(05-07-2013 22:08 )Grawth Wrote: (05-07-2013 21:23 )D T Wrote: (05-07-2013 19:35 )Grawth Wrote: Although if it turns out that I'm wrong and there has been NO regulator involvement in what happened recently then I will happily join you in complaining very loudly - as I have done before.
(11-10-2009 22:10 )Grawth Wrote: when I later complained that a channel was breaching the code by showing R18 material (and in one case material BEYOND R18) in the hope that forcing ofcom to fine a channel might force the channel to fight back and win, Ofcom refused to investigate my complaint on the grounds that, as I was an acknowledged supporter of R18 on the telly, my complaint was clearly vexatious and if I complained again they would consider that I was deliberately wasting their time and further steps would be taken.
And you once had the nerve to have a go at me about a screenshot I posted in case a grass saw it and used it to complain about this channel. Always knew you were a total bellend.
And if it turns out that the screenshots YOU posted were used as a basis for a complaint that has now forced BSX to give us tamer shows, how stupid will you feel?
Thanks for the personal insult by the way. I thought we were here to discuss the goings on at BSX, not just fling insults around. Or is this how you deal with people who sometimes disagree with you?
Difficult call. Go along with rules published for public consumption that are widely, but privately, flouted presumably with the tacit consent of the regulator, or try and regularise the situation?
Look back at some of clips of regular encrypted material at the time and it is clear that live shows routinely broadcast the tamer end of R18 with clear images of cunillingus.
I am sure that in the early 1960s the identities of many gay men were known to the authorities, and some worked in positions of power and influence in the army, banks, broadcasting, civil service, etc. Homosexuality was illegal at the time, and while tolerated by some officials, much of society regarded it with distaste, regarding it as perverted and indulgent. This made gay men wide open to blackmail.
Now I am not suggesting that channels with encrypted content that was stronger than the rules permitted would be blackmailed, but the gap between everyday standards and rules meant that the door was wide open to arbitrary enforcement when it suited Ofcom.
Want to grab a headline? Clamp down.
Want to impress the Minister, some motormouth backbencher or the Daily Mail? Clamp down.
The channel goes through the pantomime of fighting the case or making a grovelling apology for "mistakes". Sack a few production staff and some presenters. Wait a while. Then quietly go back to normal while Ofcom pretends not to notice.
Is that a satisfactory way to run things?