do these sweeping misogynistic views which are pretty generalised relate to anyone who is a member of mumsnet or just the original poster 'citygirl' who started the debate? Or in fact anyone who is a parent as I see no statistics for how many of their members are not paying into the tax system (or have i missed that). It is hardly fair to judge character of a mumsnet user without any knowledge of them aside from the fact 1 sole member has publicly stated that they dont like the shows you like. This is not really any different from me starting a thread because I dislike cheese and then finding babeshows.co.uk are at war with cathedal city!
Most of the replies I saw within that thread maintain a sensible attitude and provide the suggested answers we have already gone through in this thread here.
It's strange that some have such strong feelings about the mumsnet users, when infact most are saying the exact same thing as people on here about blocking or deleting the channels.
This whole thing seems to me, is the daily mails usual shite, they printed something to stir up the public and it's worked.
^^^ Absolutely.
I don't think people should waste energy blasting Mumsnet when most of them either agree with us or don't give a shit one way or another.
(11-03-2012 13:01 )Censorship :-( Wrote: [ -> ]Perhaps someone should suggest to Mumsnet that they try doing, oh I don't know, some actual parenting?!
No need. Most of the posters there have already suggested that themselves.
It was not Mumsnet who devised the code, nor do they enforce it.
It is the civil service, in the guise of Ofcon, who are the instigators and supporters of such a censorious regime.
The complaint seems to have been triggered by a report submitted to UK regulator Ofcom by a British broadcaster called Six TV.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/17297090
I had never heard of them before this, but there was a regional broadcaster with licences in Oxford, Southampton, Reading and Portsmouth between 1999 and 2009. It ceased broadcasting when the absence of guarantees that it would get a digital licence was judged to render the business non-viable.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SIX_TV
It really is not clear why any broadcaster would go to the time and trouble of compiling a report into another broadcaster that it does not compete with.
The Department of Media, Culture and Sport (DCMS) is currently seeking to licence digital regional TV but it is not clear if Six TV has applied.
(11-03-2012 13:16 )m100 Wrote: [ -> ]If anyone does join mumsnet can you throw in a few random , : ; just to piss them off and give them something to do, thanks and if anyone points it out to you just reply "i love the smell of school dinners in the morning".
I think it's obvious that mumsnet are not particularly interested in this issue, so there isn't anything to gain by joining mumsnet and trying to provoke arguments with anyone there
It's a while since i've been on this forum but there now seems to be some flexing of the muscles from the regulator.
When i first read this article two phrases came to mind to sum up Ofcom, 'clutching at straw' and 'pissing into the wind' but their hand was forced into taking action by the high profile campaign by Six TV, a community TV service.
Six TV were not happy about the possible positioning of their service on the Freeview DTT platform after the Adult section and wrote to every MP with visual evidence highlighting this fact and that two such adult channels were licensed overseas by the dutch authorities.
Whilst i don't believe this would have caused to much concern amongst the majority of MP's i have no doubt that Jeremy Hunt through his media minister Ed Vaizey instructed Ofcom to bring the broadcaster, Cellcast, in line with the limitations of the Broadcasting Code.
Now whilst we know that the Dutch Authorities have a more lenient attitude towards sex, drugs, prostitution etc and probably laugh at the british attitude towards these subjects they are obliged to act upon and investigate the complaint from Ofcom.
The Dutch authority NICAM will need to ensure that the licence holders Game Network BV fully comply with the requirements of article 2 of the AVMSD concerning jurisdiction, chiefly on where their central administration is located and where management decisions are taken on programming or selection of content, ie Holland.
If Game Network BV satisfy that criteria then Ofcom, who we know have adopted national rules that are stricter than the directive (as they are free to do), fully knowing these can only be applied to licensees in their jurisdiction, will require NICAM under article 4 to 'give way' under the cooperation procedure with regard to safeguarding the UK's population, generally children.
Article 4 allows,
•if a country objects to the content in a foreign television broadcast which is wholly or mostly directed to it, it can use a consultation procedure (cooperation procedure) to address the country of origin. The latter shall then issue a non-binding request for the broadcaster to comply with the stricter rules of the targeted country.
•if the broadcaster circumvents these national rules, the objecting country can also - with the Commission's prior approval – take binding measures (circumvention procedure).
So Ofcom may eventually get their way which would effect all of Cellcasts dutch transmissions on both Freeview and Sky including BSEtreme, timescales dependant on the swiftness of the Dutch authorities to action on the evidence provided.
(12-03-2012 22:46 )Gold Plated Pension Wrote: [ -> ]•if the broadcaster circumvents these national rules, the objecting country can also - with the Commission's prior approval – take binding measures (circumvention procedure).
Well documented and authorative as ever. It does however depend on th Commission consenting and that is a big unknown. As is the timescale - with a will the Commission could act quickly, or it could put it in the "due process" pile meaning it only gets investigated after previous issues. Bumping something up the queue means something else gets delayed (more).
In the interests of research I have tried, really I have, to find examples of "scenes of near naked women massaging each other's breasts, masturbating and faking orgasms" but that does not seem to be a good description of midevening or late night content. Is the daytime or teatime content like that? Apologies if this has already been covered.
Ofcom has guidelines for dealing with other EU regulators, written in 9 April 2010 but updated 1 March 2012 - it is suspicious that an update was rushed out just before Ofcom actually used the procedure, and Babestation could have grounds for complaint if Ofcom changed the regulations retrospectively.
http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binarie...elines.pdf
The regulations describe how Ofcom will handle complaints received
from abroard, and the "would appreciate" it foreign regulators reciprocated "insofar as is possible". Thats a pretty wimpy statement.
They also categorically state that "Ofcom will handle such complaints in accordance with UK law and Ofcom's published rules and procedures", not foreign law rules and procedures. According to Ofcoms priniciple of reciprocity the Dutch regulator would be required to apply Dutch law, not British law.
It is possible that this will either get thrown out very quickly or Babestation will accept a token punishment and agree to behave.
What's not clear is what this 'complaint' by Ofcom to the Dutch authorities actually is (if it exists).
What have Cellcast/Game Network BV done, apart from start a bit earlier than the Ofcom-licensed channels? Ofcom have been perfectly happy with that for some time, so that can't be it.
The content is at the same level as other Freeview babe channels, so that can't be it either. The comments about on-screen masturbation etc are nonsense and just figments of a tabloid journalist's imagination to sex up the story.
Six TV's issue with EPG positioning is an entirely separate matter and the solution is in the hands of Ofcom, not Cellcast or the Dutch authorities.
Also, as we now know, the quoted Mumsnet comments were a massive red herring and nothing to do with the current issue of Dutch licensing.
Therefore I remain puzzled!
