Ofcom Discussion

I would dearly love to see the babe channels taking the ofcom bastards to the high court although this is only fantasy as I doubt this will ever happen now. I would love to see the channels prove to the court without a shadow of a doubt that viewing adult material has no grounds for harm or offence and should be stricken off the list and for Ofcom to prove they have a case and to actually present any hard fact based evidence on this matter. I would be willing to place a wager that all the babe channels would be found to be not guilty of any of the recent fines or hounding of the babe channels. Ofcom to be suspended indefinitely and for all fines handed down the years to be given back in the full amount plus any damages and job loss's incurred to the staff and models on these channels. This would send out a clear message that in the end justice will prevail and all forms of harassment stops immediately and people will just have to accept that these channels have as much right to broadcast what they deem justifiable for a night show in the same way that SKY Sports does for a live football game. This could be reality if only they cared to realise that with democracy brings a fair trial and ofcom are well overdue for a sharp kick up the arse. Make 2011 the year our dreams finally come true.

(06-07-2011 18:15 )Scottishbloke Wrote:  I would dearly love to see the babe channels taking the ofcom bastards to the high court although this is only fantasy as I doubt this will ever happen now. I would love to see the channels prove to the court without a shadow of a doubt that viewing adult material has no grounds for harm or offence and should be stricken off the list and for Ofcom to prove they have a case and to actually present any hard fact based evidence on this matter. I would be willing to place a wager that all the babe channels would be found to be not guilty of any of the recent fines or hounding of the babe channels. Ofcom to be suspended indefinitely and for all fines handed down the years to be given back in the full amount plus any damages and job loss's incurred to the staff and models on these channels. This would send out a clear message that in the end justice will prevail and all forms of harassment stops immediately and people will just have to accept that these channels have as much right to broadcast what they deem justifiable for a night show in the same way that SKY Sports does for a live football game. This could be reality if only they cared to realise that with democracy brings a fair trial and ofcom are well overdue for a sharp kick up the arse. Make 2011 the year our dreams finally come true.

Yet to happen and i doubt that any of the babe channels will challenge Ofc@m on their 'Generally Accepted Standards', or their abuse of 'Protection of Children from Harm' for content shown after the watershed given in decisions.
Ofc@m are not an unknown party in the High Court and have been challenged many times, generally winning their corner, Some quotes from past decisions,

The approach of the Court in proceedings for judicial review of Ofcom licensing decisions is set out in R (Wildman) v Ofcom [2005] EWHC 1573 (Admin), another decision of Burnton J. Courts will exercise a high degree of caution before interfering with Ofcom's discretion in this area. Ofcom's status as an expert body and the failure of Parliament to provide for an appeal against licensing decisions on the facts or on the law ensures that its decisions will be quashed only in the most exceptional cases.

Generally Ofc@m only have to demonstrate that they are being reasonable in their decision making and when they do make 'In Breach' decisions quote past decisions made that have gone unchallenged. Whilst this does not make these past decisions lawfully correct it may suggest the acceptance of the decision by the babe channel in question that they accept Ofc@m to have been reasonable, which then imposes further restrictions on ALL channels.

In another case the following was quoted

Mr Anderson accepts that the court's approach to proportionality under the Convention goes beyond that traditionally adopted by judicial review in a domestic setting. But this does not mean that the court should place itself in the position of the decision-maker and engage in a merits-based review. The court's task is not simply to substitute its own view for that of OFCOM, but to review OFCOM's decision with an intensity appropriate to all the circumstances of the case.
Thus considerable weight should be given to OFCOM's expert judgment on what constitutes generally accepted standards on the inclusion of offensive material.

Judicial Review is a costly and timely process and not the appropriate mechanism to appeal a contents decision but more appropriate to scrutinise the policy and procedures that direct enforcement in the first instance.

The babe channel operators should contact and pressure the Minister at the Dept of Business, Innovation and Skills to get an appeal process in place either through the magistrate courts or independant tribunal. An IT will provide for a fair, efficient and effective justice system delivered by an independent judiciary, something Ofc@m do not provide.

The recent consultation by Ofc@m on reviewing the procedures for handling broadcasting complaints, investigations and sanctions and penalty guidelines was not responded to by any of the babe channel operators as far as i can see. Do i take the view that they cannot be bothered with challenging for change and are resigned to meekly abide by all of Ofc@m's decisions.

Babe Channels R.I.P.

(06-07-2011 23:45 )Gold Plated Pension Wrote:  

(06-07-2011 18:15 )Scottishbloke Wrote:  I would dearly love to see the babe channels taking the ofcom bastards to the high court although this is only fantasy as I doubt this will ever happen now. I would love to see the channels prove to the court without a shadow of a doubt that viewing adult material has no grounds for harm or offence and should be stricken off the list and for Ofcom to prove they have a case and to actually present any hard fact based evidence on this matter. I would be willing to place a wager that all the babe channels would be found to be not guilty of any of the recent fines or hounding of the babe channels. Ofcom to be suspended indefinitely and for all fines handed down the years to be given back in the full amount plus any damages and job loss's incurred to the staff and models on these channels. This would send out a clear message that in the end justice will prevail and all forms of harassment stops immediately and people will just have to accept that these channels have as much right to broadcast what they deem justifiable for a night show in the same way that SKY Sports does for a live football game. This could be reality if only they cared to realise that with democracy brings a fair trial and ofcom are well overdue for a sharp kick up the arse. Make 2011 the year our dreams finally come true.

Yet to happen and i doubt that any of the babe channels will challenge Ofc@m on their 'Generally Accepted Standards', or their abuse of 'Protection of Children from Harm' for content shown after the watershed given in decisions.
Ofc@m are not an unknown party in the High Court and have been challenged many times, generally winning their corner, Some quotes from past decisions,

The approach of the Court in proceedings for judicial review of Ofcom licensing decisions is set out in R (Wildman) v Ofcom [2005] EWHC 1573 (Admin), another decision of Burnton J. Courts will exercise a high degree of caution before interfering with Ofcom's discretion in this area. Ofcom's status as an expert body and the failure of Parliament to provide for an appeal against licensing decisions on the facts or on the law ensures that its decisions will be quashed only in the most exceptional cases.

Generally Ofc@m only have to demonstrate that they are being reasonable in their decision making and when they do make 'In Breach' decisions quote past decisions made that have gone unchallenged. Whilst this does not make these past decisions lawfully correct it may suggest the acceptance of the decision by the babe channel in question that they accept Ofc@m to have been reasonable, which then imposes further restrictions on ALL channels.

In another case the following was quoted

Mr Anderson accepts that the court's approach to proportionality under the Convention goes beyond that traditionally adopted by judicial review in a domestic setting. But this does not mean that the court should place itself in the position of the decision-maker and engage in a merits-based review. The court's task is not simply to substitute its own view for that of OFCOM, but to review OFCOM's decision with an intensity appropriate to all the circumstances of the case.
Thus considerable weight should be given to OFCOM's expert judgment on what constitutes generally accepted standards on the inclusion of offensive material.

Judicial Review is a costly and timely process and not the appropriate mechanism to appeal a contents decision but more appropriate to scrutinise the policy and procedures that direct enforcement in the first instance.

The babe channel operators should contact and pressure the Minister at the Dept of Business, Innovation and Skills to get an appeal process in place either through the magistrate courts or independant tribunal. An IT will provide for a fair, efficient and effective justice system delivered by an independent judiciary, something Ofc@m do not provide.

The recent consultation by Ofc@m on reviewing the procedures for handling broadcasting complaints, investigations and sanctions and penalty guidelines was not responded to by any of the babe channel operators as far as i can see. Do i take the view that they cannot be bothered with challenging for change and are resigned to meekly abide by all of Ofc@m's decisions.

Babe Channels R.I.P.

What I don't get is how they can claim to be reasonable in their ways with the adult channels, yet allowing other more explicit shows to air without the censorship? Context CAN'T be an excuse, because surely seeing an episode of Sexcetera where it's depicting people sucking on each other's vaginas in a forest is NOT educational. Seeing a woman get her vagina drilled while sitting in a dildo chair is not just educational, and is obviously there to arouse anyone wanting to watch.



When will these channels band together and start showing what we all are expecting to see??? These are suppose to be 18 rated channels for a reason, yet they are closer to 12 rated IMO.

the funy thing is if the channels get any tamer the only people who are going to wach it are the kids ofcom are trying to protect

(07-07-2011 02:01 )alexfury Wrote:  the funy thing is if the channels get any tamer the only people who are going to wach it are the kids ofcom are trying to protect

i agree, its getting less ADULT if you like every day. Wish ofcom would just blow up or something so that the censoring would stop or we could see the girls more sexual, by that i mean moving around like they used to do.

(07-07-2011 02:01 )alexfury Wrote:  the funy thing is if the channels get any tamer the only people who are going to wach it are the kids ofcom are trying to protect

Don't forget Ofcom themselves will be watching as well as the kids while they are "routinely monitoring" the babe channels , the dirty old fuckers , i wonder if they ring the shows as well while they are routinely monitoring them .

This is the latest from ofcom and we could me about to see more changes. I'm unsure of how this will affect the current censorship laws in place. But it is confirmed that ofcom will be up for debate in the house of commons so watch this space for some interesting developments.
http://www.melonfarmers.co.uk/ow.htm
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsb...esses.html

hi guys did anyone catch syren sextons faux par on babestation the other night she used the f word on the mic after 10 pm im confused as an adult who watches these channel it seems bizzare the she can swear on a subscription porn channel during sex but not on a free to air channel after 10 pm.especially in light of the fact that swearing on mainstream channels after 9pm is deemed acceptable as long as the viewer is warned before the program starts are there diffrent rules for both or what
p.s as a sky viewer her short stint on screen was nowhere near long enough maybe she should try a stronger channel that would embrace the freedom of speech that we are all supposed to have

why the does ofcom bother with the channels cause if they did show more they would get more callers and money and it would be win win for everybody and its not like kids watch anyway

(07-07-2011 20:54 )sophia knight so sexy Wrote:  why the does ofcom bother with the channels cause if they did show more they would get more callers and money and it would be win win for everybody and its not like kids watch anyway

According to Ofcon, there are a whole host of kids watching the sex channels, both encrypted & unencrypted.

This is their basis for the censorship of the legally available R18 certificate on the encrypted channels. It is, in fact, their ONLY justification for censorship. But justify it they do, and very successfully too.

We all know that this is total bollux but Ofcon have the power to refute any argument against them.

The only people who can rein them in are the government of the day and they have proved to be complicit in the whole charade.

The UK is a very strange society.