Ofcom Discussion

So from what I can gather, the only hope to end the censorship is a change of leadership at Ofcom, but not get rid of Ofcom. Am I right in saying that?

Dan the world works in mysterious ways, if this man goes it does open up the possibilty of better times ahead, if it is correct and that this man is indeed a bully and a control freak who knows what the take on the babe channels is made by future ofcom panels. I get optimistic when I read news such as this, maybe I'm also getting a bit carried away too but it's got to at least offer us some shred of comfort. This might also explain why the babe channels have refused to take ofcom on knowing that change at the top could realistically prove to be their ultimate saviour without all the costs that could be incurred into taking them to court

(08-06-2012 21:41 )Scottishbloke Wrote:  Dan the world works in mysterious ways, if this man goes it does open up the possibilty of better times ahead, if it is correct and that this man is indeed a bully and a control freak who knows what the take on the babe channels is made by future ofcom panels. I get optimistic when I read news such as this, maybe I'm also getting a bit carried away too but it's got to at least offer us some shred of comfort. This might also explain why the babe channels have refused to take ofcom on knowing that change at the top could realistically prove to be their ultimate saviour without all the costs that could be incurred into taking them to court

But there is also the chance of someone worst being appointment. I'm not trying to dampen optimism, I'm just saying we have to be aware of the possibilities that someone much worst could be in charge of Ofcom

Yes Dan that shouldn't be discounted, but honestly who could be any worse than Ed Richards was. He was a cunt and a fraud. Any new Chief Executive I'd imagine would want to put a stamp on his/her ways of regulating the TV/Radio. I have hope that positive change will happen on the back of this change. The babe channels right now simply need to evolve, they cannot afford to stay as tame as they are at present, new rules should be negotiated such as allowing us to broadcast exactly the same kind of content that the rest of Europe is allowed to show.

Well well well, this is very good news indeed, with the likelyhood of Ed Harris leaving this does open up the potential for a more positive outlook. Now like SB has stated we can't allow ourselves to get to carried away, and what Dan has mentioned earlier, there might be someone who might be of the same mindset as Harris was. However I don't think this will be the case at all.
In my opinion I do believe there will be some radical changes not only concerning our babe channels, but the whole regulatory process across the board, and as SB has mentioned i hope our Adult channels will be allowed to broadcast like our european neighbours do. Well we're halfway through 2012, let's hope the remaining 6 months will be a happy and joyous occasion not only for our babe channels, but for all of us to

I'll personally help the bastard clear his desk out

What I don't get is why a newspaper that's traditionally been anti-liberal, anti-permissive society and anti-porn (they're spearheading the push for 'opt-in' porn legislation) would be so keen to run a critical story about a guy who, if you believe Scottishbloke, holds the same abstemious values as the Daily Mail, and wants to curtail adult material just like the Mail does!

By their standards he is a dangerous liberal.

Astounding to think he was appointed Chief Executive to a national body aged just 41 and joined the Ofcom Board aged 38. He was even younger when he was Senior Policy Advisor to Tony Blair or Controller of Corporate Strategy at the BBC.

In every large organisation I have worked in real senior positions are rarely held by anyone under 50. He must have been a really talented consultant and TV researcher to have had such a meteoric rise.

His departure could herald a new dawn, or it might turn out that the rest of the board think the same way. Just dont know how much is down to him personally.

BUT it will be embarrasing if he fails.

On a slightly different topic - when did the rules for encrypted channels change?

I ask because the last time I looked, there was a blanket ban on erect penises. However, in recent weeks it has become clear to me that the encrypted channels are quite happy showing stiff cocks waving aroud all over the place. Just before they get sucked, just after, just before they get fucked, just after. They even seem quite happy to show them being wanked by women.

Still no penetration, but a few years ago noone of these things would have been allowed, so what has changed?

(11-06-2012 20:10 )Grawth Wrote:  On a slightly different topic - when did the rules for encrypted channels change?

I ask because the last time I looked, there was a blanket ban on erect penises. However, in recent weeks it has become clear to me that the encrypted channels are quite happy showing stiff cocks waving aroud all over the place. Just before they get sucked, just after, just before they get fucked, just after. They even seem quite happy to show them being wanked by women.

Still no penetration, but a few years ago noone of these things would have been allowed, so what has changed?

Far as I know, never. Remember seeing pleasantly surprised posts of forums years ago, in early Ofcom days, from people saying how pleased they were that the rules had been relaxed to allow stiffies. And being a little dissapointed a couple of years later when I got my own Sky to find the encrypted channels had dropped them (ouch!) in both recorded and live shows.

Also BG liveshows were dropped 'voluntarily' after Sport got hauled over the coals.

No rule changes in either case, but possibly a nudge and a wink.

Its subjective but there seems to be a slight relaxation at the moment. Annoying thing is there are no rule changes and no obvious changes at the top, so it could be one of those periodic thaws that gets reversed on a whim. And thats not good enough.