check the caps from the 2 post above vid
(01-12-2010 16:27 )bigguy01 Wrote: [ -> ]check the caps from the 2 post above vid
And what do those caps prove?
As I said before the idea that "web only" footage was used by Ofcom in this sanction is a baseless conspiracy theory and guess work of your own making.
(01-12-2010 16:27 )bigguy01 Wrote: [ -> ]check the caps from the 2 post above vid
seriously bigguy, get a grip!....even if you are on an anti-censorship crusade try being just a little realistic. Ofcom would not risk passing such a serious decision on an internet clip. The possible backlash would be too dangerous.
The situation is what it is, the big picture being Bang has repeatedly broken the code, and whats worst, they've constantly refused to cooperate with ofcom. You banging on about fernanda's clip or whatever will not change things. I have a very liberal view of things, however, where there is regulation, and an environment where most try and obide by that regulation, constant disregard is just irresponsible. Simple as. It is irresponsible to the employees, to the shareholders and to the viewing public. In saying all of this, someone very close to me works at Bang, so my intent is definitely not Bang bashing.
yes bang have utterly stupid and brainless but from fcoms descriptions which are very detailed. i did watch the freeview feed and the webstream and they were both different. so ofcoms descriptions it makes it appear they used webstream footage.
they do not use a second cam any more the feeds are the same for both tv and webstream
(01-12-2010 16:27 )bigguy01 Wrote: [ -> ]check the caps from the 2 post above vid
I had no internet when Fernanda
did this show all i had was sky tv & i didn't see any shots never mind her ass full round to the camera. Yeah it was me that asked for the cam to go on the net but i always do.
tintin was well appricated. thank you
(30-11-2010 23:41 )Azrail360 Wrote: [ -> ](I am most probably gonna be banned for my contraversial comments).
ppl are banned from forums not when they post controversial comments. Indeed, these open the debate, and this is the purpose of a forum. But the offense can lead to a banned user.
And what i would tell you as an advice, do never use in life "THEY ARE" "YOU ARE", is better to say, "in my opinion they are ugly". you send the same message, but you do not put yourself on a throne...
From the book of Canova (neoclassicism, the age of beauty...) "something is nice to you when your eyes see it as nice" (not sure about the perfect english translation, but the concept is this...). it means that what you think is nice, can look awful to another person... degustibus.....
I hope that after you have spit out your angry for the closure of the 2 channels you are more relaxed.... and at the end, they took of 2 channels from TV, not 2 millions girls from planet earth...
(01-12-2010 16:27 )bigguy01 Wrote: [ -> ]check the caps from the 2 post above vid
The whole webcam rumour seems to have started because someone on this forum tried to match up dates and time in Ofcoms report with clips on here. That does no proove for one minute that the web clips here were used by Ofcom but is being taken as fact.
If it really bothers you, write to Ofcom and ask them to disclose the information used in their decision making, ie the recordings Bang supplied. They have no legal grounds to refuse a Freedom of Information request, but might insist on you real name and address. Even if content is R18 they have to supply it, though they cannot legally post it. Ironically there is nothing to stop them putting it on the web. They can insist on supplying it in the format it was supplied in, or whatever strange commercial format they have transcribed to, and it could be a format you cannot easily read, but thats about the only difficulty they can throw at you.
i hate paper work. i hate watchdogs like ofcom (some are needed ofts, ofwat, ofgem) which to control our lives
(01-12-2010 23:59 )eccles Wrote: [ -> ] (01-12-2010 16:27 )bigguy01 Wrote: [ -> ]check the caps from the 2 post above vid
The whole webcam rumour seems to have started because someone on this forum tried to match up dates and time in Ofcoms report with clips on here. That does no proove for one minute that the web clips here were used by Ofcom but is being taken as fact.
If it really bothers you, write to Ofcom and ask them to disclose the information used in their decision making, ie the recordings Bang supplied. They have no legal grounds to refuse a Freedom of Information request, but might insist on you real name and address. Even if content is R18 they have to supply it, though they cannot legally post it. Ironically there is nothing to stop them putting it on the web. They can insist on supplying it in the format it was supplied in, or whatever strange commercial format they have transcribed to, and it could be a format you cannot easily read, but thats about the only difficulty they can throw at you.
Good summary, eccles:
The only issue you haven't covered is time. FoI themselves don't include enforceable dates (at least as far as I understand it) - I think the Act cites "...a reasonable timeframe" for the respondent to satisfy the request (or provides grounds for refusal or partial satisfaction).
In practice, this means citizens can wait months for a response to a FoI request.