(30-12-2010 02:39 )gazfc Wrote: [ -> ]Thanks for that, I've asked a few times in the various threads
As for your question, Some of the daytime outfits have ace!! It's also turned days back into what they're supposed to be, IMO they was nothing special about seeing a girl wearing them nipple covers and a g-string, it leaves nothing to the imagination.
You can keep your imagination!!! Lots of human beings actually like to see what is before them.
These channels serve one purpose, and one purpose only: sexual titillation; whether day, or night. OFCOM are going to any lengths to deny that titillation; full stop.
If you are content to not actually see anything sexual, but prefer to use your imagination, then that is up to you.
You have every channel on the TV for that. These channels are specifically for those who want to be aroused by women.
They cant be trying that hard then, as the channels have been around for about ten years.
(30-12-2010 03:13 )gazfc Wrote: [ -> ]They cant be trying that hard then, as the channels have been around for about ten years.
These channels are around because the government gives them permit.
OFCOM have no say in the matter. But what they are doing is to stifle the explicit content.
(30-12-2010 03:18 )Intense1 Wrote: [ -> ]These channels are around because the government gives them permit. OFCOM have no say in the matter. But what they are doing is to stifle the explicit content.
Ofcom give them license's to broadcast, without a broadcast incense they cant broadcast, so if ofcom was trying to 'stifle explicit content' they just wouldn't give them a license.
anyway ofcom are a government department, I'm confused or drunk, maybe both?
(30-12-2010 03:27 )gazfc Wrote: [ -> ]Ofcom give them license's to broadcast, without a broadcast incense they cant broadcast, so if ofcom was trying to 'stifle explicit content' they just wouldn't give them a license.
anyway ofcom are a government department, I'm confused or drunk, maybe both?
You have no idea what you are talking about. These licenses are given to the adult channels, as long as they satisfy the required criterion,
because the government has given them permit. In other words, OFCOM cannot refuse a license if all the required criteria are met.
If you are not aware that OFCOM have been stifling explicit sexual content from
all British broadcasting then I can only suggest that you deserve to be laughed at.
(30-12-2010 03:59 )Intense1 Wrote: [ -> ]You have no idea what you are talking about. These licenses are given to the adult channels, as long as they satisfy the required criterion, because the government has given them permit. In other words, OFCOM cannot refuse a license if all the required criteria are met.
If you are not aware that OFCOM have been stifling explicit sexual content from all British broadcasting then I can only suggest that you deserve to be laughed at.
Ofcom issue licenses do they not? If ofcom where ruling under their own rules ie not following what the government has set them, and all British broadcast channels where not been governed by the rules they got when the License was granted surely one of these hundreds of channels (including bskyb who have billions of pounds) would have taken this to court?
If ofcom where acting so beyond their means do you not think that one of the many channels would of done something by now?
The way I see it is, the channels enter into agreement when the channels accept the broadcast license, they agree to the broadcast rules or interpretation of them rules, which will also include the clause's for termination (much like any contract you or I sign will) should certain conditions be broken.
Ofcom act on behalf of the public, Ie when a member of the public complain, ofcom act, ofcock are doing their job, just like any government complaints department do
(30-12-2010 04:27 )gazfc Wrote: [ -> ]Ofcom issue licenses do they not? If ofcom where ruling under their own rules ie not following what the government has set them, and all British broadcast channels where not been governed by the rules they got when the License was granted surely one of these hundreds of channels (including bskyb who have billions of pounds) would have taken this to court?
If ofcom where acting so beyond their means do you not think that one of the many channels would of done something by now?
The way I see it is, the channels enter into agreement when the channels accept the broadcast license, they agree to the broadcast rules or interpretation of them rules, which will also include the clause's for termination (much like any contract you or I sign will) should certain conditions be broken.
Ofcom act on behalf of the public, Ie when a member of the public complain, ofcom act, ofcock are doing their job, just like any government complaints department do
This will be my last reply to you, because clearly you have no understanding of the seperate issues involved.
Government = Law
OFCOM = Regulatory Body In Broadcasting.
Yes, everyone who is granted a permit to broadcast must accept the terms and conditions set out. But I can assure you that those terms and conditions will have nothing whatsoever to do with the explicitness of the material; only a watershed time for when the explicitness is allowed: for the simple reason, that in a democratic free market, if one has a commodity than has been given sanction, it cannot then be denied its function. Displaying sexual images is the function of these channels. The only problem that these channels face, is when that sexual explicitness is transmtted beyond the boundaries for those of whom it is meant. That is where OFCOM comes in.
These new rules was imposed because the sexual explicitness nature of the dayshows was been broadcast before watershed so thank you for clearing up what I've been talking about.
'ofcom = regulatory body in broadcasting' run by who, oh yeah the government who empowered them to do what they do.
Also it doesn't help your cause when instead of providing facts about a subject you claim to know so much about you choose to mock me instead, I've never claimed I know anything about what we're talking about, I just offer my opinion on a subject that was presented to me which to my knowledge had nothing to do with the direction you steered it off to.
Back to the thread...
The new rules have seriously affected my viewing and I hardly ever watch now.
That said I do understand why Ofcom acted as some days I had to remind myself that these were daytime shows!
Hope things slip (literally) again soon.
(30-12-2010 05:27 )gazfc Wrote: [ -> ]These new rules was imposed because the sexual explicitness nature of the dayshows was been broadcast before watershed so thank you for clearing up what I've been talking about.
'ofcom = regulatory body in broadcasting' run by who, oh yeah the government who empowered them to do what they do.
Also it doesn't help your cause when instead of providing facts about a subject you claim to know so much about you choose to mock me instead, I've never claimed I know anything about what we're talking about, I just offer my opinion on a subject that was presented to me which to my knowledge had nothing to do with the direction you steered it off to.
Yes, but Ofcon's rules also affect hugely what is allowed to be shown after the watershed and on a subscription channel.
They say that explicit content must be on a subscription channel to protect children from viewing then, in the next breath, say that proper explicit material cannot be shown because children are also watching the subscription channels. That is, of course, total bollocks as they have no concrete evidence that kids are watching these channels.
If there was a a choice for the consumer of babeshows, full nudity and full R18 then that would satisfy most people.
As it is, there is huge frustration and anger with Ofcon's stance on sexual content on tv.
They don't want it and so believe we shouldn't have it.