get the channels completely removed - or else no interference or complaints against them broadcasting their product (sexual titillation), and for which they have been given license, should ever be upheld.
It is only a matter of time before these logical arguments, which simply cannot be refuted by OFCOM, overthrow this farcical dictatorship. OFCOM do not have a leg to stand on, if properly challenged.
Regards
A damning indictment against OFCOM’s current practice:
Adult entertainment is licensed to be broadcast. Adult entertainment is all about providing sexual gratification for the general public; therefore, if anyone complains about the material being broadcast - whether it be a member of the public, a rival channel, or members of OFCOM who scrutinize these shows to find any perceived infringes - their complaint needs to be put into context.
Anyone who finds these shows to be offensive, immoral, beneath contempt… simply have no case against any of the material that is being shown: for the simple reason, if they have a case against this material being broadcast, then they need to demonstrate their case and get these licences revoked. As long as these licences are being granted, then these broadcasters should be afforded their right to broadcast their product without interference from those who simply dislike the product.
All other issues, such as safeguarding the young and general public from coming into contact with this material unawares, are issues for the broadcasters and the government (OFCOM included) to put their heads together and come up with the best solutions…But under no circumstances should moralizers be allowed to interfere and complain against material that has being given authorization to be published…….How explicit that material can be, again, is a separate issue; but complete nudity and the showing of genitalia has to be the minimum requirement for channels whose sole purpose is sexual titillation.
Now, if the argument that I have made here was to be espoused and fought for by any politician worth their salt, there is no way that it would not eventually triumph over the nonsense that is currently OFCOM. Unfortunately, selling sex is an ignoble profession; for the simple reason that it is not only one of the partners involved in sex who has benefit to offer. So, no politician is likely to do more than just write a discreet letter on behalf of their constituents. But under no circumstances will they make a public spectacle in its defence. This is the main reason why OFCOM are allowed to thrive upon their current abuse and irrationality. OFCOM are not just simply safeguarding what is being broadcast; they are actually dictating their moral standards unto the rest of the general public….But, as I have already stated, anyone who has a case against sex being broadcast, need to make their case and get the channels completely removed - or else no interference or complaints against them broadcasting their product (sexual titillation), and for which they have been given license, should ever be upheld.
It is only a matter of time before these logical arguments, which simply cannot be refuted by OFCOM, overthrow this farcical dictatorship. OFCOM do not have a leg to stand on, if properly challenged.
Regards