eccles
custodes qui custodiet
Posts: 3,032
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 69
|
RE: Ofcom Discussion
(30-04-2012 23:00 )shan_123 Wrote: Why not everyone chip in and help fund a legal case against ofcom lol? It's clear from what's said above that people can dig up evidence which can help challenge ofcom
Great idea Shan but the legal system is stacked against this. Anyone who chips in become liable for a fraction of ALL legal costs includuing appeals, and those can become a game of high stakes poker. Suppose 100 people chip in £100 to fund a £10,000 Crown Court case (supposing thats the right level). Ofcom appeals and takes it to the High Court. Costs are £100,000 for each side, £200,000 each, and original donors are told they are liable for £2,000 each. Ofcom lose, they appeal to the Supreme Court, no idea what that costs but lets say £400,000. Donors are then told they are liable for another £4,000 each. Thats £6,100 tied up waiting for the legal outcome and it could be 2-3 years before a decision is reached. If the other side lose and appeal you cant even pull out.
Thats one reason why the system is stacked in Ofcoms favour. In many other areas there is a low cost Tribunal system.
Gone fishing
(This post was last modified: 02-05-2012 00:30 by eccles.)
|
|
02-05-2012 00:28 |
|
shan_123
Banned
Posts: 450
Joined: Jun 2011
|
RE: Ofcom Discussion
(02-05-2012 00:28 )eccles Wrote: Great idea Shan but the legal system is stacked against this. Anyone who chips in become liable for a fraction of ALL legal costs includuing appeals, and those can become a game of high stakes poker. Suppose 100 people chip in £100 to fund a £10,000 Crown Court case (supposing thats the right level). Ofcom appeals and takes it to the High Court. Costs are £100,000 for each side, £200,000 each, and original donors are told they are liable for £2,000 each. Ofcom lose, they appeal to the Supreme Court, no idea what that costs but lets say £400,000. Donors are then told they are liable for another £4,000 each. Thats £6,100 tied up waiting for the legal outcome and it could be 2-3 years before a decision is reached. If the other side lose and appeal you cant even pull out.
Thats one reason why the system is stacked in Ofcoms favour. In many other areas there is a low cost Tribunal system.
Lol wow didn't know all that legal shit
|
|
02-05-2012 08:33 |
|
Scottishbloke
Banned
Posts: 8,304
Joined: Jan 2010
|
RE: Ofcom Discussion
I'm really becoming exasperated with the Ofcom and Babe Channel's situation still dragging on for god knows how many years, the reason I posted the Ofcom video was to show the level of hypocrisy on Ofcom's part, I think we've all discussed all possible solutions until we're blue in the face. What is being shown on the channels these days would barely pass off as 15+ nevermind 18+ material.
Just how the hell did we ever end up in this situation in the first place, maybe the root of the problem was when because back in 2007 when Ofcom revoked the licence of Babestar TV that not enough fight was given by the channel to have the decision repealed aswell as the lack of support given to it by the rest of the channels, the rot had now set in. The same scenario happened when Bangbabes TV also had their licence revoked, the rest of the channels just looked on and more or less said good ridence to them, that's another of our rival channels bitten the dust so more calls coming our way I think.
From day 1 the channels have deliberately been run by selfish individuals not giving a damn about their rivals and some have even ratted each other out to Ofcom with the attitude, so long as I'm fine who gives a fuck. What happens to Elite for example will also happen to RLC and then Storm etc. It has a dominoe effect, just because your channel isn't the one being targeted at present by Ofcom doesn't mean the same won't happen to you tommorow.
A pact should be set up with all the channels, if you fall we'll back you up and you'll do likewise when the shit hits the fan with us. A unanimous we'll stand up together as one union should be implemented as the mentality. That way Ofcom will have a real fight on their hand's.
All the channels have to call a truce on the constant rivalry that current exisists for the greater good of the bigger cause instead of fucking each other over all the time.
(This post was last modified: 02-05-2012 18:25 by Scottishbloke.)
|
|
02-05-2012 18:20 |
|
mrmann
Posting Machine
Posts: 15,880
Joined: May 2009
Reputation: 92
|
RE: Ofcom Discussion
(02-05-2012 19:26 )Scottishbloke Wrote: Hmm..........One might question whether you've been drinking or not, we all have an option, I'm assuming you haven't been watching the news then recenty, the government is currently getting pressure added on to ban porn and make the customer opt it to it. Fucking great, I don't think so
As for the point on get yourself a hooker instead, eh..........I think you'll find that prostition is illegal. So you say we are all whining about nothing, will you be of the same opinion if the censorship does indeed hit another level
Well you both are right, and both are wrong
There IS a way around the censorship, though whether or not it's practical is another question.
As for hookers, well maybe not street walkers, but an escort shouldn't get you busted
|
|
02-05-2012 19:36 |
|