Ofcom Discussion

A pathetically tame night last night....

As an aside I have recently re-subscribed to PBTV/TAC. They offer discounts to ex customers. Utter drivel. Cut to shreds from last year, never mind when the producers had balls. If you want to see lots of shots of men's arses, no female pubic hair and clumsy editing go ahead. Otherwise save your cash.

This is one of the reasons why I cancelled my Playboy Subscription a few years ago. Not to mention the fact that every time you go to watch the channel you have to keep entering your 4 digit pin number.

I'd be very interested to know what would happen if Ofcom treated every subscription channel in the same manner that they treat the Adult Subscriptions ones with as I'd imagine they would be a fucking uproar.

So you have to be 18 in order to subscribe to the porn channels yet they won't show proper porn. What's the fucking point. I say stick to the internet porn for the time being rather than pissing your money away on this shite.

(10-05-2013 07:44 )SCIROCCO Wrote:  A pathetically tame night last night....

As an aside I have recently re-subscribed to PBTV/TAC. They offer discounts to ex customers. Utter drivel. Cut to shreds from last year, never mind when the producers had balls. If you want to see lots of shots of men's arses, no female pubic hair and clumsy editing go ahead. Otherwise save your cash.

So, it is cut to shreds from last year?

What is that achieving in light of the fact that the ONLY reason for censoring the subscription channels is that Ofcon maintain that children are watching them.

Has there been an increase in the numbers of children watching?

Can Ofcon quantify this?

What are the ages of the children that are watching?
Why are these children now not affected by the images that ARE acceptable to OFcon and where is their (Ofcon's) evidence for this?

Of course, my questions could all be total bollox as Ofcon have their own agenda.

If kids are still up in the middle of the night then shouldn't this be a job for the social services to get involved in. The parents/guardians should be taken to the cleaners.

Unfortunately this is a fact, in this society as in the rest allround the world we are alway's going to get irresponsible parents. I remember I was allowed to stay up late on a school night. Reason being - The Freddie Mercury Tribute Concert was on the telly. It never finished until half ten or so at night.

PS - I never grew up in a world where Babestation was on the telly. I had to make do with Page 3 or a freemans catalogue if I fancied a quick wank

Only 4 channels. Times were hard in my day. Kids today................eh they don't they're born. Spoilt rotten I say with Babestation and co to keep them entertained throughout the school night

Maybe Ofcom should visit a few schools and ask the kids if they have been satisified enough with the soft porn available on SKY

(10-05-2013 19:08 )Scottishbloke Wrote:  Maybe Ofcom should visit a few schools and ask the kids if they have been satisified enough with the soft porn available on SKY

Depends on what they have been looking at on the internet .
When parental responsibility stoops to such low levels who knows what the kids are up to?

(10-05-2013 19:08 )Scottishbloke Wrote:  If kids are still up in the middle of the night then shouldn't this be a job for the social services to get involved in. The parents/guardians should be taken to the cleaners.

Unfortunately this is a fact, in this society as in the rest allround the world we are alway's going to get irresponsible parents. I remember I was allowed to stay up late on a school night. Reason being - The Freddie Mercury Tribute Concert was on the telly. It never finished until half ten or so at night.

Ofcom seem to have softened their stance a bit recently, or perhaps the channels are not pushing the boundaries and grassing each other up. Either way there have been fewer excessively detailed and lengthy investigations into babechannels recently. But the bottom line is there are far more and tighter rules, regulations and case histories than for any other category.

At any time Ofcom can clamp down on a whim.

At 9 or 10 at night Ofcom plays the kids card, but later at night they dont. The argument then is that channels have broken rules based on offence. The mentality that says extreme swearing on Channel 4 at 10pm or torture porn cause acceptable levels of offence but sex on clearly labelled niche channels much later causes offence so severe that people who deliberately tune in is deranged.

Equal rules. Is that too much to ask.

As for Scottishblokes point about kids staying up late occasionally to see special shows, that just highlights the failure of Ofcom surveys that show 20% (or whatever) of kids watch TV after midnight. Many kids will see an occasional special show with their family. Watching Children In Need or seeing the New Year in once a year is not the same as a kid having unrestricted access to a TV with unlocked adult channels late at night, either in their bedroom or because their parents are working or drinking. To be honest if a kid is able to watch TV porn late at night that is the least of their problems. They are far more likely to have internet access, and possibly DVDs and booze.

It is worth remembering that on 4 March this year, barely 2 months ago, Ofcom published its finding against Northern Birds, Essex Babes, Sportxxx Girls, and Livexxx Babes because they had linked to a website with explicit sample clips, and warned that they were deciding how much to fine the channels. (Bulletin 225).

"Ofcom therefore puts the Licensee on notice that it will consider these breaches for the imposition of a statutory sanction." is code for there will be a punishment, details to be decided.

(12-05-2013 21:43 )eccles Wrote:  It is worth remembering that on 4 March this year, barely 2 months ago, Ofcom published its finding against Northern Birds, Essex Babes, Sportxxx Girls, and Livexxx Babes because they had linked to a website with explicit sample clips, and warned that they were deciding how much to fine the channels. (Bulletin 225).

"Ofcom therefore puts the Licensee on notice that it will consider these breaches for the imposition of a statutory sanction." is code for there will be a punishment, details to be decided.

What a load of cack they are deciding how much,, are they a manufacturing company selling merchandise? The babeshows are a soft target that's all and should not be fined for something so trivial..If I broke the law I would get warning perhaps jail not 150,000 grand etc..I would fucking hire someone to take the cunts out if they fined my company that childish amount..There are some bloody awful programmes on tv fine them for been awful instead of a fanny lip been shown, sexist,misandrist fuckwits.

(12-05-2013 21:43 )eccles Wrote:  there will be a punishment, details to be decided.

How long does it take to decide the details? It can't be that complicated a decision can it?

(13-05-2013 21:01 )elgar1uk Wrote:  

(12-05-2013 21:43 )eccles Wrote:  there will be a punishment, details to be decided.

How long does it take to decide the details? It can't be that complicated a decision can it?

Beats me. Seems to take 4-6 months to decide a rule has been broken then another 3 to decide the punishment. Beats working for a living, even the NHS is quicker.