(27-11-2010 19:37 )chrislatimer Wrote: [ -> ]bangbabes if you look it at through the law (and ofcom in tvland is the law) repeatly broke the code of broadcasting and were warned laughed it off.
Again, there's the parallel – apartheid was also
the law.
Stop comparing the specifics of the two situations and consider just the principle. Defiance highlights the injustice – just because external pressure hastened the end doesn't mean that defiance wasn't a major factor.
Bringing it closer to home, do you think that we'd have got rid of the Poll Tax as quickly as we did if it were not for all those who defied it?
(27-11-2010 19:42 )chrislatimer Wrote: [ -> ]in summary YOUR NOT
I don't understand this.
vila i give up if u really think theres a comparasion with the 2 then i dont know what to say
Let's go the whole hog and compare ofcom's actions to Hitler's persecution of the European Jews, or to Ethnic Cleansing in the Balkans. Both would be about as sensible as comparing them to the South African Apartheid regime.
Some people seriously need to get a grip. Bang is (or was) a half-arsed, dishonest, stupid and ultimately self-destructive minor satellite channel.
I was born in Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe) and travelled frequently to Jo'burg, etc.
Any comparison between the two situations is ludicrous.
(27-11-2010 20:04 )Scotsman Wrote: [ -> ] (27-11-2010 19:51 )orchid500 Wrote: [ -> ]A lot of people on this thread have said about using pin protection for these channels and what they show, I would just like to say that Ofcom has in the past stated that pin protection is NOT adequate as they feel that children can easily bypass this and that most parents just don't bother to set it up in the first place..
Fair point about parents not setting it up, but what I'm saying is the channels should be PIN protected in the same way the PPV adult channels currently are, only free. If the material on those channels is hidden behind only a PIN, surely the babeshows, which are tamer, can be too?
I agree with you on that - if they can do it for movies shown in the day like Drag Me to Hell and other horror and action movies that carry 15 and 18 ratings on the movie channels thay can do so for the 900 channels, they have even set the president for this.
The only difference is that if they shut down Sky there relly would be riots, worse still husbands and wives would actually have to talk to each other!!!
I can see the point your trying to make. But the two incidents are totally different. Apartheid, was a crime against humanity, and extreme action was necessary in that circumstance.
Ofcom's rules, are not life threatening or crimes against humanity. Yes we all think they are unjust, but constantly breaking the rules, is not the way to get the law changed. It has to be fought in a court of law, and a precedent set first, before any further progress can be made.
Yes, I know this has been tried before, and failed. But they didn't have a strong enough argument to set a precedent last time.
And as for your Poll Tax reference. I fought against that as well. But did we really win that fight? or did the government just re-name it Council Tax.
(27-11-2010 20:05 )mrmann Wrote: [ -> ] (27-11-2010 19:51 )orchid500 Wrote: [ -> ]A lot of people on this thread have said about using pin protection for these channels and what they show, I would just like to say that Ofcom has in the past stated that pin protection is NOT adequate as they feel that children can easily bypass this and that most parents just don't bother to set it up in the first place..
Now I'm not going to say that all what has happened is the fault of only one party, as I for one did like the fact that BB did try to push the boundaries but did themselves no favours in not responding to what Ofcom put in front of them, but there is a much wider issue at stake here in just how free are we to watch what we want on TV?
I feel that the only way to change what we see at night is to directly contact Ofcom and the local MP (for what good that may do) to change the law. As for the daytime service then common sense should prevail, if you are going to have a woman dressed in next to nothing on TV don't do anything that can be taken as sexual (hard I know for this type of channel).
That's proof right there that Ofcom wants to control everything. Have they taken a servey from every single resident in the U.K to determine whether they monitor what their kids watch or whether they use encryption? NO!!!!!!!
Actually there was a survey conducted and the results were linked on here in another thread, if the person who put it on here is reading this can they re up it for clarity? Sorry I can't remember who put it up! But it was in a thread about censorship and a previous ruling against BB by Ofcom.
(27-11-2010 20:29 )aceman65 Wrote: [ -> ]I can see the point your trying to make. But the two incidents are totally different. Apartheid, was a crime against humanity, and extreme action was necessary in that circumstance.
Ofcom's rules, are not life threatening or crimes against humanity. Yes we all think they are unjust, but constantly breaking the rules, is not the way to get the law changed. It has to be fought in a court of law, and a precedent set first, before any further progress can be made.
Yes, I know this has been tried before, and failed. But they didn't have a strong enough argument to set a precedent last time.
And as for your Poll Tax reference. I fought against that as well. But did we really win that fight? or did the government just re-name it Council Tax.
...the government just re-named it the Council Tax (as you imply).
(27-11-2010 20:29 )aceman65 Wrote: [ -> ]And as for your Poll Tax reference. I fought against that as well. But did we really win that fight? or did the government just re-name it Council Tax.
What the government lost from the abolition of the Poll Tax has been more than made up in other indirect taxes.
Thats not in the same league as a tv channel being stopped