gunnar
Posting Machine
Posts: 3,407
Joined: Apr 2014
Reputation: 78
|
RE: Ofcom Discussion
People who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
“Now I am become Death, the Destroyer of Worlds” - Bhagavad Gita
“It's Easier to Fool People Than It Is to Convince Them That They Have Been Fooled.” – Mark Twain.
|
|
31-05-2014 08:10 |
|
eccles
custodes qui custodiet
Posts: 3,032
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 69
|
RE: Ofcom Discussion
Looks as if Ofcom does not always get its way without a fight.
The CV of barrister Iain Steele of the Blackstone Chambers lists several cases where he has acted for Ofcom. They won the cases, but the interesting thing it that both cases went to Court and both related to apparent bias. (That makes it official - Ofcom is unbiased).
Quote:R (DM Digital Television Limited) v Office of Communications [2014] EWHC 961
(Admin) Acted for Ofcom in a judicial review challenge to its decision to impose a £105,000 fine for breaching the regulatory code of conduct. The Court dismissed an apparent bias challenge based on the presence of Ofcom employees who had investigated the case remaining present with the panel of decision-makers during their deliberations.
R (Satellite Entertainment Limited) v Office of Communications (Court of Appeal, July 2013) Acted for Ofcom in a judicial review challenge to its decision to impose a £130,000 fine on a broadcaster for breaching the regulatory code of conduct. The case raised issues concerning apparent bias and Article 1 of Protocol No.1 to the ECHR.
This link might take keen readers to the CV.
Health warning - do not have a go at the legal system or a barrister.
Gone fishing
(This post was last modified: 11-06-2014 22:06 by eccles.)
|
|
11-06-2014 22:05 |
|
Darius
Banned
Posts: 620
Joined: Jun 2014
|
RE: Ofcom Discussion
Thought I'd post my first post in this thread.
I have to say back in 2013 when I heard the hand-thong had been banned I was devastated. That was the few things that got me watching, and I found it very arousing. Suddenly the shows became quite boring and of course bleeding Ofcom was to blame.
Leave the Babe Shows alone! All you've done is make them worse and worse and worse - I get very little night's entertainment these days on the channels because of how they've treated the channels. You can find full nudity on TV at night that certainly isn't covered, but yet you make the babes cover their genitalia? We can well do without Ofcom. If parents don't want their children watching these shows, they can quite easily lock them. If documentaries can have exposure then so can the channels. The sooner this shit corporation goes down, the better, I say.
Don't neglect our beautiful ladies - keep the focus on UK talent
|
|
21-06-2014 11:22 |
|
JuanKerr
Banned
Posts: 469
Joined: Oct 2013
|
RE: Ofcom Discussion
(11-06-2014 23:39 )hatessexistofcon Wrote: A long time ago erections were banned on UK tv now they are allowed when Ofcom arrived so not showing female genitals is tv's last taboo.
Since when, outside of medical and sex educational programmes, have erections been allowed? Give me some examples.
(This post was last modified: 21-06-2014 16:04 by JuanKerr.)
|
|
21-06-2014 16:03 |
|
blackjaques
Senior Poster
Posts: 358
Joined: Feb 2010
Reputation: 11
|
RE: Ofcom Discussion
(21-06-2014 16:03 )JuanKerr Wrote: (11-06-2014 23:39 )hatessexistofcon Wrote: A long time ago erections were banned on UK tv now they are allowed when Ofcom arrived so not showing female genitals is tv's last taboo.
Since when, outside of medical and sex educational programmes, have erections been allowed? Give me some examples.
The last time watched The Adult Channel there were lots of shots of erections. Erect genitalia is classified in sex works as R18.
Ofcon allow it on UK TV.
I cannot vouch for the gay channels but I'm sure that equal opportunities would prevail on them.
It shows the utter hypocrisy of our television censor (and our government).
|
|
22-06-2014 19:00 |
|
eccles
custodes qui custodiet
Posts: 3,032
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 69
|
RE: Ofcom Discussion
I remember surprised comments many years ago about an apparent change in Ofcom policy when there was an outbreak of erections on encrypted channels. It may even have been on this forum, but it was many years ago when Rooney had hair. It seems to have been a false dawn, with occasional shortlived outbreaks, possibly when a more adventurous editor got the cutting room keys.
When it comes to encrypted channels Ofcom seems to take a more relaxed view than the free to view ones. The odd transgression does not result in a 3000 word denunciation and summons to Riverside House. That's not to say they approve of transgressions, but they regard boundaries as flexible, like the Ukrainian border, and they know that for every 2 second glimpse of a hardon another 10 shows will play safe.
The difference is held open shots never happen by accident while it is the absence of an erection that is unnatural, and film crew have to go to unusual lengths to avoid showing one.
Ironically while women are offended by images of vaginas (as well as breasts, legs, bums, slutty clothing, anything that might raise the erotic temperature or make them feel inadequate) it is erections that cause fear in some women.
Ofcom get it completely upside down, tolerating what (some) women fear while clamping down on what they just find embarrassing.
Gone fishing
|
|
23-06-2014 23:28 |
|