Storm Attacked By Ofcom

Addison we may have a sort of democracy in this country but it isn't evenly applied to all areas. Being denied the right to view adult material on the telly in an allocated slot in the EPG is not illustrating democracy to it's full potential. Ofcom were not elected into power, they had it handed to them. They do not represent the majority of the views within the United Kingdom, they regulate the channels with their own agenda based on prejedice and lack of tolerance. They are not applying the watershed rule fairly. Agreed I'm not going to get rounded up in the middle of the night and interrogated by the gestapo but that's hardly a yardstick to be basing democracy on now is it

(10-09-2012 22:05 )Scottishbloke Wrote:  Agreed I'm not going to get rounded up in the middle of the night and interrogated by the gestapo but that's hardly a yardstick to be basing democracy on now is it

Freedom of speech is a fundamental yardstick. Without it you can't effectively have freedom of expression, political or cultural.

(10-09-2012 21:58 )mrmann Wrote:  Ofcom loves to get money from the babe channels, but has no problem allowing mutilated penises on Sexcetera,

Or indeed mutilated bodies on the horror channel.

"Breasts before 10pm? Oh, no, that would be an outrage and potentially harmful!! What's that? Torture, death and suffering? Yeah, fill yer boots, kids!!"

Well maybe freedom of art should be the route the babe channels should be taking into challenging ofcom's ruling of them. Unless they are allowed to operate with 100% freedom then this is not democratic

This watershed crap is pathetic seems these victorian gentlemen at Ofcuts are outraded by the sight of a trim ankle before 10pm. Surprised they manage to see any breech of the rules as their nose's are so far up David Camerons arse, it must be difficult to see Getting close to fight the fukkers, or close up shop

No other category is subject to this level of censorship, not predatory "religious" channels, looney conspiracy ones, endless gambling ones, max swearing in comedy, violence and gore.

The only minor glimmer of hope is there is no warning that a statutory sanction is under consideration or a warning that it will be if there is a repeat.

Against this is the obsessive level of detail that Ofcom goes into describings the presenters clothing. It's as if there were a complaint about swearing on a zombie film and they listed every gruesome body part and described Mila Jankovics legs and tight bum. Several times. Also in Storms defence, it can hardly be described as erotic or arousing with harsh flat lighting showing bad skin tone - that is actually a legitimate defence.

What really makes my blood boil is "Uncle Sam" broadcast by Praise TV at 7am when kids would be watching in channels that watch that filth. "one use of the word “fuck”, as well as scenes that showed the injuries of people who had been tortured and people who had been executed."

"Ofcom is concerned that Praise TV did not recognise that this film was appropriate to be broadcast only after the watershed, did not have compliance arrangements in place to ensure this happened, and sought to defend the scheduling of this documentary at 07:00 on a Sunday."

So what action does concerned Ofcom take against this channel that shows no remorse, contrition or understanding? SFA, just finds it in breach. No warnings about possible sanctions.

Yet again surely this judgement is based on the fact that Babe Channels are classified under the 'advertising' rules rather than an other category and we will continue to get such judgements while this remains in place.

I think I will have to stop reading these threads as don't know which annoys me more the Offcom judgements or the reactions of many poster to them -

This simply cannot continue Ofcom must be destroyed, what is this country coming to for F**K sake. When i see these investigations it makes my blood boil, and all this is happening in the year 2012 in the 21st century, can someone pinch me, surely this must be a bad dream we're living in and we will all wake up and Ofcom had never existed, "yeah right" well one can't blame me for dreaming

(11-09-2012 08:36 )Tonywauk Wrote:  Yet again surely this judgement is based on the fact that Babe Channels are classified under the 'advertising' rules rather than an other category and we will continue to get such judgements while this remains in place.

I think I will have to stop reading these threads as don't know which annoys me more the Offcom judgements or the reactions of many poster to them -

OK, but what type of advertising/teleshopping channel allows nudity???? None that I've ever heard of. Also, if this so called breach happened in mid June, then isn't that over eight weeks??? It's nearly three months past, and I thought anything after eight weeks could not be investigated??????? What's the point in waiting eight weeks to post Red Light videos if Ofcom can still open new investigations nearly 12 weeks later???

Ofcom is just running dry, so they need to screw another channel over yet again.

Maybe those who started putting more of the blame for tame shows on the channels themselves will see why the channels get paranoid sometimes about Ofcom, the real culprits. 'No rule changes' is a meaningless argument, when Ofcom can use whatever interpretation they feel like.

But the channels hardly help themselves by not challenging such arbitrary & illogical judgement. For example make Ofcom demonstrate how a category of a show affects children more than the actual content, to justify different rules. Maybe TV companies have more clout than babe channels, hence the babe channels literally get bullied more.