Ofcom Discussion

Did'nt see it until late last night but in yesterdays Daily Sport their so called editorial column, had a piece slating you know who off, the Sport's complaint was that they(Ofcom) had recieved 1 complaint about that bare bum on X Factor or whatever it was, and therfore through the book at ITV, the Sport like the rest of us was basicaly saying what everyone else is wishing Ofcom would do.

Bauer Media Stops Publishing German Magazine

Bowing to international pressure, it announced it would stop publication of Second World War title Der Landser – The Squaddie. ... Berlin-based Global Jewish Advocacy issued a warning after Bauer’s takeover of British station Absolute Radio. ... Lords Janner and Palmer also complained and Ofcom then contacted the German media regulator. Bauer’s UK arm publishes FHM, Mother & Baby and Classic Car Weekly and runs two more radio stations, Magic and Kiss. ... Bauer insisted it had been legal saying a German lawyer “concludes that Der Landser complies fully with the stringent legislation in Germany and neither glorifies nor trivialises National Socialism.” But its statement then admitted it “has decided to cease publishing the series”.

I am a bit confused by this. Was the magazine genuinely unacceptable? German authorities really do not want nazism and are hot on repressing anything that glorifies it. If genuinely unacceptable should Ofcom have conducted more thorough due diligence and stopped Bauer getting control of the their third radio station, instead of only acting after agreeing the takeover and then getting a complaint?

Can we trust the decision making ability of these clowns?
Daily Express

(13-09-2013 02:28 )eccles Wrote:  In a startling turn, Ofcom is investigating if Bauer Media is "fit and proper" to hold a broadcasting licence. Their crime? Publication of a magazine in Germany that might be less than critical of German soldiers in the second world war. Offensive to UK tastes? Possibly (I havent seen it). Illegal in Germany, which has strict anti Nazi laws? No. Illegal in the UK? No.

Rather than throw out complaints, Ofcom is launching what will may be a lengthy investigation that will be costly to both it and the publisher, on the grounds that something lawful done in another part of a media empire in another country might offensive. Wonder how many other multinational broadcasters would stand up to the same level of scrutiny?
Independent

(16-09-2013 01:24 )eccles Wrote:  German authorities really do not want nazism and are hot on repressing anything that glorifies it.

Well eccles I've actually visited Germany 7 times and I'll tell you a funny story. The Germans spotted us lot wearing our national dress code which is the kilt ofcourse and asked us to sing our national anthem so anyway we all reluctantly agreed to give our best rendition of Flower Of Scotland as could be expected under the circumstances going by the amount of alcohol we'd all consumed

So all is well so far, the Germans in return then sung their national anthem and I thought and let me stress I was pretty much heavily intoxicated at the time that it might be funny to stand up on the bench and give them the old Hitler salute, they went fucking nuts I had to run like fuck, jump in the nearest lift whilst my mates tried to calm them all down by explaining to them I was only joking so I found to my cost despite the fact that Hitler and the Nazi Party was a very long time ago that the Germans still find it a very sensitive subject and haven't yet brought themselves round to the idea of our type of humour such as The Producers Movie and last but not least Basil Faulty in that famous episode which was titled the Germans

So my point to you is that although we living in the UK probably wouldn't batter an eyelid at the publication in question tensions still run high in Germany so that might best explain to you the thinking behind the banning of the magazine which is why some people might still call it unacceptable even in this day and age

Like SB I would love to see the freeview channels pushing it, even if I sound the occasional note of caution. Right now there is a cosy agreement with the regulator not to rock the boat. This avoids lengthy battles but leaves the channels wide open to being blown out of the water by an outsider who refuses to give way and fights Ofcom every step of the way through the courts, and carries on broadcasting strong but non porn material for the 1 or 2 years it takes to win.

At the end of it the newcomer will have 90% of the market and the newcomer will use their TV dominance to clean up the DVD and magazine markets, phone sex and online UK porn.

The UK porn market will then be foreign owned and run, the same way the UK car industry is.

And yes, there are too many posts where people just have a go at each other, like the Judean Peoples Front. Attacking each other achieves nothing except waste our own time and scare the more timid members into silence,

As for Stan, he has contributed a lot over the years and it must be time to let him out of Mistress Anis dungeon if he promises to behave.

Just seen this excellent article in Saturday's i newspaper

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comm...14930.html

And so the next phase of the governments attempts to censor/control the web takes shape :

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsb...sites.html

It is an attempt to get banks (strictly speaking, credit card companies) to refuse payments to sites that allow children unrestricted access to adult material.
Yet another ultimately unworkable, but headline grabbing, folly.
Will this be just for UK sites, in which case yet more sites may move abroad, taking income with them. Who decides what counts a 'adult' material (apparently, this idea is inspired by Ofcom's buddies ATVOD, an unelected and unaccountable group)?
If they try to apply this to overseas sites as well (a significant part of the adult sector is in the US) there may be legal proceedings, not just from those sites, but from the card companies themselves, who make significant money for legally processing payments for these sites. There are also third party processing companies (i.e. ccbill) who also make good money legitimately processing these payments, who may not be prepared to sit back and see their revenue affected this way.

(20-09-2013 15:58 )munch1917 Wrote:  Will this be just for UK sites, in which case yet more sites may move abroad, taking income with them.

It's not meant for UK sites, as these are already policed by ATVOD. The new policy is aimed at dealing with sites overseas which ATVOD is unable to regulate.

I think this is a good idea because a lot of adult sites don't have proper age verification on them

Aye quite right Mr Cameron, got to protect the children, rich coming from you, the same fucking idiot that left one of his own in the pub whilst he was out on a jolly jaunt

Should have Breathalysed the prick, obviously too pissed up to notice he was one short in the car ride home talk about education, we've got a man in charge that can't even do fucking basic maths

Just how the fuck did we end up with this twat who looks more like a dodgy antiques seller than a fucking prime minister

Cameron seems to think he will lose the next election unless he targets the Daily Mail vote.

As Munch1917 says, Cameron wants to force UK and foreign websites with free porn content to have mandatory verified registration (backed by credit card) or go out of business. His idea is that sites offer free hardcore samples but keep the longer/better stuff for paying customers. Banks will be told to blacklist those businesses, even if based abroad, despite the content being 100% legal in the UK.

This is in response to a study that claimed some schoolchildren were being forced to access porn sites by peer pressure and are being traumatised by it. The survey recommended better sex education, not porn filters, but the government seems intent on misrepresenting it.

Since when was public policy based on the personal bias on one politician, however elevated, rather than public opinion, party policy or official impartial studies backed up by green papers, white papers, public consultation and impact assessments listing people adversely or positively affected?

If it works it will mean no access to porn without giving foreign based porn merchants your name, address, date of birth and credit card details (debit cards are not considered proof of age as under 18s can have them). While most porn merchants are respectable law abiding business men/women who attend Church every weekend, a few are not.

Is it really in the national interest for dodgy porn merchants in the murkier corners of East Europe or Asia to have this level of detail about the House of Commons workers*, MPs husbands or military personnel?

It probably wont prevent kids being pressured into seeing inappropriate content either as porn sites are run by ingenious people who find ways round these kinds of bans, and adolescents will just find another way pressuring each other, like circulating DVD clips. Teaching them not to be little s**ts would be far better use of resources.

(* http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23954447)