The UK Babe Channels Forum

What this does mean is that Ofcom have killed any chance of an enjoyable Christmas stone dead.

Ofcom = Scrooge.

(22-12-2011 01:00 )SYBORG666 Wrote: [ -> ]If I had the money that the babechannels had then I would take them to court because if they can afford to pay £70,000+ fines, then I can't see why they can't afford to take Ofcom to court.

Perhaps because they think they would lose the case and it would therefore be a waste of money?

Anyway Jon Gaunt took Ofcom to court (and lost) so it is possible for an individual to bring a case against them. Why doesn't someone here do it if they feel strongly enough about the way Ofcom carries out its duties?

(23-12-2011 11:58 )admiral decker Wrote: [ -> ]

(22-12-2011 01:00 )SYBORG666 Wrote: [ -> ]If I had the money that the babechannels had then I would take them to court because if they can afford to pay £70,000+ fines, then I can't see why they can't afford to take Ofcom to court.

Perhaps because they think they would lose the case and it would therefore be a waste of money?

Anyway Jon Gaunt took Ofcom to court (and lost) so it is possible for an individual to bring a case against them. Why doesn't someone here do it if they feel strongly enough about the way Ofcom carries out its duties?

I'm not sure why you're taking this accusatory line decker. It makes no sense. You can't take someone to court on behalf of someone else. It's up to the injured party to instigate proceedings. John Gaunt was the injured party.

And even if a disinterested third party did take Ofcom to court, perhaps on a freedom of choice argument, to quote your own post:

"Perhaps because they think they would lose the case and it would therefore be a waste of money?"

(23-12-2011 15:06 )Digital Dave Wrote: [ -> ]I'm not sure why you're taking this accusatory line decker. It makes no sense. You can't take someone to court on behalf of someone else. It's up to the injured party to instigate proceedings. John Gaunt was the injured party.

And even if a disinterested third party did take Ofcom to court, perhaps on a freedom of choice argument, to quote your own post:

"Perhaps because they think they would lose the case and it would therefore be a waste of money?"

Ofcom are doing a valiant job at protecting people like you from having a torrent of filth being delivered over the airwaves into your home. If you don't like being protected or think you're being protected unnecessarily then it follows that you are the injured party. You're not a disinterested third party, you're the victim.

As it's Christmas - the time for good will to all men (and women) - I'd just like to wish Ofcom chairman Colette Bowe a very merry Christmas and a happy new year.

As a special thank you for keeping us all safe from harmful imagery, I'd like to dedicate these two songs to everyone at Ofcom HQ.

(23-12-2011 20:43 )admiral decker Wrote: [ -> ]

(23-12-2011 15:06 )Digital Dave Wrote: [ -> ]I'm not sure why you're taking this accusatory line decker. It makes no sense. You can't take someone to court on behalf of someone else. It's up to the injured party to instigate proceedings. John Gaunt was the injured party.

And even if a disinterested third party did take Ofcom to court, perhaps on a freedom of choice argument, to quote your own post:

"Perhaps because they think they would lose the case and it would therefore be a waste of money?"

Ofcom are doing a valiant job at protecting people like you from having a torrent of filth being delivered over the airwaves into your home. If you don't like being protected or think you're being protected unnecessarily then it follows that you are the injured party. You're not a disinterested third party, you're the victim.

Ofcom are not protecting me from anything. Ofcom have taken away my freedom to choose. Anything legal should be broadcastable, and if you don't want to watch it, then don't. If you accidentally see it, then switch over. Be a grown-up for crying out loud. Take responsibility. Live your own life and let others live theirs. Protect your own children - don't rely on someone else to do it for you and then complain if they see a bit of naked flesh when a large number of parents are quite happy to buy 18 rated games for their 14 year old son to play, or for their 10 year old to be on facebook.

I take responsibilty for my actions, and for what my children do and see. Why am I in the minority?

(23-12-2011 20:57 )Grawth Wrote: [ -> ]Ofcom are not protecting me from anything. Ofcom have taken away my freedom to choose. Anything legal should be broadcastable, and if you don't want to watch it, then don't. If you accidentally see it, then switch over. Be a grown-up for crying out loud. Take responsibility. Live your own life and let others live theirs. Protect your own children - don't rely on someone else to do it for you and then complain if they see a bit of naked flesh when a large number of parents are quite happy to buy 18 rated games for their 14 year old son to play, or for their 10 year old to be on facebook.

I take responsibilty for my actions, and for what my children do and see. Why am I in the minority?

Perfect.

(23-12-2011 02:28 )eccles Wrote: [ -> ]What this does mean is that Ofcom have killed any chance of an enjoyable Christmas stone dead.

Ofcom = Scrooge.

No, not all.

Scrooge saw the light after the visits from certain ghosts. I still get a tear in my eye when thinking about Scrooge ordering the biggest goose.

So running your analogy up the flag pole and wiping my arse with it, I'm fully expecting full frontal, explicit vaginal shots on the babe channels over Christmas.

OFCOM = the giver of Christmas Cheer.

The channels would be in a much stronger position to take Ofcom to court as their business is directly affected. Individual viewers could sue for loss of viewing freedom, but winning would be a harder challenge and the rewards less. Noone can force a channel to broadcast strong content, and unless a channel was prepared to stand up in court and say Ofcom was preventing them from broadcasting stuff, the case would collapse. Ofcoms defence team would say "OK, tell us which channel we are blocking", no answer, end of case. It comes down to channnels being prepared to grow a set of balls.

There is appeal to the European Court of Human Rights, but it is usually publishers rather than customers who take this route and it takes years.

(23-12-2011 20:43 )admiral decker Wrote: [ -> ]Ofcom are doing a valiant job at protecting people like you from having a torrent of filth being delivered over the airwaves into your home. If you don't like being protected or think you're being protected unnecessarily then it follows that you are the injured party. You're not a disinterested third party, you're the victim.

Total crap. See Eccle's post #29 for further enlightenment.