Is It Time For The Channels To Make A Deal With Ofcom

(13-11-2012 18:11 )sala Wrote:  If I say it again it will be removed, obviously. Read the rep I gave you for a clue.

Quote:but tounge in cheek has no place on this forum

Given that the original post remains, you are obviously wrong, tongue in cheek statements are acceptable here.

You think you speak for SB, when clearly you don't as he has contradicted what you said.
You think you speak for the admin/mods when clearly you don't as they have left the post intact.
How about you try chilling out and relaxing and taking things a little less seriously. The internet can be a very 2-dimensional place, when we post comments the tone intended doesn't always come across and it can be mis-interpreted, but I think most people could see that the comment made was not intended literally, and was not meant as a personal attack, it was the kind of thing that people say to each other all the time at work, down the pub, in the school playground.

If you can't see that you must be mad!


Back on-topic, when it comes to battling Ofcom, I have to admit my heart is less in it than ever before.
The evidence posted here recently which proves conclusively that channels have reported other channels to the regulator, and even gone to the lengths of recording dvd's of their infringements and offered them to the regulator for proof, makes me wonder why we should bother fighting for them. If the channels are more concerned with reporting each other for minor infringements than with challenging the restrictions placed on them, then who are we to worry about it.
Whilst it bothers me that I as an adult cannot watch adult content after-hours, on a channel in the adult section of the epg, at the same time, I feel little inclination to continue to champion the channels freedom on their behalf. I'm caught between a rock and a hard place, I want my freedom, but I feel the channels deserve whatever happens to them from here on. What a dilemma!

(13-11-2012 20:17 )munch1917 Wrote:  The evidence posted here recently which proves conclusively that channels have reported other channels to the regulator, and even gone to the lengths of recording dvd's of their infringements and offered them to the regulator for proof, makes me wonder why we should bother fighting for them. If the channels are more concerned with reporting each other for minor infringements than with challenging the restrictions placed on them, then who are we to worry about it.

I have tried being polite about the channels, but to be honest I am not involved for the channels benefit. It's not as if they are run by Mother Teresa or tackle wars and World poverty like Miss World does. Changing rules could be bad news for todays channels, but good news for viewers. Ultimately I get involved from a selfish point of view because I want eye candy, trouser action and perhaps even something horny that will turn on a girlfriend. At the moment it is like watching football without goals.

I sometimes wonder whether a compromise may be to make all the channels encrypted from 10pm until 5.30 and a rigorous registration procedure used to ensure the person who will type in any encryption code or codes post registration is over 18. In exchange Ofcom could relax the rules quite substantially and allow the shows to be something more like they should be with harder and better content. Maybe its just me having a mad thought but I'm getting a bit desperate. I would have no objections to typing in a few registration details on a one off basis and then typing in a few encryption codes now and again in exchange for better content.

Munch: there is confusion because my posts get edited and the main points are lost, I don‘t think that I speak for scottishbloke or the admin but it is a fact that people are justifiably banned for taking shots at scotty, people are also rightly banned for what they say on twitter. Good job mods for using censorship to silence the jokers and I‘m sure admin and scottishbloke agree with this. Now if that makes me “mad“ for agreeing with the moderation style in banning twitter jokers and models who use rude words to scottishbloke then so be it. http://tiny.cc/61616

(14-11-2012 00:13 )sala Wrote:  there is confusion because my posts get edited and the main points are lost

(14-11-2012 00:13 )sala Wrote:  Good job mods for using censorship to silence the jokers

(13-11-2012 23:31 )snookered147 Wrote:  I sometimes wonder whether a compromise may be to make all the channels encrypted from 10pm until 5.30 and a rigorous registration procedure used to ensure the person who will type in any encryption code or codes post registration is over 18. In exchange Ofcom could relax the rules quite substantially and allow the shows to be something more like they should be with harder and better content. Maybe its just me having a mad thought but I'm getting a bit desperate. I would have no objections to typing in a few registration details on a one off basis and then typing in a few encryption codes now and again in exchange for better content.

Main objections to porn on TV came from religious groups and sex shop owners. The sex shop owners claimed there were inadequate controls to prevent under 18s viewing, as well as it harming their business. The religious groups just don't like porn (Im not sure the Bible says anything about it).

Could I please request that my name is left out of this, as much as I think you mean well Sala, I'm really not bothered what others opinions are of me on this forum. Could we possibly just get this thread back on track before another discussion ends up in the twilight zone.

As I have previously said, I am not upset in the least. The reasons I haven't posted much is because I've been getting up very early for work each morning. Also I do not wish anything to be brought up from the past, it's in the past and it'll remain that way for me, end of discussion.

If anybody has anything to bring up which is ofcom related, then fine, but I do not wish to read further comments regarding any more of the above. I do not need a spokesman on my behalf, I never asked for one. Thank you

^ A very reasonable post made in a very bonkers thread!

My own personal suggestion of dealing with the babeshows situation is quite simple...Remove shows from freeview (sorry) Add a couple of nuggets (pounds) too sky subs and enable the shows to break the stupid shopping channel label and therefore giving a choice for people to opt in or out off viewing more Adult based and less advertising based babeshow,with a less restrictive (not porn) content.
Having to pay a small subscription fee,should (in theory) appease ofcom's tight regulations,knowing that an Adult - IE: Bill payer/Subscription holder is paying for an Adult service....If that make sense? I think it does!!!

Yes that's definately what I'd call a reasonable deal to make with ofcom. I mean if they are already talking about an opt in to porn with regards to the internet is concerned then why not when it comes to the babe channels. But I'd rather it was an opt out instead, that way you don't have the embarrassment of making the call to SKY to request they activate your adult channels.

As far as the watershed is concerned, well every channel outside of the EPG seems to get away with showing material suitable for adults but not the Adult Channels as we all know Ofcom reckon the kids watch the babe channels. So yes 100% an opt in or opt out option for me is probably the only realistic offer that could be made to appease them.