You know I think eventually you will get somebody on the ofcom board who will go "You know what fuck the babe channels, let them do whatever they please" and that'll be the end of it. Change can happen.
(18-06-2011 01:43 )Scottishbloke Wrote: [ -> ]You know I think eventually you will get somebody on the ofcom board who will go "You know what fuck the babe channels, let them do whatever they please" and that'll be the end of it. Change can happen.
If they've been this uptight all along, then I doubt they will ease up on the censorship. Someone high up will not let it happen.
After watching the last 2 or 3 nights I predict we are doomed. Nobody is taking any risks at all, period. Boring and tame will kill the channels unless a producer takes some risks. The new owners of Sport are the worst for tame shows so booger all chance of them upping the ante and lowering the knickers.
(18-06-2011 01:43 )Scottishbloke Wrote: [ -> ]You know I think eventually you will get somebody on the ofcom board who will go "You know what fuck the babe channels, let them do whatever they please" and that'll be the end of it. Change can happen.
Does anybody seriously think the current climate is even remotely hinting at a more relaxed attitude?
Senior figures within government are regularly voicing concerns about the amount of exposure children get to sexual imagery.
They're doing everything they can to work out ways of policing the internet including people having to make requests if they want access to adult content.
There'll be no loosening of the rules on babe channels and they'll continue to use the "we can't risk our kids being exposed to it" argument to justify it.
The majority of the channels are prepared to go along with it. None of them are showing any inclination to push the boundaries and who can really blame them?
They still seem to get a regular flow of calls and even if the number of calls has reduced, having a reduced amount of business is better than having no business at all.
Just been watching BBC1. They have been trailling all morning the Case Histories programme in the second clip it shows a bloke with his had quite firmly on a lasses breast during a pastionate embrace.
Double standards yet again.
(18-06-2011 11:21 )MARCCE Wrote: [ -> ] (18-06-2011 01:43 )Scottishbloke Wrote: [ -> ]You know I think eventually you will get somebody on the ofcom board who will go "You know what fuck the babe channels, let them do whatever they please" and that'll be the end of it. Change can happen.
Does anybody seriously think the current climate is even remotely hinting at a more relaxed attitude?
No.
Quote:Senior figures within government are regularly voicing concerns about the amount of exposure children get to sexual imagery.
Well that's the 'traditional' scaremongering British Government fuckwits for you. They always pamper to the whims of the typical holier than thou voters...and while 'child sexualisation' is flavour of the month they'll spout the usual populist tripe to make these wankers feel happy.
Quote:They're doing everything they can to work out ways of policing the internet including people having to make requests if they want access to adult content.
Indeed they are. Yet there's not one shred of evidence to suggest children are at risk from knowing what sex and porn and the human body looks like or what all our bits are used for. In fact there's plenty of research to suggest you do kids more harm than good by ramming puritanical 'virtues' into their tiny young minds...indeed, they grow up to be the sort of fuckwits that spout the usual, "Think about the children", populist bollox mentioned above.
Quote:There'll be no loosening of the rules on babe channels and they'll continue to use the "we can't risk our kids being exposed to it" argument to justify it.
If only they had some real EVIDENCE to justify it! Instead they use lies, brainwashing and scaremongering tactics to impose their unjustifiable censorship upon EVERYONE.
Quote:The majority of the channels are prepared to go along with it. None of them are showing any inclination to push the boundaries and who can really blame them?
Oh, I dunno...as they've done fuck all to change or challenge the situation maybe everyone should blame them...?
Quote:They still seem to get a regular flow of calls and even if the number of calls has reduced, having a reduced amount of business is better than having no business at all.
Well, only if it covers their running costs and produces some profits for improvements and shareholder's dividends. It's a good job the callers get off on the aural sex because there sure as hell isn't anything sexually arousing to be seen on-screen.
OFCON have ensured the 'adult section of the EPG' is actually only fit for fifteen year olds.
(24-06-2011 00:41 )swimmer1 Wrote: [ -> ]http://www.atvod.co.uk/uploads/files/ATV...r_2011.pdf
Far to complicated for me to understand but are these ofcom new rules ? and does it in any way change things on babe channels ?
These are ATVOD's rules and they don't change OFCOM's shite in any way, shape or form.
For instance, you CAN watch R18-type material from an online 'TV-like' on-demand service...if you can prove you're 18 first.
How OFCOM/ATVOD have ILLEGALLY placed R18-type material in the category which "may cause serious impairment to minors" is quite astonishing since, in 2000, the High Court declared such material to be "an insignificant risk to children that might see it" (BBFC v VAC, 2000). R18 is legally HARMLESS to minors and the High Court would not have ordered that it be placed on sale on the high street to take into your home to watch if it were likely to cause harm to under eighteens. So, who the fuck do OFCOM/ATVOD think they are to overrule the decisions of the High Court of England and Wales? Where EXACTLY does the Comms Act say that either OFCOM or ATVOD are ALLOWED to decide what "may seriously impair the physical, mental or moral development of minors"? It doesn't, simple as that. OFCOM and ATVOD are acting way beyond their legal remits. Only a COURT can make such decisions...and those decisions are based on REAL EVIDENCE, not scaremongering, not religious morality, not 'traditional values'.
As ever OFCOM and ATVOD have IGNORED the very real danger religious brainwashing poses to susceptable children. They've ignored the fact that 18-rated movies often contain some bad people doing bad things...like taking drugs, beating folks up, committing robbery, murder, rape and so forth.
There's far worse stuff in 18-rated films that would shock and disturb the development of young children than the sight of a couple bonking in an R18 film ever could. After all, we're all born to have sex and perpetuate our species and, as a rule, Mother Nature doesn't make fuck-ups like creating creatures that can be damaged by their own sexual reason for living... Only relgious nutters and small-minded pricks dare to believe anything different.
But, as ever, the blinkered puritan religious halfwits we have, imposing their censorship and moral values on us without any legal right or power to do so, simply get away with it.
Last night was worse than ever, fell asleep in the armchair, woke bout 230am and had flick thru the channels. Half of the girls were not even topless, some lying on their fronts covering their breasts and not one pair of knickers off. Utter drivel. Now that Bailey has gone from Sport their is no real reason to watch such tame output.
The small minded religious nutters along with the mary whitehouse brigade are winning the battle.
As soon as they have total control over the tv they will take it to the cinemas and then to DVD rental shops and anything with sexual content will be edited or banned then they will target the internet (To protect minors of course). The problem then will be you will have sex starved people
with no avenue of release going around targeting minors. Just imagine what it would be like to live in a country where you cannot see a bit of female skin.