'Tamestation'

(16-10-2009 04:58 )vila Wrote:  

(16-10-2009 03:38 )SxciiSooky Wrote:  They would know their own rules and they would be easy to distribute and enforce amongst their own employees,

I’m not sure about that. Cellcast’s inter-staff communications don’t seem to be very good – think about Mod-Sta’s efforts to sort out a simple matter like the 4:3 camera problem.

But as ModSta kept stating (and in no disrespect to him should he come back on line lol) he was little more than a studio grunt, working the 'moderation station' and dealing with the txts/onscreen graphics etc, so he struggled at times to get anybody to listen to him. Any company rules etc would come from 'The Boss'. That's someone 'the workers' would listen to

So the example of the camera aspect ratio problem proves little to nothing

(16-10-2009 14:28 )vila Wrote:  Cameron also said that the changes would not affect Ofcom's ability to enforce it's broadcasting code.

Quote:What do you mean by 'also'? Isn't that what I've quoted? I was drawing attention to the actual wording he used: 'regulating lightly'. To me, that doesn't equate to the heavy-handed approach we see at the moment. Dishing out five- and six-digit fines is 'enforcing heavily' in my book.

I'll say it again, because you obviously didn't understand the first time. The proposed changes wouldn't affect Ofcom's ability to enforce it's broadcasting code. (Therefore, they can carry on issuing fines as they wish).

"Regulating lightly" means Ofcom have to stick to enforcing their broadcasting code and would have to stop bothering Sky for having so much football and movies on and telling them that they should allow other channels to get more of a look in.

The fact is that Sky is being threatened by Ofcom and Sky is owned by Rupert Murdoch. He told Cameron to get Ofcom off his back if the Tories get elected and in return he'll get his newspaper, The Sun, to back Cameron all the way. Therefore Cameron makes a sudden speech saying that Ofcom will only be allowed to regulate lightly if the Tories get elected (i.e. will have to leave Sky alone) and the next day The Sun tells everyone to vote Conservative at the next election.

Are you with it now? Just in case you're not I repeat again that "regulating lightly" is nothing to do with Ofcom's enforcement of it's broadcasting code, which under Cameron's proposals will not be affected in any way.

(16-10-2009 14:41 )SxciiSooky Wrote:  But as ModSta kept stating (and in no disrespect to him should he come back on line lol) he was little more than a studio grunt

I think he's being a bit modest there - after all, he said his friend runs the studio, which must give him a little more clout than would otherwise be the case. No doubt he'll correct me on that if necessary!

However, I've remembered something I've been told about how Ofcom allegedly communicates with Cellcast that tends to support your view on this aspect.

I still stick to what I see as the important considerations I outlined above. I think that the fact that the Cellcast channels' satellite content is so much tamer than everyone else's is further evidence of all this being down to Cellcast, not Ofcom.

(16-10-2009 14:52 )cosmonaut Wrote:  The fact is that Sky is being threatened by Ofcom and Sky is owned by Rupert Murdoch. He told Cameron to get Ofcom off his back if the Tories get elected and in return he'll get his newspaper, The Sun, to back Cameron all the way. Therefore Cameron makes a sudden speech saying that Ofcom will only be allowed to regulate lightly if the Tories get elected (i.e. will have to leave Sky alone) and the next day The Sun tells everyone to vote Conservative at the next election.

Good lord, you're more of a conspiracist than I am!

Whatever the precise meaning of Cameron’s words we have to take them with a pinch of salt this close to an election.

Conspiracist eh?

FACT: On 26 June this year Ofcom published a report into the pay-TV market. It said that Sky had a monopolistic control: 80% of Premier League football and 100% of movies from the big Hollywood studios. As a competition regulator, Ofcom's job is to keep the market open and allow other channels to have more football and films.

FACT: The next day The Sun - like Sky owned by News International - published this: "This is the world gone mad. Ofcom, the official telly regulator, says a successful and popular firm – Sky – must be penalised for doing well … This nonsense – rewarding losers by punishing winners – is Ofcom's way of 'improving competition'. Ofcom busybodies also have the nerve to threaten to dictate what prices shareholder-owned firms like Sky can charge. That's despotic, not democratic."

FACT: Just 10 days later, David Cameron made a surprise speech in which he said a Conservative government would limit Ofcom's powers. He had asked the rightwing thinktank Reform to set up the event at just a few days notice. "Ofcom as we know it will cease to exist. Its remit will be restricted to narrow technical and enforcement roles. It will no longer play a role in making policy." It would be knocked back to issuing licences, publishing its broadcasting code and enforcing its broadcasting code.

FACT: Within hours of Cameron's speech, leading market analysts UBS Investment Research assessed the potential impact: "This bodes well for Sky. We believe that a lighter-touch approach would result in a far better and fairer outcome for Sky, the consumer and the pay market. This could result in a valuation of over 750p versus circa 650p under Ofcom's current proposals." In plain English, if the Conservatives come to power and abolish Ofcom's power to interfere with Sky's business, expect a £1 share price rise for Sky – worth some £1.7 billion.

FACT: The following day The Sun announces on it's front page that the time has come to forget Labour and get behind Cameron as the best hope for Britain. It urges everyone to vote Conservative at the next election.

(16-10-2009 09:28 )southlondonphil Wrote:  

(15-10-2009 22:58 )Winston Wolfe Wrote:  as far as these channels are concerned, the "do gooders" at OFCOM see them more as "advertising" than "entertainment".

That is very true Winston Wolfe and that's a big part of the problem. Anyway I still think Babestation is great, regardless of the negativity in this thread. They still have great girls and I'll still be watching it. But yes to Ofcom the channels are just advertising and that's one of the main reasons they don't like them.

Yeah I agree, that's a fair point southlondonphil...

The girls are kinda stuck in the middle of this, so I got empathy for them. They're the last ones anyone should point the finger at.

Any red blooded male likes seeing hot girls on their screen, and I personally love a good tease If a girl knows how to move her body, smile a lot and have that look in her eye then you're onto a winner with this type of format. They could definitely do with "better direction" and "more variety", but there needs to be a balance between "tame" & "porn". After all it's always been more of a "tease" than anything stronger...

I can understand to a point why Cellcast have "tamed it down" to avoid any chance of fines, but Cellcast are definitely guilty of "mismanagement"... For so many girls to leave this year, including some of their best ones, clearly suggests something is amiss...

Winston Wolfe

(16-10-2009 18:08 )Winston Wolfe Wrote:  The girls are kinda stuck in the middle of this, so I got empathy for them. They're the last ones anyone should point the finger at.

We must always ensure we make this evident when we complain about strength of content. The girls must never think we are blaming them.

(16-10-2009 17:26 )cosmonaut Wrote:  FACT: Within hours of Cameron's speech, leading market analysts UBS Investment Research assessed the potential impact: "This bodes well for Sky. We believe that a lighter-touch approach would result in a far better and fairer outcome for Sky, the consumer and the pay market. This could result in a valuation of over 750p versus circa 650p under Ofcom's current proposals." In plain English, if the Conservatives come to power and abolish Ofcom's power to interfere with Sky's business, expect a £1 share price rise for Sky – worth some £1.7 billion.

No surprise I'd say. Mr Murdoch has often done deals with politicians in the past to get what he wanted.

(17-10-2009 07:56 )archibald cockfoster Wrote:  No surprise I'd say. Mr Murdoch has often done deals with politicians in the past to get what he wanted.

And there is nothing wrong in doing that!

If Mr Murdoch does deals with politicians, who else might he do deals with or offer incentives to?

One of the things we have been focussing on here is the tamer nature of Freeview compared with Sky. When the only remotely possible reason for this from Ofcom's viewpoint ceased on 30 Sept with the move to a new adult area of the channel list, the Freeview content became almost, although not quite, the same as Sky. A few days later it went into reverse and is now back to where it was before the changes, possibly even tamer if the recent 2-4-1s are anything to judge by.

Why?

Apply the test that detectives use when solving a crime and ask the most important question: who gains?

Cellcast make no secret of the difference between Freeview and Sky shows, in fact, they repeatedly remind us of it and tell us where, even without a Sky system, we can see what Sky viewers get.

Mr Murdoch, like any good businessman, is constantly seeking new customers for his Sky operation. So ask yourselves the question: who gains from Freeview viewers being given an inferior service and being repeatedly reminded that a better one is available from Sky? And who is in a position to recompense Cellcast for any loss of revenue they might suffer through putting out a poorer service on Freeview, plus maybe a bit extra on top?

When I've suggested this in the past it has been said that the numbers who might decide to get a Sky system for this reason would be small, but I don't think that's relevant. Sky will get small numbers of recruits from various initiatives and it's the cumulative effect that matters. Every new satisfied customer becomes a new Sky salesman when he spreads the word amongst his friends. As far as Mr Murdoch is concerned, the more the merrier.

(16-10-2009 00:57 )Censorship :-( Wrote:  

(15-10-2009 03:40 )IanG Wrote:  

(15-10-2009 01:07 )Censorship :-( Wrote:  

(14-10-2009 15:52 )IanG Wrote:  SNIP

Ofcom, indeed, this bloody Government, are doing all the wrong things for all the wrong reasons because they refuse to trust the scientific evidence in favour of their cultural brainwashing in unproven and psychologically damaging 'British values' and insane beliefs.

It's not just 'this bloody Government', the Tories would be just as bad; Video Recordings Act, anyone?
Do you think that, had the Tories been in power when the campaigners were calling for the 'extreme' porn law, they would have said no? I doubt it. However, I'm not sure if the Tories have an equivalent of Harriet 'Hatesmen'/‘Harmsmen’ (take your pick); I wouldn't be surprised if she is the driving force behind much of Labour's repression - the woman is obsessed!

Cen., the VRA 1984 was never at fault...

SNIP

I agree with much of what you say about Ofcon, they are an utterly appalling, hypocritical, inconsistent, arbitrary, unreasonable, rights abusing, repressive… bunch of censors. However, their predecessor wasn't great, either.
Not that it did much good, but the Communications Act at least did away with ‘Taste & decency’, which should have been a good thing, if Mediawatch’s reaction to this was anything to go by. The fact that 'Offence' was left, though, is a big problem.

I am somewhat surprised at your apparent support for the VRA & the BBFC; Can I conclude that you are happy that the VRA allows censorship to be carried out, and ‘justified’, on the basis of harm that MIGHT be caused, rather than on the basis of actual harm, based upon actual evidence? Wouldn't this come under the heading of 'precautionary approach', that you seem so unhappy with (rightly so, IMO)?

Can I conclude that you are happy that the BBFC, an industry body, continues to censor considerable amounts of consensual adult entertainment (that is freely available throughout most (all?) of the mainland EU) without any evidence of harm? Not on what is actually, legally obscene (material that has a tendency to deprave & corrupt; not, as many seem to think, material that they find distasteful/offensive), but what they claim they have been told is in accordance with the current ‘interpretation’ of the OPA.

What is allowed at R18, is, as far as I am aware, based upon what the BBFC, police, Customs, CPS, etc. decided upon at their meeting following the High Court decision. Basically, what they thought would stop the chance of further legal challenges, but no more than that, hence the considerable amount of censorship that still exists.

I’m not sure why you might think this, but just to be clear, I’m not trying to defend Labour or Ofcon; in fact, I hold them in the same low regard as I do the BBFC, Customs etc.; I just think that people are deluding themselves if they think it will be all sweetness & light if/when the Tories gain power at the next Westminster election.

Hi Cen., in a word, No, I'm not happy with the BBFC. It shouldn't take a court case for them to apply the law properly.

The VRA says "any harm which may be caused" but, it does not say or mean "any harm which is not caused". It has to be real and manifest harm that may really occur, not speculative fantasy harm that can never occur. In any event, the High Court ruled that the harm had to be real and manifest (provable) harm in order to justify restriction of a fundamental right to freedom of expression. And I know the BBFC tried to get this interpretation broadened to "any possible harm which may be caused" but, that still doesn't include "any possible harm that is not caused".

Rest assured, 'we' (the anti-censorship lobby) are still pressing the BBFC, CPS etc. to prove that what the BBFC are still told or decide to censor is in fact harmful and provably so in a court of law. I was quite disgusted by the reasoning behind the outright ban of 'Grotesque'. Apparently, the BBFC now choose to believe cinematic works can 'reinforce unhealthy fantasies' without proving these fantasies are either real or, indeed, can be reinforced by mere images. If I were a psychotic serial rapist and murderer I doubt very much a film would be required to 'reinforce' my 'unhealthy fantasies'. I don't believe gay people ever needed homosexual films to reinforce their (once) 'unhealthy' sexual fantasies. Indeed, I think history proves such speculative 'reinforcing fantasy' bullshit is utterly irrelevant to any real-world harm people with psychotic 'needs' and 'fantasies' actually do.

As you may be aware, Anna Span has recently won a minor victory over the inclusion of female ejaculation at R18 - the BBFC have until now chosen, against all scientific evidence, to claim this is urination and, apparently, according to their 'Victorian values' that makes it obscene. As far as I know there's never been an obscenity trial that reached that verdict. There's no evidence urination in porn is deemed obscene outside the minds of the CPS, who have of course been proven wrong many times in recent history over what they've chosen to prosecute for obscenity.

The CPS/BBFC's position is becoming increasingly untennable just by the sheer volume and exposure people have to 'banned' material via the Internet. Those with any sense know that supposed 'obscenity' actually rests on shock factor and, as more and more people routinely see the type of material still deemed obscene (by and only in this backward censorial regime), the sooner this censorial regime will be forced to realign itself with the prevailing mood.

The same goes for Ofcom. It is totally incredulous that they persist with such draconian and pointless censorship - indeed, illegal restrictions on the transmission of legal material.