Ofcom - More Babes in Breach

Elite are also currently under investigation by Ofcom for the broadcast that was aired on Elite Days, Sunday, 6 December 2009:

Quote:Here is an alphabetical list of new investigations launched. This published list is updated weekly.
Up to 31 December 2009:

Programme: Elite Days
Channel: Elite
Transmission Date: Sunday, 6 December 2009
Complaint Lodged: Sunday, 6 December 2009

http://www.ofcom.org.uk/advice/audience_complaints/

(15-01-2010 16:59 )vostok 1 Wrote:  Elite are also currently under investigation by Ofcom for the broadcast that was aired on Elite Days, Sunday, 6 December 2009:

Michelle Thorne was on on the 6th Dec. Not sure if she was alone or whether someone else was on too.

EDIT: Just checked - Sammie Pennington was on as well.

(15-01-2010 17:32 )skateguy Wrote:  

(15-01-2010 16:59 )vostok 1 Wrote:  Elite are also currently under investigation by Ofcom for the broadcast that was aired on Elite Days, Sunday, 6 December 2009:

Michelle Thorne was on on the 6th Dec. Not sure if she was alone or whether someone else was on too.

EDIT: Just checked - Sammie Pennington was on as well.

Doesn't surprise me. Michelle makes it so obvious that she's getting guys off!

(15-01-2010 17:32 )skateguy Wrote:  

(15-01-2010 16:59 )vostok 1 Wrote:  Elite are also currently under investigation by Ofcom for the broadcast that was aired on Elite Days, Sunday, 6 December 2009:

Michelle Thorne was on on the 6th Dec. Not sure if she was alone or whether someone else was on too.

EDIT: Just checked - Sammie Pennington was on as well.

Wonder which one is being investigated...

Doesn't look like we have any caps of Michelle from the 6th...I've checked

Why don't these channels challenge Ofcom's Code in the courts?

The new AVMS Directive, which updates the previous TVWF Directive (which allows Euro TV to show everything Ofcom don't allow), state that restrictions to programming "should not normally allow children to see material which would seriously impair their physical, psychological or moral development".

Now what does 'normally' mean?
What does 'seriously impair' mean?

Has anyone considered how seeing something on TV could seriously impair a child's physical development? - gives you square eyes does it?...and other favourite old wives tales perhaps? You can certainly damage your eyes by looking at the Sun - and its pretty much present all the time most children are normally up and about. Can a TV show burn out eyes, perforate your ear drums or stunt your growth? Can it cause brain tumours, heart disease or diabetes? Clearly, such serious physical impairment is not caused by TV programmes, and one is left wondering exactly why such consideration for this type of 'protection' is deemed necessary in these Directives? Perhaps though this gives us an insight into the non-existent and imaginary types of supposed 'harm' this clause targets?

I'm sure that by the age of 16 most children have stopped developing. I'm sure most are able to cope with sexual situations - virtually all 16-year-olds have at least masturbated, if not, as all surveys seem to reveal, actually had sexual relationships. In fact, at the point most children begin puberty at around 12 years of age, it is deemed perfectly normal, natural and wise to teach them what all our sexy bits are for, what they look like, how they work and how they fit together. This is deemed the morally correct thing to do - for their own protection and peace of mind. How then can mere pornography (i.e. pictures showing theory being put into practice) seriously impair their natural development into perfectly normal and sane members of society? I certainly wasn't damaged by seeing pictures of women's 'naughty bits' in top shelf magazines at the tender age of 13 - in fact it was an education and only served to improve my psychological and rational moral development.

What sort of material could actually impair a child's moral or psychological development? And would they normally see anything like this on TV anywhere in the world? The LSE report Ofcom commissioned back in 2004 found NO evidence to support this harmful possibility. Indeed, as the LSE could find no evidence to support the belief that adult material could harm children, Ofcom resorted to claiming the lack of evidence allowed for a 'precautionary approach'. The lack of evidence however does no such thing - proof of harm is what is demanded by Human Rights legislation in order to safeguard our fundamental Human Rights (obviously!).

Indeed, all evidence points to the fact that it is systematic social/religious/political brainwashing, neglect and abuse which causes the sort of damage we're talking about, and this type of abuse is what creates psychotic, morally-damaged terrorists, rapists and murderers. Do Ofcom protect children from normally seeing this type of mind-warping TV? I think not. Indeed, Ofcom seem to promote any programming which supports their own warped ideas of Human Rights abusing 'morality'...

IanG.. superb post. Totally agree too.

Oh.. i haven't (yet?) got square eyes!

Has anyone considered how seeing something on TV could seriously impair a child's physical development?

I think they mean that they could damage their eyesight by masturbating themselves into a frenzy

At least that seems to be the sort of antiquated and if truth be told, downright loony agenda Ofcom seem to operate by in any case.

Ian, as schmoo has already said, a fantastic post. One of the best expose on Ofcom's nonsense we've had so far on this board.

Disgraceful. I think FuckOfcom take these things way too far. Some of the complaints should not even be considered. Spoilsports!!