Post Reply 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 3 Vote(s) - 3.33 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Re: damning indictment against OFCOM's current practice

Author Message
Intense1 Offline
Banned

Posts: 102
Joined: Sep 2010
Post: #1
Re: damning indictment against OFCOM's current practice
Due to recent events with Bang Media I have decided that one final post is necessary.


A damning indictment against OFCOM’s current practice:

Adult entertainment is licensed to be broadcast. Adult entertainment is all about providing sexual gratification for the general public; therefore, if anyone complains about the material being broadcast - whether it be a member of the public, a rival channel, or members of OFCOM who scrutinize these shows to find any perceived infringes - their complaint needs to be put into context.

Anyone who finds these shows to be offensive, immoral, beneath contempt… simply have no case against any of the material that is being shown: for the simple reason, if they have a case against this material being broadcast, then they need to demonstrate their case and get these licences revoked. As long as these licences are being granted, then these broadcasters should be afforded their right to broadcast their product without interference from those who simply dislike the product.

All other issues, such as safeguarding the young and general public from coming into contact with this material unawares, are issues for the broadcasters and the government (OFCOM included) to put their heads together and come up with the best solutions…But under no circumstances should moralizers be allowed to interfere and complain against material that has being given authorization to be published…….How explicit that material can be, again, is a separate issue; but complete nudity and the showing of genitalia has to be the minimum requirement for channels whose sole purpose is sexual titillation.

Now, if the argument that I have made here was to be espoused and fought for by any politician worth their salt, there is no way that it would not eventually triumph over the nonsense that is currently OFCOM. Unfortunately, selling sex is an ignoble profession; for the simple reason that it is not only one of the partners involved in sex who has benefit to offer. So, no politician is likely to do more than just write a discreet letter on behalf of their constituents. But under no circumstances will they make a public spectacle in its defence. This is the main reason why OFCOM are allowed to thrive upon their current abuse and irrationality. OFCOM are not just simply safeguarding what is being broadcast; they are actually dictating their moral standards unto the rest of the general public….But, as I have already stated, anyone who has a case against sex being broadcast, need to make their case and get the channels completely removed - or else no interference or complaints against them broadcasting their product (sexual titillation), and for which they have been given license, should ever be upheld.

It is only a matter of time before these logical arguments, which simply cannot be refuted by OFCOM, overthrow this farcical dictatorship. OFCOM do not have a leg to stand on, if properly challenged.

Regards
(This post was last modified: 25-11-2010 15:32 by Intense1.)
25-11-2010 15:30
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
sweetsugar007 Offline
Big Ass Lover
*****

Posts: 2,046
Joined: Oct 2009
Reputation: 54
Post: #2
RE: Re: damning indictment against OFCOM's current practice
Would I be right in assuming that these are also being printed off and sent to Ofcom directly.Would it not be cool if there were 40,000 of these dropping through their letterbox!!!

Spiderman,Spiderman,does whatever a Spider can!!!
25-11-2010 15:39
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
mrmann Offline
Posting Machine
*****

Posts: 15,880
Joined: May 2009
Reputation: 92
Post: #3
RE: damning indictment against OFCOM's current practice
(25-11-2010 15:30 )Intense1 Wrote:  Due to recent events with Bang Media I have decided that one final post is necessary.


A damning indictment against OFCOM’s current practice:

Adult entertainment is licensed to be broadcast. Adult entertainment is all about providing sexual gratification for the general public; therefore, if anyone complains about the material being broadcast - whether it be a member of the public, a rival channel, or members of OFCOM who scrutinize these shows to find any perceived infringes - their complaint needs to be put into context.

Anyone who finds these shows to be offensive, immoral, beneath contempt… simply have no case against any of the material that is being shown: for the simple reason, if they have a case against this material being broadcast, then they need to demonstrate their case and get these licences revoked. As long as these licences are being granted, then these broadcasters should be afforded their right to broadcast their product without interference from those who simply dislike the product.

All other issues, such as safeguarding the young and general public from coming into contact with this material unawares, are issues for the broadcasters and the government (OFCOM included) to put their heads together and come up with the best solutions…But under no circumstances should moralizers be allowed to interfere and complain against material that has being given authorization to be published…….How explicit that material can be, again, is a separate issue; but complete nudity and the showing of genitalia has to be the minimum requirement for channels whose sole purpose is sexual titillation.

Now, if the argument that I have made here was to be espoused and fought for by any politician worth their salt, there is no way that it would not eventually triumph over the nonsense that is currently OFCOM. Unfortunately, selling sex is an ignoble profession; for the simple reason that it is not only one of the partners involved in sex who has benefit to offer. So, no politician is likely to do more than just write a discreet letter on behalf of their constituents. But under no circumstances will they make a public spectacle in its defence. This is the main reason why OFCOM are allowed to thrive upon their current abuse and irrationality. OFCOM are not just simply safeguarding what is being broadcast; they are actually dictating their moral standards unto the rest of the general public….But, as I have already stated, anyone who has a case against sex being broadcast, need to make their case and get the channels completely removed - or else no interference or complaints against them broadcasting their product (sexual titillation), and for which they have been given license, should ever be upheld.

It is only a matter of time before these logical arguments, which simply cannot be refuted by OFCOM, overthrow this farcical dictatorship. OFCOM do not have a leg to stand on, if properly challenged.

Regards

I think we all agree with that.

I find it offensive that the women can show and do almost everything but can't show full frontal nudity. That sends the message that a normal body part is offensive and bad, when it isn't. What difference does it make if we see full nudity on the adult channels, then if we see it on a non adult channel??? There are plenty of non adult channels that show more explicit content, yet they are left alone to continue. I've said this before, but in many ways, I don't actually believe that Offcom has a problem with seeing more explicit material on the adult channels. I believe that since the adult channels are live, and have a designated adult title classified for them, that Offcom has only put regulations on them for money. With the regular channels that show more explicit material, Offcom can't fine them or tell them to change their ways, and all they can do is replace those shows (Sexcetera, Sexarama, Eurotrash etc) with something else, but that could cost them money. With the adult channels, they can get in contact with the people and tell them to tone things down, or they can fine them, since things are always changing. With putting censorship on full frontal nudity or more, this assures that Offcom will have a window of opportunity to make more money, if infact a channel slips outside the line, which is why Bang Media has had a lot of fines. Without some sort of censorship, Offcom has little way of making extra money from these channels, and that's the main reason why we still aren't allowed to see a vagina, even after the watershed. Offcom's excuses are very vague, which is further proof, that they want to leave it vague, to try and confuse people. They could very easily come out with a clear cut set of rules, but they haven't, and probably won't. If they did that, then the channels would know exactly what not to do, and there would be less chance of them screwing up, which would lesson the chance for Offcom to fine them and take their money. Obviously they don't care that these channels are made for arousal, because they would have removed them by now, but they just want to make as much extra money as possible, and in turn are actually running these channels into the ground.

Both parties will lose money, and I wish most of the callers would have the will power not to call, to see if this makes any difference. It could always backfire, resulting in the channels going bust, which might be Offcom's plan, but I find that unlikely because that would be a loss of income.

Offcom needs to find a better way to regulate these channels, because right now they are playing with fire.
25-11-2010 16:09
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply