Ofcom Discussion

At the risk of this thread degenrating into a war zone. Eccles and Digital Dave are still missing my point. Aimed at and receivable are exactly the same thing and I'll tell you why

Back in the 1990's, it was common knowledge by the majority on this forum that SKY TV used to broadcast from the Astra1 satellite before they went digital and chose to broadcast from their own satellite which is known as Astra2 and also referred to as the Eurobird satellite.

What my point is the Astra1 satellite hasn't moved since then, it's in exactly the same place and position as it was before SKY chose to broadcast instead from Astra2.

What my point is I don't recall anybody saying back in the 1990's prior to this move that their current SKY TV back then wasn't being aimed at into their homes.

What eccles might be correct on however is that ofcom can block euro porn channels making their way onto the UK Astra2 satellite which SKY is using at present.

I hope this add's more clarification onto the subject. Ofcom it would seem only have jurisdiction when it comes to what is broadcast off the Astra2 satellite but that's as far as it goes.

Ofcom do not have to power to block the signal because as previously stated by me that would fall into the category of satellite jamming which to this day is illegal.

PS - Fuck Ofcom

I dont think we need to worry bout Ofcom anymore.... BabestationX are making sure that not even the pay to view shows contain nudity.... Who needs a police force when the burglars dont steal anymore.....

(25-11-2012 18:46 )saviour123 Wrote:  I dont think we need to worry bout Ofcom anymore.... BabestationX are making sure that not even the pay to view shows contain nudity.... Who needs a police force when the burglars dont steal anymore.....

\

I watched it the other night and couldn't believe what i was seeing - or rather not seeing. Absolutely pitiful.

(25-11-2012 18:25 )Scottishbloke Wrote:  At the risk of this thread degenrating into a war zone. Eccles and Digital Dave are still missing my point. Aimed at and receivable are exactly the same thing and I'll tell you why

I'm sorry but I'm too upset to post.

Whats happened to jimmyt73,,it says sin binned? Means nothing to me but he is a good chap.

(25-11-2012 18:25 )Scottishbloke Wrote:  Aimed at and receivable are exactly the same thing

Hang on! When a footballer or rugby player intercepts a pass and goes on to score a goal or a try, they're 'receiving' a ball that wasn't aimed at them. They benefit, but they're not the intended recipient.

Watched the first episode of new crime drama set in Seville (lovely place, worth a visit) and before it started there were warnings about the content, some sex (approx 5 seconds no nudity), etc etc. It wasn't remotely shocking or gory in any way whatsoever. Why the warnings for this and not BBC news that showed the horrific aftermath of that fire in Bangladesh?

i am finding myself getting more and more distanced from the forum of late ,all i see is fancy paragraphs ,practically speeches with words that sound like they come from a scientists note book and i would like to know exactly how this is helping in any way the cause ,my own opinion would be to throw as many suggestions and ideas at the channels as we can think of for new sets , different themes etc at least to try and keep us entertained if only with a smile instead of constantly going around on the merry go round of what it was like , the channels themselves have no interest in challenging the forces that be , and after the result of the petition its obvious the majority of members on here cant be bothered , so whinning and reminissing about the past is doing nothing apart from digging up old for and against arguements , when the shows have been half decent recently no complaints were made against them , all we need to do now is barrack the channels into making them more often !!!

Well I will keep this short and to the point. I was watching an episode of South Park the other night which BTW is one of my favourite comedy programmes. The episode in question went out just after 9PM and it went out uncensored. This particular one featured continued use of the fuck word aswell as quite a few racist attacks too, words that are not even allowed on this forum. It featured blasphemy throughout culminating with Eric Cartman saying not once or twice but three times and I quote. "Fuck Jesus Christ"

Now I know exactly what to expect from this programme, it doesn't offend me because I take it with a pinch of salt but from an ofcom point of view anybody viewing such content and also the fact that this programme was not pin protected. (BTW - I don't think post watershed this should be applicable) would have been offended.

So I ask if that kind of content is allowed on a mainstream channel then why are ofcom getting all hot under the coller by content shown on a late night babe channel which is well past the post watershed when this is allowed to air.

If ofcom practiced what they preached then they might just have some sort of argument to back up their half assed conclusions whether or not we agree with them or not. Ofcom cannot go peddling this old chestnut about we're protecting the kids bullshit when we are seeing inconsistencies as blantant as this being applied.

Fear not SB South Park can go for as many Christians, Sikhs, Jews, fat people, ugly people etc as it likes. Now Muslims could be another matter........
The single biggest annoying factor is double standards. Male nudity is fine, female nudity is utter filth.