Ofcom Discussion

(20-05-2013 12:33 )mr mystery Wrote:  Ofcom's latest broadcast bulletin came out today, Issue number 230 and dated 20/05/13 .

Iv'e just been having a quick look through it, no babe channels are mentioned as being found "in breach", but Ofcom state in this latest bulletin that they have started new investigations into Studio 66, Ofcom have launched investigations into something broadcast by Studio 66 on the 04/04/13 on Studio 66 TV 1, Ofcom have also started new investigations into somethin broadcast on Studio 66 TV 2 on the 17/04/13 and also something broadcast on Studio 66 TV 3 on the same date , Ofcom do not say what they are investigating .

If i'm not mistaken Ofcom after finding Studio 66 in breach not long ago put them on notice that any further breaches of the rules could result in statutory sanctions .

{edit} Just noticed in this latest bulletin that Storm Nights got a complaint made against them for something broadcast on 27/03/13, Ofcom assessed it and decided not to investigate the complaint further .

Arseholes aren't they ,one fanny slip= big fine yet a man can wank himself off on "Sex on wheels" channel 4 in close up and later have an erection which is R18 stuff..Rudy double standards sexist idiots.

Remember we talk about Ofcom but they are only a bunch of human beings nothing special just highly sexist pratts with a pathological fear of female genitals so ban it which is sexually biased and highly offensive to women .They are some of the most pathetic low lifes available censoring women and making the vagina the most taboo subject in uk history..Yet penises can be shown anytime which is liberal and making it the norm,,i am here to bloody well make sure its not the norm..God I really hate the cunts they don't do anything but are hyprocrites of the highest order allowing R18 male stuff but one show of a fanny lip and they fine 150,000 just the right scenario to stick my fist in your faces sexist fuckers.

Fedups point about Ofcum being scared of female genitals suggests a simple solution. Paint a fanny on all their doors, then only people who are not scared of them will be able to enter and decide what to censor. Be subtle, use a paint slightly different from the background colour and their conscious minds wont even notice, but their subconscious will.

Think i have found a new friend,,the trouble is you have to sign in but that does not matter I just wanted to provide proof..

http://www.nutterwatch.net/mfforum/Searc...?ID=49IanG [28897. Posted 17-Jan-2013 Thu 05:29] View Near Messages
http://www.nutterwatch.net/mfforum/Searc...sp?ID=49Re OFCOM/ATVOD fine Playboy £100k

Anyhow this is just one of IanG comments below I wanted to show you as its so true,,

""When are the VOD companies going to DEMAND ATVOD face a Judicial Review to PROVE that pornographic material "may cause serious impairment to minors"? The clause in the Comms Act intended to `protect children` is NO DIFFERENT to that in the VRA. In fact the Comms Act clause is far narrower in scope than the extremely broad "any harm which may be caused" clause in the VRA. The BBFC were unable to provide any expert evidence to show ANY HARM was caused by children accessing porn let alone SERIOUS HARM. IF serious harm were at all likely then, after almost 20 years of unfettered access to said material via the Internet, there should be some widespread signs of this harm throughout society - so WHERE IS IT?""

VRA = Video Recordings Act as far as I can see.

Update from me(my comment),,,One more thing I want to add is these bodys say what we can see.. Lots of gruesome horror films get banned or severe cuts(like female genitals get cut from film) but why? Its because it offends these little narrow minded folk who knit every night not because it offends the viewer..There could be some brilliant horror films and other genres out there but we are told what we can watch..Who except these idiots decides what I can watch and what offends me..You are not allowed to show this and that but that's them saying that, I should decide what I want to watch..No video should voided if it offends you you wont buy it...

I find love and romantic films offensive all this soppy kissing and folk saying "I love you" so that means if I get onboard BBFC I can ban these films because they offend me...No I could not but other genres get censored by them,,i cannot believe its nanny state at these regulators..

Where is this harm and offence,WHO IS OFFENDED BY FEMALE GENITALS because except for asking my mother and immediate family I cannot find anyone..Ask about blokes flashing and exposing theselves and male genital offence and I can find you plenty of women and so could all the police stations..So Ofcom,, folk find the penis deeply offensive and harmful but you allow it but no one finds female genitals offensive yet you ban them,do you need psychiatric help..Even Holly Willoughby was asked if she would rather go to a female strip show or male and she answered female she hates male genitals..I am on about female genitals been in films like males are like a women getting out of bed naturally her legs apart and you see her genitals why not that in programmes etc or Cert 15 DVD.Iam not on about shagging,fisting, ejaculation just pure fairness the way it should be,not censored by a pack of (cannot find the words).Remember nothing is void its whats been put in our heads ,in the beginning penises could have been banned because they are far to explicit and in your face..In the beginning penises can not be shown with foreskin retracted or full view..Penises cannot be shown but 1 testicle can be shown..Do you see how these could have been the rules..There are no rules just what have been made up and female genitalia rule should have been outlawed 50 years ago.

Shockingly tame tonite again. Have the channels been tipped off?

(23-05-2013 01:37 )SCIROCCO Wrote:  Shockingly tame tonite again. Have the channels been tipped off?

My insomnia is getting better though.

Sod that I would rather have insomnia in return for what females can see on tv and dvd anytime but us lads are censored from seeing..I am glad that Mansford chap brought up the fine in his show if they fined for everytime a penis was shown this country would be debt free.

Guys have you ever wondered what happened to David Cameron's promise of

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/07/06/cameron_ofcom/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/jul...id-cameron
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/oct...eremy-hunt

Hmm
http://cameron-cloggysmoralcompass.blogs...m-for.html

I thought I might just mention that all attention and focus concerning ofcom and the babe channels could be shifted elsewhere.

Our good friends at ofcom have been asked to step in as the UK Government seeks to ban all forms of hate speech's from the TV and internet.

Ofcom will surely have their work cut out rather than targetting the triviality of what us over 18's like to view on late night harmless adult channels.

I also posted this story in the news thread section of the forum.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...sites.html

I've always said that ofcom should really be diverting their attention to groups of people such as them. Could the balance just be away to change I wonder

(28-05-2013 17:42 )Scottishbloke Wrote:  I thought I might just mention that all attention and focus concerning ofcom and the babe channels could be shifted elsewhere.

Our good friends at ofcom have been asked to step in as the UK Government seeks to ban all forms of hate speech's from the TV and internet.

Ofcom will surely have their work cut out rather than targetting the triviality of what us over 18's like to view on late night harmless adult channels.

I also posted this story in the news thread section of the forum.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...sites.html

I've always said that ofcom should really be diverting their attention to groups of people such as them. Could the balance just be away to change I wonder

Exactly. Legally Ofcoms remit is harm, not offence. Read the Broadcast Bulletins and there have been cases where presenters have encouraged violence, even murder, against other religious groups but generally the channels get little more than a slap on the wrist and asked not to do it again. The one off rogue presenter line is trotted out again and again. The few cases taken more seriously still take many months to be resolved during which the channels continue to operate. At worst a simple change of ownership wipes the slate clean. Yet if a babe channel broadcast uncovered fanny, harming noone and only causing hypothetical offence to people who do not watch babeshows, its licence would be revoked on the second or third offence, not months later.

The question of priorities is a rich seam waiting to be mined.

J Lo causing a stir on Britain's Got Talent

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/art...ewers.html

OfCON currently not investigating, despite many complaints...

Dude rubs her ass for a second at 2:11, something that would get a day babe channel show a big fine. Pretty sure she rubs her covered vag at 2:50 and earlier. Nice crotch angle at 3:18

Not sure what time this aired.

(28-05-2013 12:34 )Tintin Wrote:  Guys have you ever wondered what happened to David Cameron's promise of

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/07/06/cameron_ofcom/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/jul...id-cameron
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/oct...eremy-hunt

Hmm
http://cameron-cloggysmoralcompass.blogs...m-for.html

Before the election they certainly gave the impression that Ofcom would be seriously reduced, and I probably fell for it (so long ago, cant remember). But reading the articles with hindsight, they talk about taking policy making away and leaving Ofcom with regulation. Not even less regulation.

However there is glimmer of hope in the vampiric shape of George Osborne, who is flying from department to department with the express aim of sucking 10% of the life blood out of each one. Expensive moral regulation that only benefits sex shop owners has to be an easy win.

This might not be real: George Osborne delighted as new porn film to be made in UK

Not for the easily scared: http://order-order.com/2012/06/23/george...r-picture/