Bang media licence revoked

Sooky wrote: As I've posted elsewhere, when I was a kid my parents put a parental lock on their sky.....didn't stop me watching what they didn't want me to see though as I soon managed to figure out the pin code. Many kids do the same. It is too simplistic to see some form of parental lock as a magical key locking away the bad stuff from kids. But just because a kid manages to figure out a pin for a parental lock does not suddenly mean the parents don't have the right to continue trying to protect their kids, or are somehow bad/neglectful parents.

i have to disagree, if your careful with your pin number then kids shouldn't be able to figure it out. just don't have it as your bithday!
i should add , i'm all for protecting kids but if pin protection is good enough for bank accounts the it's good enough for this purpose.

(29-11-2010 15:54 )terence Wrote:  i have to disagree, if your careful with your pin number then kids shouldn't be able to figure it out. just don't have it as your bithday!
i should add , i'm all for protecting kids put if pin protection is good enough for bank accounts the it's good enough for this purpose.

Therein lies the problem. The whole pin number 'solution' is full of ifs, buts and maybes. If you're careful, but only if you don't have it as your birthday, maybe it won't be figured out.

Pin protection is barely good enough for bank accounts - hence they are continually looking at new ways of protection. And even with pin numbers, you still need to have your bank card with you. The only way this would work in a sky tv scenario is if you remove the sky viewing card every single time you're not allowed, thus depriving kids from ever really being able to watch anything. The the pin number notion is flawed to the core.

In some countries' cable produced satellite TV systems, there's even less security because the card number flashes up occasionally on the screen. This means that people can see it without even getting anywhere near the card..

(29-11-2010 15:09 )Sooky™ Wrote:  ...I could argue the innocence of children is a far more important thing to try and protect, especially in this day and age when children are already expected to grow up a lot quicker than they were in generations past (what happened to kids being kids rather than little adults?).

Oh Sooky have you been reading the Daily Mail myth of childhood section?

Children are expected to grow up a lot quicker that they were in generations past.

That'll be a comfort to all those long dead kids who were shoved up chimneys or the as young as 7 year old girls employed as scavengers in the textile factories. Or those, with a knowing wink from the authorities, who joined up under age during the two world wars. Or those tilling the fields for fourteen hours a day in the countryside.

I'll bet they all thought they were given time to grow up.

The children of today are allowed to stay as children much longer than ever before because of better health and welfare. That is you are not likely to die in the 35-45 age range so you can afford a longer childhood.

This myth of a golden age of childhood is risible.

By the way I agree that children should be protected from explicit material but think the age of consent makes more sense.

On topic. Bang management are idiots.

(29-11-2010 16:51 )Captain Vimes Wrote:  Oh Sooky have you been reading the Daily Mail myth of childhood section?

Children are expected to grow up a lot quicker that they were in generations past.

That'll be a comfort to all those long dead kids who were shoved up chimneys or the as young as 7 year old girls employed as scavengers in the textile factories. Or those, with a knowing wink from the authorities, who joined up under age during the two world wars. Or those tilling the fields for fourteen hours a day in the countryside.

I'll bet they all thought they were given time to grow up.

I stand by what I said - as I never stated it as being quicker than 'ever before'
But they certainly are expected to grow up quicker than my generation or my parents generation (generations past )

They might not have to grow up in a responsible sense (working etc like children of past times), but the expectation is for them to deal with adult themes and attitudes from an earlier age than they are ready for. Having the possibility of r18 material readily available on national tv will not help the matter. We already have a society where kids are introduced to overtly sexual images etc from a ridiculously young age. Add to that the continuing increase in underage pregnancy, and the subsequent continual lowering of the age of sexual education.

And yet I have never read the Daily Mail in my life......go figure

Are children really expected to deal with adult themes at an earlier age than my generation were, back in the 80's?

My childhood was rather sheltered, but have no doubt that many of my peers were - by the age of ten - left at home while mum went shopping, expected to fix their own lunch (from the fridge or the microwave; whichever) and were trusted to do so, and managed not to burn the house down. This is a thin scenario, but my point is that many kids of my generation were either left to roam by negligent parents or trusted to be responsible by good parents and the end result was personal development one way or the other.

In the 'Information Age', parents trust their kids to use communication technology in a responsible way (either because they're too thick to understand the risks / kids' tactics, or because the kids warrant that trust) and the end result is that the kids learn and develop. I don't see that they're growing up any faster nor are they expected to, it's just that they are far more likely to encounter inappropriate things for their stage of personal development (ie; adult material) than were my generation. At most, we might have been directed to some very rare and rain-sodden 'hedge porno' by another local kid; more typically we would hear third-hand reports of what goes on when you're older and not really get it until later on.
A mobile or a laptop permits the modern levels of adult material access to kids who ought not to encounter it. The Sky box also permits this to be so, if appropriate steps have not been taken by the parents.

If anything, kids are growing up too quickly by accident through a combination of childish inquisitiveness and failures in multi-media safeguards. This results in plenty of sexually-aware twelve-year olds with many a tale of what Kayleigh in the Third Form got up to with the DJ and his mate from the nightclub at the weekend; and some of these back-of-the-bus tales are frighteningly graphic.

It's in the presence of this very well-understood situation that Ofcom decided that Bang media were taking the piss and I can understand entirely why they would feel that way. Doesn't excuse for one minute the total breakdown (or failure) in communication between the two bodies or Bang's recklessness.

But we must also appreciate that what Bang have been getting up to is not the key to the problems with today's youth, and for Ofcom to insist that they are doing a fine job to rectify social ills or to protect the young from inappropriate images (and worse, to congratulate themselves for it) is nothing but high folly.

Missing key events. Talking bollocks. Making stuff up.
~~~SAVE THE KRILL!~~~

(29-11-2010 13:41 )terence Wrote:  parents who can't stop their kids from watching these shows, either from ignorece or neglect, need to be informed or policed in other ways. educate people. putting in pin protection is not rocket science. put a step by step guide in the sky magazine (you would be suprised how many people don't know about pin control!). let parents police their own children. the ones who don't, i'm sure their ofspring are doing much worse than watching tits and arse on tv!

I agree and disagree. I'm all for parental responsibility getting a long overdue kick up the ass and promotion to 'Plan A' for childrens welfare, but the state - and therefore their appointed regulator - also has a reponsibility to protect those kids with crappy irresponsible parents. Children are being made to grow up too early, but that's reflective, like it or not, of our modern western society. There are far worse things that are guilty of this than anything seen on the Babe channels. TV and Film, music lyrics and videos, magazines and newspapers, they all contribute to a society that bombards and targets children with images and words that shape young minds with warped ideas of what is normal and expected of them.

(29-11-2010 14:10 )gazfc Wrote:  I do wonder though if people would still think the same if a guy channel was around, would you be happy if your children could accendtly press the wrong button on the remote only to confronted by a big swinging cock?

I'm not sure the adjective 'big' was specifically required to make your point(!), but it's an interesting question though. I don't want to see some guy windmilling his dick around, nor would I want my hypothetical kids to. But if it was on after 11/12 at night then it's fine with me, and it'd be my fault - and my responsibility - if I allowed them to see it.

(29-11-2010 15:09 )Sooky™ Wrote:  ...
Until such time as it is clear that the majority of people want R18 content on tv, then it simply aint gonna happen

I think until the majority of people 'have no objection' - either through choice, apathy, or ignorance - is probably a more accurate deadline.

(29-11-2010 17:05 )Sooky™ Wrote:  And yet I have never read the Daily Mail in my life......go figure

You should though it's hilarious, awful, but hilarious; particularly their website reader comments.

(29-11-2010 20:29 )Krill Liberator Wrote:  Are children really expected to deal with adult themes at an earlier age than my generation were, back in the 80's?

No, not 'expected', but have no choice but to deal with them. Some can 'resist' of course, but societal and peer pressure is just too strong at too young an age. Indeed it is 'by accident', but the exposure is definitely greater and more graphic than previous decades.

(29-11-2010 20:29 )Krill Liberator Wrote:  It's in the presence of this very well-understood situation that Ofcom decided that Bang media were taking the piss and I can understand entirely why they would feel that way. Doesn't excuse for one minute the total breakdown (or failure) in communication between the two bodies or Bang's recklessness.

But we must also appreciate that what Bang have been getting up to is not the key to the problems with today's youth, and for Ofcom to insist that they are doing a fine job to rectify social ills or to protect the young from inappropriate images (and worse, to congratulate themselves for it) is nothing but high folly.

Exactly, nobody here really agrees or likes Ofcom's rules - particularly the late night rules - but the fact is they are currently the rules. If you don't like them then try and change them, not break them. Bang were stupid, Ofcom are over-protective and out of touch, but the rules are the rules.

Sorry, but did someone say we aren't supposed to push kids up chimneys anymore? When did Health and Safety push that through?

(29-11-2010 21:28 )eccles Wrote:  Sorry, but did someone say we aren't supposed to push kids up chimneys anymore? When did Health and Safety push that through?

Yes that's correct. It's far more effective to lower them down from the top.

(29-11-2010 21:39 )lucent-x Wrote:  

(29-11-2010 21:28 )eccles Wrote:  Sorry, but did someone say we aren't supposed to push kids up chimneys anymore? When did Health and Safety push that through?

Yes that's correct. It's far more effective to lower them down from the top.

Phew, worried for a minute - have you seen the cost of draught-strip.