Continental, you need to learn how to use the quote system properly. You're including your own comments with those of the person you're quoting, making it look like they've said something they haven't.
(11-09-2011 23:39 )StanTheMan Wrote: [ -> ]Continental, you need to learn how to use the quote system properly. You're including your own comments with those of the person you're quoting, making it look like they've said something they haven't.
Oooops sorry about that I was doing this intentionally, thanks for letting me no
(11-09-2011 15:37 )StanTheMan Wrote: [ -> ]Well, I sort of understand the relevance now, but I'm still totally baffled by the phone ringing thing? What do you mean the phone rang and he 'answered' it??
Maybe you had to have seen the show?
Sadly yes. While demonstrating which of the two contestants could unblock the sink without getting out of the bath, there was a telephone ringing sound that went on for a while. He reluctantly asked the audience if he should "answer" it, then did so. For what its worth it looked like a model 332 handset with the bell end.
@continental19, so what if OFCOM are correct and "offensive and harmful material" is whatever causes supposed harm and/or offence to some member(s) of the public?
We know Jerry Springer The Opera attracted over 30,000 complaints yet OFCOM did nothing. OFCOM received many complaints about the full frontal nudity on C4's lunchtime life painting programme but OFCOM defended the channel and the programme content.
I personally feel the content on all the religious channels is harmful and offensive. The Comms Act specifically cites such programming as requiring special attention...to protect the young and vulnerable from any possible religious extremism and other obnoxious anti-gay, anti-sex, misogynistic views.
OFCOM are also specifically tasked with "preventing advertising which may be misleading, offensive or harmful". As OFCOM have decided all 'participation TV' shows, which include the babe channels and so-called 'psychic' channels, are advertising then, the psychic channels in particular make claims which do not stand-up to any scientific scrutiny. I'd suggest that people in a vulnerable state of mind are more likely to use these 'psychic' services than people of sound and rational mind.
OFCOM claim to be protecting vulnerable people by banning adult entertainment but clearly, OFCOM haven't actually considered who, when or what actually constitutes vulnerable members of the public or, indeed, what type of material may cause them harm.
If OFCOM are correct and the Comms Act actually means they are "to prevent any harm and/or offence which may be caused" then WHY doesn't the Comms Act say this? How do OFCOM arrive at the oxymoronic view that sex and nudity "cannot be justified in a sexually arousing context" yet assert that it is somehow justified in a non-sexual context? Is this a 'generally accepted standard' viewpoint? Or is it contradictory claptrap?
OFCOM assert that the PIN is not adequate to protect children from adult content yet, films containing all manner of adult themes, including explicit sexual activity, female genital mutilation, murder, rape, incest, robbery, drug abuse etc. etc. etc. ALL get transmitted without any PIN protection whatsoever. And who in their right mind would consider the 'hardest' pornographic material which OFCOM permit to be broadcast on 'adult' subscription channels is any less likely to harm underage viewers or to offend those of a hypersentive nature than real R18-type material? The High Court ruled that explicit sex in R18 movies posed "an insignificant risk to children that might view it" - so who the hell do OFCOM think they are to contradict that verdict?
In one of their latest pieces of tripe, OFCOM state an internet survey found that in Nov 2009 around 110,000 kids in the UK aged 13-15 visited free porngraphic streaming sites like realmadrid. We can only assume this was a typical month, which means, given around 600,000 kids are born each year, that something like another 70,000 kids have viewed streaming online porn clips since 2009. If there were any possible harm arising from this 'education' into human sexuality and pornography then surely it would be obvious to everyone by now? After all, the internet, and associated access to porn, has been around for over 15 years. As it is likely that a completely different set of 110,000 kids aged 13-15 also watched online porn clips last month, one has to wonder who OFCOM think they're 'protecting' by banning sexual material from our TV screens? The fact is kids who have not matured enough to WANT to seek out sexual material do not seek out sexual material. On the other hand, those that have matured enough to WANT to seek out sexual material will do so online...and they will discover material that is NOT currently permitted at R18 - i.e. European-strength (fisting, pissing, gagging etc.) 'hardcore' porn which the BBFC routinely cuts from UK legal R18.
Why is it if a movie is rated 15 they can show full nudity, yet the babe channels are labelled 18+ and the most we're allowed to see is a bare arse!!!!!!! It beggers belief.
Channel 275 on Sky showed a 20th anniversary update of Lover's Guide last night, 1030pm, uncensored. Erections, cunnilingus, digital penetration and blow jobs......fta yet an adult channel can't show the same content without getting hammered to pieces by Ofcon...Discuss.
It's all to do with context, or in this case cuntext.
they might just say it is educational so they turned a blind eye to it
(23-09-2011 19:09 )SCIROCCO Wrote: [ -> ]Channel 275 on Sky showed a 20th anniversary update of Lover's Guide last night, 1030pm, uncensored. Erections, cunnilingus, digital penetration and blow jobs......fta yet an adult channel can't show the same content without getting hammered to pieces by Ofcon...Discuss.
Can you warn us in advance of such a show, as I would like to see first hand (
) what is shown on this particular programme
Seriously, is it on again?
