Ofcom Discussion

Look: Its quite simple Ofcom are the the reason that the babe channels are in the state they're in, it's not F**KIN rocket science you no. I agree everyone is entitled to there opinion, and there's nothing wrong with that, however surely everyone must no that the reason the current babe shows are so tame, is only down to Ofcom
Since Ed Richards failed to get the job at the BBC, it seems everyone might be fearing the worst concerning the wrath of Ofcom reigning down fines all over the place, well i guess we'll all have to wait and see if anything transpires in the coming weeks and months.
Lets not forget, it seems Ed Richards might not be happy at Ofcom hence the reason he went for the BBC job, so maybe his time at Ofcom might be closer than we all think, you just never no.
The bottom line is that we must all fight Ofcom with everything we've got, this so called regulator is not fit to regulate in the 21st century!!

(06-07-2012 21:33 )Tumble_Drier Wrote:  Good god, what a bunch of whiney, sad old women you are. Getting all wound up because your poor little wank channels are oppressed by those nasty zealots at Ofcom.

Get over it. There are plenty of ways to see whatever sort of porn you want. You're just too lazy to get off your comfy sofas and find it.

(08-07-2012 19:49 )dan g 27 Wrote:  I agree with Munch a few posts back, everyone is entitled to an opinion on this subject

Yes indeed they are, but calling forum members names that are against ofcom's censorship and using terminology in the way Tumble_Drier did when describing anti Ofcom members is what has led to all this stuff currently going on,(see his post i have quoted) it seems to me Tumble_Drier deliberately set out to cause a reaction in this thread and fully deserves all he gets .

Totally agree with you mr mystery, I've been on this forum for over 2 years now but out of all the insulting posts I have ever read Tumble_Drier's had to be the worst. I can accept people having a different opinion but what I won't accept is being subject to ridicule and being patronised by some fucking newbie with the intention to piss us all right off. I don't know if this will get deleted but I just want to openly say Tumble_Drier you are the biggest idiot I have ever come across on this forum and you offer nothing but spamming and trolling talk to this discussion.

Tumble_Drier seems to have developed a fan club for reasons which are beyond me. His post here was spiteful and totally pointless, and the epitome of trolling.

Why others have to wade in with the 'he's entitled to his opinion' bullshit I've no idea. It wasn't really an opinion at all, it was a collection of insults just for the hell of it. I can imagine him now rubbing his hands with glee as he reads these posts. Hopefully he can imagine me thinking of him with contempt, as I do with all trolls.

I agree with both Scottishbloke and mr mystery - Tumble_Drier was an idiot for posting what he did and he fully deserves the reaction he got. Sadly though he'll probably enjoy the reaction as it was exactly what he wanted. Time to get a life TD.

(08-07-2012 20:13 )iloveMegan Wrote:  

(08-07-2012 19:19 )Scottishbloke Wrote:  Also what the fuck has happened to this thread lately. If Tumble Drier wasn't trolling I'd like to know what is, his support for ofcom is unequivocal.

The title of this thread is "Ofcom Discussion", whether or not Tumble_Drier or any other person is a Ofcom supporter they are allowed to post here.

exactly ilovemegan. yes tumble drier did go a little ott calling people in here. but that is no excuse for the nasty flack & personal attacks he's got back, being told to "get a life", called "an idiot" & "a troll

by all means disagree with what he's saying, but to personally attack him just because he says something you dont like is totally unnaceptable. you wouldnt like those things being said about you

(08-07-2012 20:51 )Digital Dave Wrote:  Tumble_Drier seems to have developed a fan club for reasons which are beyond me. His post here was spiteful and totally pointless, and the epitome of trolling.

Why others have to wade in with the 'he's entitled to his opinion' bullshit I've no idea. It wasn't really an opinion at all, it was a collection of insults just for the hell of it. I can imagine him now rubbing his hands with glee as he reads these posts. Hopefully he can imagine me thinking of him with contempt, as I do with all trolls.

I agree with both Scottishbloke and mr mystery - Tumble_Drier was an idiot for posting what he did and he fully deserves the reaction he got. Sadly though he'll probably enjoy the reaction as it was exactly what he wanted. Time to get a life TD.

Hang on, didnt you call Danica scum the other day?(even though i agree with it to some extent)

She's a member, what's the difference?

Shankey! telling people who are happy with the shows to "fuck off from the forum" was far more insulting and inflammatory than anything that Tumble_Drier said.

Calm down everyone man ofcom ain't gonna do nothing, there's nothing to fight for.

All that stuff about Ofcom horrors are just mere speculation with no solid foundation.

I know there's a petition but what exactly happens after the closing date? Is this gonna culminate in everyone on this forum going to court or something?

Is scottishbloke the lead counsel whose gonna give opening and closing statements, call witnesses?

Is sky news, bbc news gonna follow day to day court proceedings, are transcripts gonna be made available?

Hope they pick well in the jury selection process

Should hire Susan yu and tom mesereau- they are the best defence lawyers I know.

(08-07-2012 20:37 )Scottishbloke Wrote:  I've been on this forum for over 2 years now but out of all the insulting posts I have ever read Tumble_Drier's had to be the worst.

No way, surely?!

(08-07-2012 18:55 )munch1917 Wrote:  

(08-07-2012 17:56 )Scottishbloke Wrote:  ...
Ofcom can and will close down any Adult Channel they see fit without warning or notice, they will issue fines and sanctions for the channels also without warning or any notice given
...

I'm certainly not as familiar with the intricacies of Ofcoms rules and regulations as some on this forum, but I'm pretty sure that statement is untrue.

One thing that a happens is that Ofcom will refer to a few isolated complaints over the past 2 or 3 years as a history of repeated contravention and use that as justifaction for a fine.

By contrast the BBC and Channel 4 feature every few months with daytime swearing, other broadcasters every now and then with unacceptable levels of daytime violence, yet they rarely attract more than a tut.

Its even worse when it comes to some of the religious channels, a few of which have been known to issue what look like calls to violence against other branches or other religions.

Here are a few recent examples of double standards. Storm commits a first offence, accepts it made a mistake, and gets warned a second could lead to a fine, an ethnic channel broadcasts blatant political bias - subverting the democratic process - and it takes 4 offences and an absence of contrition to get a warning that a 5th offence might lead to a fine.

Broadcast Bulletin 202 (19 March 2012)

Quote:Storm Night Storm, 9 December 2011, 23:30
...
Ofcom noted that this was the first breach of this nature on this channel. However, the Licensee is put on notice that any future beaches of this nature may lead to Ofcom considering further regulatory action.
http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binarie...obb202.pdf

First offence and Storm are warned that a second offence could go straight to a fine: harsh.

Compare this with the treatment of Channel S News, a channel aimed at the Bangladeshi community in the UK and Europe:
Bulletin 208: A report described the Tower Hamlets Mayors Budget in glowing terms with no balance from Labour or Conservative opponents. ("The council is notable in that its executive function is controlled by a directly elected mayor of Tower Hamlets, currently Lutfur Rahman, who was elected to this role in October 2010 as an independent candidate. He had previously been deselected as the official Labour Party candidate in the election to be directly elected mayor, and in that election beat the official Labour Party candidate."). http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binarie...obb208.pdf

The allegation is basically blantant political bias. Channel S denied that Tower Hamlets is a political organisation and claimed it would have reported opposing press conferences - unlike most broadcasters who make the effort to invite political opponents views and give equal air time.

This was the 4th complaint upheld against the channel, previous ones recorded in bulletins 177 (7 March 2011, bias during election of Tower Hamlets mayor), 188 (22 Aug 2011, biased reporting of Ken Livingston speech) and 203 (2 April 2012, bias favourable towards a candidate for UK President of the Bangladesh Nationalist Party).