Ofcom - More Babes in Breach

(09-02-2010 16:55 )BigChuck Wrote:  maybe we should all write to ofcom, and complain that we are not seeing full on hardcore shows,

Dear ofcom,

i am writing to complain about the sexual content shown on the "900" channels on sky television, it's seriously disappointing, when i'm horny, drunk or lonely (sometimes a mixture of all three), i tune in to these channels to "crack one off" (i can imagine the disgust on your face reading this with your colleagues...but lets be honest you do it as well). i'm greeted with a selection of girls in a topless state of dress laying on a bed. Now I find this way below what is expected from a "sex" channel. I have tuned in may times hoping for a full on dildo show involving vaginal and anal insertion... but no all i get is a topless girl, i may even get lucky and see one that changes position.... God forbid the slightest bit of thong movement showing the mere slip of piss-flap, the camera moves away at such speed, i fear the cameraman may loose control and injure someone.

Regards,

BIgChuck

Oh, send it in, pleeeease!!

(11-02-2010 15:58 )CaptainVimes Wrote:  Surely the answers for the 900's is to go down the teleshopping route advertising adult products as per the DIY Shopping Channels. The presenter, at her discretion of course, could demonstrate the uses of said adult products whilst explaining to the customer on the phone the pros and cons of the intem in question. Fully in context.

It a good point, but why not go one step further, and have Dr Ruth sit in chair by the side of the set and answer sexual questions all night, whilst having the presenters demonstrate.

This would come under the classification of educational and therefore legal to broadcast. Just like the lovers guide series, which sky has already broadcast in it's entirety.

Aceman65,

I know I was being a bit flippant but this issue has nothing to do with censorship and is all about control.

All governments, whatever political persuasion, need to feel in control and therefore with the advent of mass participation on the internet of the Wide World Web the authorities realised they missed their chance of imposing restrictions. If you have access; you can view and think whatever you want.

Everyone knows that if the popularity of the internet was only now beginning to take place, the authorities would place firewall restrictions and penalties in place, as per Iran, China, etc.

Unfortunately for them, the cat is out of the bag, and retrospective legislation would be met with howls of outrage from the public not just those who like to view a certain type of material.

Subsequently, bodies like OFCOM, are the authorities self delusional quangoes that are outdated and meaningless, although I will admit frustrating.

As for complainers to OFCOM surely if they believe that these channels 'deprave and corrupt' then the[/font] amount of time and effort they go to in researching these so called breaches of the OFCOM code, they must be amongst the most depraved and corrupted people in the country.

(11-02-2010 17:52 )CaptainVimes Wrote:  As for complainers to OFCOM surely if they believe that these channels 'deprave and corrupt' then the[/font] amount of time and effort they go to in researching these so called breaches of the OFCOM code, they must be amongst the most depraved and corrupted people in the country.

In the latest Ofcom survey the pollsters noted that many people said they were not offended themselves, but were worried on behalf of someone else.

As far as I know, no-one has every asked the someone-elses what they think.

wow who honestly is submitting complaints about this stuff? most people know what its about so you should expect it. what next complaints about girls not wearing trousers or skirts on daytime, the fact they take their shoes off lol! its all laughable

(14-02-2010 11:23 )paulm27 Wrote:  wow who honestly is submitting complaints about this stuff?

The only people I could think of are feminists and religious nuts, and I'm sure even most of those type of people couldn't be arsed to pick up a phone and complain.

(15-02-2010 16:36 )seth Wrote:  

(14-02-2010 11:23 )paulm27 Wrote:  wow who honestly is submitting complaints about this stuff?

The only people I could think of are feminists, religious nuts and rival channels, and I'm sure even most of those type of people couldn't be arsed to pick up a phone and complain.

Just needed to correct your comment, seth.

Yeah and rival channels. You'd think they'd work together on this issue rather then against one another.

(15-02-2010 17:29 )seth Wrote:  Yeah and rival channels. You'd think they'd work together on this issue rather then against one another.

They do work together, however, they also like to stitch each other up! Sad, isn't it?

(11-02-2010 17:52 )CaptainVimes Wrote:  Aceman65,

I know I was being a bit flippant but this issue has nothing to do with censorship and is all about control.

All governments, whatever political persuasion, need to feel in control and therefore with the advent of mass participation on the internet of the Wide World Web the authorities realised they missed their chance of imposing restrictions. If you have access; you can view and think whatever you want.

Everyone knows that if the popularity of the internet was only now beginning to take place, the authorities would place firewall restrictions and penalties in place, as per Iran, China, etc.

Unfortunately for them, the cat is out of the bag, and retrospective legislation would be met with howls of outrage from the public not just those who like to view a certain type of material.

Subsequently, bodies like OFCOM, are the authorities self delusional quangoes that are outdated and meaningless, although I will admit frustrating.

As for complainers to OFCOM surely if they believe that these channels 'deprave and corrupt' then the[/font] amount of time and effort they go to in researching these so called breaches of the OFCOM code, they must be amongst the most depraved and corrupted people in the country.

You are so right about the Government wanting control. The most recent "control" measure taken in recent times was the banning of 16 and 17 year old girls doing Page3, I have no quibble with the aim of this legislation, what I take issue with is that it has been lumped together with Child Porn offences, meaning if you have a topless piccie of a 17 year old girl you face the same penalty as a paeodophile, that is; being seen a pervert by local people, put on the sex offenders register and can be jailed for up to 10 years, this control measure is a law too far and totally out of proportion. If you watch a Club 17 movie on European TV be careful, you can be jailed and saddled with all the above, even though you may be shagging your 17 year old girlfriend every night.