Ofcom Discussion

(06-06-2012 20:47 )Scottishbloke Wrote:  ...when their religious or personal beliefs start to have an effect on the censorship which this country currently has
...
Ofcom does and is pandering to their every whim.

Do you have any solid evidence that ofcom is acting the way it is because of any kind of influence from these ethnic or religious groups? If so please enlighten us.
Ofcom is certainly a corrupt and self-serving body acting with insufficient regulation, and the sooner it is called to account, or shut down altogether, the better, but I see no evidence to support your claims.

(06-06-2012 20:47 )Scottishbloke Wrote:  Democracy, freedom of speech, freedom of artistic content, freedom to make your own informed decision is what this country has allways stood up for.

Really? Within my lifetime I haven't seen much evidence of that. Until quite recently homosexuality was illegal. Book stores have been raided and prosecuted for selling works of literature which contain sexual or homosexual content (Lady Chatterleys Lover, the works of Jean Genet). People have been prosecuted for blasphemy. Life of Brian was banned from many cinemas. Spycatcher was banned from sale in the UK even though it was openly available across the world.
Censorship in this country has always existed in some form or another, to some degree or another. As for democracy, well the internment camps and trial without jury in Ireland weren't exactly democratic, and many of the so-called 'anti-terrorist' measures are very questionable within a democracy. Pretty much wherever I go I am being filmed and monitored by cctv cameras without my consent. We still have a House of Lords which is completely unelected, and therefore undemocratic.

(06-06-2012 20:47 )Scottishbloke Wrote:  Nazi Germany were defeated by this nation to protect all those values yet we are going down the same route.

I suggest you re-read your history books, WWII like most wars was about economics not democracy, look at the way europe was carved up in the aftermath, with countries like Poland being 'given' to Russia, whilst other countries were forcibly 'democratised' by the allies whether they liked it or not.

Are you referring what Google were up to? Your right about your history, I study history in college. One of the causes of the war was because the German people felt they unfairly blamed for World War I, so rose up again. Wait I'm getting off topic, Ofcom are cunts

(06-06-2012 22:07 )dan g 27 Wrote:  Are you referring what Google were up to?

No, standard cctv cameras, they are everywhere, watching everything I do, I am under constant surveillance whether I like it or not.

(06-06-2012 21:56 )munch1917 Wrote:  Do you have any solid evidence that ofcom is acting the way it is because of any kind of influence from these ethnic or religious groups? If so please enlighten us.

Scottishbloke has no evidence.

One thing I've noticed from glancing through Ofcom's broadcasting bulletins is that they seem to ignore any complaints made on religious grounds. Any religious based complaint is usually listed as not worth investigating.

Admiral to say I have no evidence is just being a little bit naive if you ask me. Complaints regarding the babe channels are ofcourse going to come from a select group of people. Now ofcourse it's rather difficult to prove where the complaints have come from because ofcom are hardly going to divulge the identity of the complainant's.

What I have is a hunch, because it's fairly obvious to work out just what kind of people would deem the material offensive and it's hardly going to be the common man.

For example the Mary Whitehouse brigade took to the streets in the 80's to protest to the government about the influx of porn coming from the likes of Amsterdam. That is fact and is well documented. She was joined in the protest by the sorts of groups which I have previously mentioned.

Admiral the evidence is clear for all to see, to say otherwise is to live life in denial and far too much focus these days is placed on bowing down to the easily offended. I rest my case.

(07-06-2012 08:44 )admiral decker Wrote:  

(06-06-2012 21:56 )munch1917 Wrote:  Do you have any solid evidence that ofcom is acting the way it is because of any kind of influence from these ethnic or religious groups? If so please enlighten us.

Scottishbloke has no evidence.

One thing I've noticed from glancing through Ofcom's broadcasting bulletins is that they seem to ignore any complaints made on religious grounds. Any religious based complaint is usually listed as not worth investigating.

Correct, the threshold for even a mild slap on the wrist for a religious or ethnic channel is exceptionally high. Examples include encouraging people to eat fruit instead of getting cancer medication, saying it is OK to kill other religoud groups (but not quite encouraging it), blatant election bias and soliciting money.

Ofcom are terrified of being accused of bias and play safe.

As for babe channels their motivation escapes me. Time was when the committees were stuffed with middle aged religious quangorats and it was easy to assuse them of a lack of objectivity and being puppets. These days it is less clear. Academics, retired very senior civil servants and exjournalists.

What is clear is that the Content Committee is not even remotely representative of the general public or people who make popular TV. There isnt a Grade, Dimbleby, Russell, van Outen, Wogan or Brand among them. Pigmys sitting on the shoulders of pigmys.

Found a few interesting articles about channels appealing against their video on demand status as determined by ATVOD.

When Ofcom proposed video on demand regulation by a new body called ATVOD they claimed very few services would be affected.

Digital Media Law by Harbottle and Lewis:
Ofcom rejected the ingenious proposition that adult material is not comparable to the form and content of programmes normally included in TV programme services and therefore outside the scope of the new rules (Playboy TV).
Some debate about how to classify video content on The Sun website.
There is also debate about who has editorial responsibility for Viacom channels on Virgin cable.
Harbottle and Lewis then question if previous decisions are case law, and reject the idea. Interesting as Ofcom are fond of quoting many many previous decisions in babe channel cases, while claiming each case is determined on its merits.
Finally they have a go at the secrecy surrounding cases.
"the “appeal” procedure, appears to be designed to stifle public debate of the issues during what appears to be a lengthy appeal period (the appeal by The Sun took almost nine months). "
Harbottle and Lewis is a blue chip legal firm specialising in media and entertainment.
http://blog.harbottle.com/dm/?p=47

Ofcom upholds ruling that Viva TV Music should be regulated by ATVOD. MTV argued that music videos don't constitute TV content.
http://www.digitaltveurope.net/21154/ofc...-tv-music/

Ofcom is consulting on the future shape of ATVOD / video on demand regulation.
http://www.reghardware.com/2012/03/26/at...ial_audit/

Oh well this bit of news has cheered me up for now..

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...l?ITO=1490

Yes this could be the major obstacle that has hindered the babe channels for years and possibly the man responsible for it too.

This man is clearly a fascist and it's great to hear others mentioning things such as his clear arrogance and distain for the common man so if he leaves ofcom that can only be good news for us all.

I've allways mantained that perhaps one day if ofcom are here to stay that they might in future look upon this genre of entertainment in a more understanding and positive light. Maybe this is the major breakthrough we've all been hoping for all along. Let's hope he gets the job at the BBC and ofcom changes radically overnight.

I'm not going to get carried away by his potential resignation but it does bring about a smile to my face, it's also cheered me up to no end, we could be on the brink now of more liberal times ahead, let's hope that we alll get our wish and that finally we might be able to see the babe channels in the not too distant future deliver exactly the kind of shows that they were intended to do so in the first place.

2012 could still very well prove to be our year to end excessive censorship which will completely revolutionise the babe channels as we know them

heres hoping