(13-02-2011 23:06 )SYBORG666 Wrote: 2nd thing, What gives Ofcom the right to dictate to us what we view on the internet because illegal activities do get found out by enforcement agencies.
They would argue its not about absolute offences, but child access and the corrupting infleunce of uncontrolled ads. One recent offender was Boots - yes, ultra respectable high street company that didnt even sell condoms until about 1970. They reached an agreement with the Advertising Standards Agency to withdraw ads claiming unproven medical benefits for a range of products on special offer, such as a cocktail of 30-40 supplements for womens problems (whatever those are). Boot have now re-started the special offers and repeated the claims, and the ASA are not best pleased. OK, not too bad an example, but where do you stop? How about advertising herbal remedies "that cure skizophrenia"? What would be the consequence of some knife wielding nutter stopping their proper medicine?
One way of controlling this is post-event. Guns and knives are advertised on the intenet, and the police tackle that by tracking down the vendors and warning them off, or prosectuing, but not by insisting on pre-vetting of all content.
Babe channels on TV are now classified as teleshopping, and Ofcom have had the right to regulate internet TV for about 6 months now, so it would be an easy step for Ofcom to say they should control SexStation under the same rules.
Quote:3rd thing, What goes off behind closed doors and in privacy has fuck all to do with anyone else. (Unless illegal)
Boy, you really are courting controversy arent you? It was only a few years ago that Labour legalised group sex. Private members sex cinemas used to be legal but have been hounded out of existence. F*sting and p**sing are legal to do but illegal in R18 DVDs. And as for S&M ...
Politicians really dont like the idea that anything should be beyond their control.
Quote:I'm glad I got injured when I did because i'd be fighting in Afghanistan if I hadn't and for what.
Sorry to hear you were injured, and "for what" is too big a question to answer here, but yes, freedom at home and the right to R&R provided it hurts no one should be a starting point, not an aspiration.
Most members of this forum would not have much to moan about if Ofcom was simply an arms length Quango that simply implemented rules impartially, like the Crown Prosecution Service, and there was an accountable body that made the rules, but it isnt.
First it makes the rules, stretching its mandate and consultation results to fit pre-conceived notions. Then they apply rules selectively, being lenient on popular sectors but acting on a hair trigger against one specific sector they dislike. Its bias and an abuse of power.