Ofcom expose blog

Sylar, try PMing DanVox. I think he means the old 'it ain't over till the fat lady sings' scenario - the game's not over until the final whistle blows.

There have been moves by Ofcom to ban these channels in recent months. However, if they are reclassified as teleshopping or advertising the AVMS Directive appears to offer them some extraordinary protections... Ofcom might be barking up he wrong tree - we shall see...

In the meantime some of us are however calling for a steward's enquiry. We don't accept the final result alluded to by DanVox. We believe the rules were abandoned not just bent. And recent proclaimations by Ofcom are clearly without logic or any foundation in facts.

Further, if you can find them, the old ITC/BSC "The Public's View" annual surveys from 1996-2002 do show over 75% of the general population were (and likely still are) in favour of "particularly sexually explicit material" being available on TV for those that wish to see it (and around 40% of the general population 'agree strongly' with this principle).

My comment was meant to be a jokey reference to the time Yazmin blew the cameraman live on an encrypted show, a comment intended to brighten up a pretty dull legalistic post, nothing more, nothing less.

And before anyone gets silly ideas, it was many years ago, before Ofcom came into existence. Abroad.

(24-02-2010 21:03 )Sylar Wrote:  

(21-01-2010 01:00 )DanVox Wrote:  And guys, it's no use saying or thinking "Up until this organised postal barage, the response statistics were 75% in favour" because we all know the games not over until the whistle blows (or Yazmin does).

Hi all, I've just been reading through this thread and saw this (above)... can Dan or anyone please clarify what the Yazmin comment is refering to? It reads like she's 'blown the whistle' (sorry, couldn't get away without the inuendo!) on these channels before... interesting???!!!

Could anyone clear this up?

(17-01-2010 21:37 )IanG Wrote:  

(17-01-2010 05:08 )admiral decker Wrote:  It seems like a pointless idea, since it will have no original content.

The idea is hardly pointless decker, indeed, I believe it will be rather pointed...! Having a base to discuss Ofcom's rather bizarre flakey reasoning for denying us what was once perfectly acceptable adult entertainment (attracting almost no complaints whatsoever) only 5 years ago seems like a pretty good idea to me.

Are you aware for instance only 2 years before Ofcom's Code was published that the EU Commissioner told the French TV regulator (CSA) they could not ban R18-type material on exactly the same grounds Ofcom chose to use here in the UK? Why didn't Viviene Reding, the Comms Commissioner, tell Ofcom the same - i.e. to sod off and stop fucking about with our Human Rights?

Are you aware that the so-called 'status quo' re the R18 ban that Ofcom inherited from the ITC (and fought to maintain against all rational argument) was probably illegal to begin with?

Don't you think it strange that hardcore scenes in 18-rated movies can be broadcast on general entertainment channels but R18 is banned from subscription adult channels where people would expect to see explicit sex scenes and, thus, take precautions to protect their own children from inadvertent or unwanted exposure to it?

Ofcom have been let off the hook these past 5 years. The faults and falacies in their entire censorial argument need to be exposed publically and concertedly, and a dedicated blog seems the ideal place to do so.

We're going ahead with this anyway, 'pointless' in your opinion or not.

5 years of unchallenged fines and Human Rights abuses based on sanctimonious bullshit is monsterous. Time to go fishing for justice I think.

I agree.