Ofcom & Licence Revocation – Empty Threat?

(25-01-2011 03:01 )Gold Plated Pension Wrote:  Empty threat, we now know that it happens. If you read the latest bulletin you will see other broadcasters now under threat. Playboy and Just4Us are being called in by Ofc@m for a final warning.

In light of the above and Ofcom‟s recent concerns with Just4Us and Playboy‟s compliance, Ofcom is now requiring the licensees to attend a meeting at Ofcom to discuss its compliance procedures. Ofcom also puts Just4Us and Playboy on notice that it must take all necessary and appropriate measures to ensure its channels comply with the BCAP Code in the future. Ofcom will not expect further breaches of this nature to occur again.

Expect about 6 channels to go down if Ofc@m receive further complaints and starts revocation procedures again. It's been said before Ofc@m wants rid of these ftv channels.

http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binarie...sue174.pdf

So lame and predictable. Ofcon needs to worry about important issues, not whether or not a private part was shown after the watershed.

GO FUCK YOURSELFS OFCOM !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

very predictable i agree, hopefully wont go any further, at least for a while

So I read through this guff and think so what exactly are these channels guilty of. Yes they are sexline channels and yes they are aimed at adults and yes this is exactly the kind of content you would expect to see on a FUCKING LATENIGHT SEXLINE CHANNEL. What a fucking insult to have these complaints alongside the X Factors which is vastly different the one very small difference being that the X Factor is aimed at a family audience and the X rated channels are aimed for Adults only. That's precisely why they are hidden at the very back of the SKY EPG which Ofcom fucking know fine well aswell as the ability to lock these channels out. I'm getting fucking sick of this country. Please abolish OFCOM and for all they stand for.

I hope now that they are messing with a giant of an international company (PlayboyTV) Ofcom will get put in their place and start to focus on REAL offensive material, such as why SkyArts can get away with showing in a programme that I saw a couple of nights ago, 2 clips from a banned movie of a 12yr old Brooke Shields in a full frontal nude pose uncensored. Now, as far as i'm aware, showing any uncensored pictures of a naked child in an adult context on any format is illegal. So, what have any of the adult section channels (ftv or ppv) done that is so wrong, that they have initiated this onslaught of fines, warnings and license revocations. Come on PlayboyTV, take Ofcunt to court and give Britain back our freedom to see naked women on our tv's in all their glory.

(26-01-2011 02:48 )SYBORG666 Wrote:  I hope now that they are messing with a giant of an international company (PlayboyTV) Ofcom will get put in their place and start to focus on REAL offensive material, such as why SkyArts can get away with showing in a programme that I saw a couple of nights ago, 2 clips from a banned movie of a 12yr old Brooke Shields in a full frontal nude pose uncensored. Now, as far as i'm aware, showing any uncensored pictures of a naked child in an adult context on any format is illegal. So, what have any of the adult section channels (ftv or ppv) done that is so wrong, that they have initiated this onslaught of fines, warnings and license revocations. Come on PlayboyTV, take Ofcunt to court and give Britain back our freedom to see naked women on our tv's in all their glory.

You would be correct. Despite the Brooke Shields pose being done for art, technically it could be classified as child porn. In America it certainly would, but maybe England has different laws about that. Still very hipocritical of them, unsurprisingly.

My argument mrmann, is it was child porn because the topic of the programme was indeed about censorship in movies and that if SkyArt or any other channel show that sort of material on tv for example purposes, it is still their responsibilty to censor the broadcasted images. For arguments sake, lets say I was to do a factual programme that touched upon topics like snuff movies or beastiality and featured images to put across the point. No channel would broadcast it and I would find myself locked up but yet naked kids can be shown on tv and yet any adult genitalia shown on an ftv adult channels, result in hefty fines or closure. Ofcom, pull your fucking head out your arse and deal with the truly offensive material, which the female body is not. Plus kids are at more risk from contents and sites on the internet than what would be shown on the adult channels.

That has to be classed as child porn simple as, what kind of parents would even allow their child to be put in that kind of situation?

the film your on about has been classified by the bbfc and because of this the channel could show it in context. the film isnt actually banned in the uk and never was. it concerns the plight of a 12 year old gilr living and working in a brothel among other things. thus the nudity in the bbfc's eyes is justified and in context. as would the clips show in the context of discussing the said movie.
there was an uproar about the movie when it first came out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pretty_Baby_(film) with slurs of child pornography and so on.
but because it is a film and has already been vetted by the bbfc ofcom cant say squat about it. and here lies the conjecture. the bbfc cant rate the babeshows as 18/r18 because they are the british board of film classification, and ofcom have nothing to do with them. they did try 1s to over turn a ruling but were beaten to a pulp in court.

http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binarie...s/BBFC.pdf ,... even the bbfc agree that ofcom use vague terms in the above pdf and ask for clarification. so like i have said in the past the bbfc ratings has no bearing on ofcoms draconian stance on censorship, after all it was the bbfc that passed the r18 video act which snubbed ofcom.

The problem we also now is giving these channels an excuse to air a below par show such as Elites snorefest last night. Far too many models are playing it too safe these days down to the simple fact of not incurring the wrath of ofcom. Elite is a perfect example with having a mixture of models that get fully naked and others who choose only to show topless and with this brings deep inconsistency. Elite these days seems to follow a predictable pattern almost on purpose with one night we have the likes of Caty Cole, Lori Buckby and Charlie O'neil pushing the boundries to the maximum and last night where the models minus these performers were more than happy just to go through the motions. Infact the inconsistency throughout all of the channels is alarming and it's about time us the viewers/callers were delivered the product that these channels should be delivering on a daily basis by removing ofcom's monopoly that ofcom currently hold over these channels. 2011 and we're still demanding for change. How many years is this going to continue for.