New Ofcom Rules

(28-12-2010 20:18 )Scottishbloke Wrote:  RCTV what exactly is your problem I for one along with the majority on this forum don't have a problem with what entering a code into the box which you would ONLY have to be done ONCE to switch on the Adult channels. This would take all of 5 SECONDS, I am trying to come up with an amicable SOLUTION which suits all parties. Are you sure you don't work for OFCOM as you're quite clearly trying to throw a spanner into the works with your ridiculous statements. What exactly is your POINT!

I suggested to Ofcom in one of their formal consultations that the existing PIN system should be changed so Sky boxes are shipped with the Adult section locked out. At a stroke that would eliminate complaints from people claiming to have accidentially selected an Adult channel, and put the onus for child issues on the parents. Too difficult for new customers to opt in? No, simple compared with the Sky contract and getting the dish fitted.

I also suggested that the Adult PIN resets every 24 hours, say at 5am. Dad cn watch at night secure in the knowledge that if he does nothing the kids and little wifey wont be shocked/corrupted.

This would cost Sky sod all to implement. They could even backload it to all the Sky boxes already in homes using a firmware upgrade. That would cost a few thousand to code and pump out - sod all by their standards.

I also suggested a different PIN for ordinary age related material and Adult stuff. That way your brother the Vicar can see Hostel Deathwish and Rambo, your 15 year old cannot, and you can be confident that Granny wont tap in the number for Debbie Does Dallas Rio and Amanda. Not as sure if that is easy on existing Sky boxes.

Ofcom cannot forse this, but it can sure as hell make life uncomfortable for Sky if they do not cooperate, dragging them into every compliance hearing.

Ofcom totally blanked these suggestions. Only explanation I can think of is that they do not want workable solutions that destroy their grounds for opposing stronger adult content.

Regarding human rights, what is broadcast even on the encrypted channels is tame tame tame. It is not strong adult content. You cannot see aroused male or female genitals, ejeculation or penetration. Yet court case after court case has established that these are legal in film, magazines and books. You used to be able to buy books in WHSmiths (in a discreet corner labelled Relationships or something like that) that showed oral sex in clear detail. Sexual repression leads to repressed men, and sometimes that spills out into violence, adultery or divorce, none of which are desirable outcomes.

Oh - someone asked about baby oil and spitting. Never seen anything in writing, but Ofcom reckons some things make scenes arousing / more like strong sex, and some are disturbing (eg strong fetish content). Baby oil clearly makes a scene more erotic for many people, and to a twisted mind might look like something else. Spitting is either degrading or erotic, depending on your outlook. It is certainly exchange of bodily fluids. And to a twisted mind it can look a bit like semen, in a bad light, if you squint. Ofcom wont come out and say its banned, but when a channel "voluntailty" bans it they dont rush out to say theres no need.

(28-12-2010 23:30 )StanTheMan Wrote:  

(28-12-2010 21:31 )RCTV Wrote:  ok. The problem is you say that, but I bet people will find problems with it and I can think of a few which they could say is a problem and use it against that idea. Mainly they can be guessed easily...

You keep saying this, RCTV, and everytime I ask you to explain exactly how a random PIN can be guessed. With current Sky boxes it's a four-digit PIN, but you only get three guesses before it locks up completely.

So I'll ask again. Why do you say it's so easy to 'guess' someone's PIN? If your answer is because people use birthdays and commonly-known combinations, then that's their own stupid fucking fault!

I serioulsy wonder if you are in favour of Ofcom tightening up because stronger adult material in this country would threaten the European market - of which you have a vested interest.

because PINs can be and are guessed and if you actually read the post properly, I said that it is a problem they may find as seen it in other countries used for reasons for not putting it in.

I will go back to my first post, they are not tightening things up as these aren't really new to the companies, as they have been guidelines for years, but companies over time have just started to ignore them completely.

(29-12-2010 01:44 )Scottishbloke Wrote:  Well said Stan if Ofcom would lighten up and allow the UK babe shows to operate in the manner they were intended to do so in the first place I do seriously think they could possibly be the best in the whole of Europe just going by the sheer amount of channels we have on the air at the moment and maybe RCTV does see this as a major threat. This is an issue that really should be addressed in the coming year if the shows are to evolve into something bigger starting with the way the current box's are being developed. As far as production go's the UK is probably no 1 with the exception of Eurotic TV. Sexysat for starters great shows but productions values are fucking shit and Elite for example if it was allowed to show unrestricted viewing would simply blow channels like Sexysat into the gutter. Change has to happen even it means some sort of petition going to 10 Downing Street to demand for change.

I see you mention eurotic and sexysat,but not that many people can get those channels,now if everyone in Britain could get them[but they cant because SKY has made the boxes that we MUST use to get SKY] then people would see what can be shown in civilised society and it would also put an end to the overpriced load of garbade which are the pay for Adult Channels.
I think that a fairer method for ofcom to use would be a count for complaints and instead of a couple of complaints being put to them would have to have say at least a hundred,then if they were to put this to a public review they could balance the complaints about the channel being too sexy, against the people who write to them and complain that the channels are not strong enough and feel that they are being ripped off [oh yes there are a lot of people do this,me included and the response from them was,Sorry but we are not responsible for the content of these channels]Fucking hipocrites.Nuf said for the moment

I have been desperately trying to keep a low profile but was almost tempted to comment when StanTheMan asked the question: “what is it that OFCOM really have against explicit nudity.”

Now, this comment from you, eccles: “Ofcom totally blanked these suggestions. Only explanation I can think of is that they do not want workable solutions that destroy their grounds for opposing stronger adult content.”

So what exactly can we deduce from all of this?

They want us to believe that their real concern is righteousness and the quelling of that which has a bad influence upon children and the general public… I have no doubt that many of the employees at OFCOM genuinely believe that this is the crusade to which they have subscribed. But what about those at the head of the organization who set the agendas and direct proceedings?

This is my theory about them: I believe that those wielding the most power and influence behind censorship of women’s rights to display explicit sexual images of themselves publicly, are in fact sexual deviants from the ‘norm’. Whether it is just homosexuality or other forms of sexual deviations is irrelevant. The key, is that women’s power to arouse the male threatens their sexuality and emotional stability. They fear that women will draw those of their own sexual persuasion back into the fold of the ‘norm’. This insecurity makes them go to any lengths, no matter how absurd and irrational it clearly is to common sense and logic, to stifle the most powerful body part of women that arouses men.

So, far from those at the top having any real concerns about righteousness, they are willing to stifle the pleasure of millions, who are the 'norms', just because it threatens their own subjective sexual inclinations.

If my theory is correct, this should tell us all that we need to know about the kinds of human beings wielding power and are in charge of the masses.

As I have said previously, those with righteous indignation against the display of public nudity being broadcast, simply have no case when it is being granted by the government. And the only justification for safeguarding the young and general public, is to give them all the best current available information as to how to avoid these broadcasts; not to stifle a commodity that has been given permit by the government.

Anyone who does not think that this theory fits all the facts, will be left with a lot of loose ends that simply do not equate.

(29-12-2010 10:44 )nailpouchofmine Wrote:  I see you mention eurotic and sexysat,but not that many people can get those channels,now if everyone in Britain could get them[but they cant because SKY has made the boxes that we MUST use to get SKY]

Not alltogether true, NPoM. If you plug a 60cm dish that's pointed at Hotbird into a Sky box, you can use the 'other channels' feature to tune in any of the fta adult stuff out there - including sexysat and etv.

(29-12-2010 07:57 )RCTV Wrote:  ... because PINs can be and are guessed and if you actually read the post properly, I said that it is a problem they may find as seen it in other countries used for reasons for not putting it in.

So your answer to the question, "Why do you say it's so easy to 'guess' someone's PIN?" is, "Because PINs can be and are guessed..." ??

Not really an answer, is it?

I've put this challenge to you before, but oddly you refused to play, so I'll try again. You obviously know for a fact that PINs can be guessed as you keep saying as much. Presumably, then, you know how it's done, so here's the challenge:

I'm thinking of a four-digit code and I want you to 'guess' it. You can have as many attempts as you want and I promise to say so if you guess correctly. Off you go.

(29-12-2010 18:03 )Intense1 Wrote:  Only explanation I can think of is that they do not want workable solutions that destroy their grounds for opposing stronger adult content.

That, in a nutshell, in the top and bottom of the problem we and the Babeshows face.

I hate to point out that ofcom actually only really enforce the law, so we should really be blaming the government. haha!

Stantheman, It is an answer as one question I always asked when a kid was found to be phoning was 'Was the adult channels on your sky pin protected?' and had quite a few say yes to me.

and I'm not going to play your stupid little game.

(29-12-2010 23:38 )RCTV Wrote:  I hate to point out that ofcom actually only really enforce the law, so we should really be blaming the government. haha!

OFCOM are not enforcing any law; they are actually abusing the law: The law says that women have a right to display explicit sexual images of themselves publicly. OFCOM deny them that right by claiming that those images are being transmitted where they are not welcomed and are causing harm and offence. But their only role should be to assist as much as possible in offering the best solutions about how to keep those images within the confines of the target audience. Not to STOP those explicit images from being broadcast; since they have been given permit. It matters not, that technology is imperfect and that it is currently impossible to have a foolproof safeguard. One can only make do the best that one can.

The only reason that OFCOM get away with this abuse is that politicians will not make a stand in defence of selling a commodity that is generally considered to be of low moral worth. Plus the broadcasters themselves refuse to pay the cost to fight the legal battle.

@ StanTheMan: that quote that you attributed to me actually belongs to eccles.

(29-12-2010 23:38 )RCTV Wrote:  I hate to point out that ofcom actually only really enforce the law, so we should really be blaming the government. haha!

Wrong. Ofcom's regulations and opinions have no basis in law. How can they do when other fta channels are permitted to show sexually explicit material?

(29-12-2010 23:38 )RCTV Wrote:  Stantheman, It is an answer as one question I always asked when a kid was found to be phoning was 'Was the adult channels on your sky pin protected?' and had quite a few say yes to me.

Yes, and you can bet your bottom dollar that the parents of those kids either use the same PIN as they do for their debit cards, or leave it set to the default (the last four digits on the back of the Sky viewing card).

The only reason you refuse to take my challenge is because you know you'll fail and then have to concede that PIN protection is perfectly adequate if the parents take the time to set it up properly.

(29-12-2010 07:57 )RCTV Wrote:  because PINs can be and are guessed and if you actually read the post properly, I said that it is a problem they may find as seen it in other countries used for reasons for not putting it in.

What a load of old rubbish.