Ofcom - Financial Penalty For SEL

The OFCON fuckers are at it again!

Must need money for the OFCON office party!

Disgusting!

http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binarie...TVsanction

(20-12-2011 16:38 )shylok Wrote:  The OFCON fuckers are at it again!

Must need money for the OFCON office party!

Disgusting!

http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binarie...TVsanction

That's some Christmas party for £130,000 pounds. Thed sooner Ofcon cease to exist the better

Amazing isn't it!

Huge fines for the babe channels for showing nothing offensive, yet Sexcetera is still on air, and it's OK to show women banging men in the ass with strap-ons, uncensored penises and full frontal and more

2012' needs to be the antil Ofcom year, where the channels think of something new.

(20-12-2011 20:22 )billyboy1963 Wrote:  The sooner Ofcon cease to exist the better

I doubt things would get better if Ofcon ceased to be...

£130k? Wow! This reminds me of BBFC censorship through the 60's and 70's particularly, where the censors would watch all films to assess content to decide if they were suitable for the public to see. Apparently some films might 'affect' the public but never, it seems, the minds of the BBFC themselves. Oh no. Who is it that writes it out so matter-of-fact and so detached and devoid of emotion, feeling or sensuality:

"Ofcom noted that in conjunction with those images the presenters performed various
other actions including: opening their legs wide to camera; stroking their bodies; thrusting
their buttocks; massaging oil into their breasts; and miming sexual intercourse. The
combination of these images and action resulted in prolonged and frequent scenes of a
strong sexual nature. Ofcom was also concerned at the degree of offence likely to be
caused to viewers who might come across this material unawares."

At such scenes, even O'Brien from 'Nineteen Eighty-Four' would be predisposed to pull out his willy and have a good old fashioned stress-relieving healthy wank; these Ofcom muppets would be better served removing the offensive shopping channels from Freeview. With their near-pornographic over-promotion of tat which scars and corrupts my mind into an uncontrolled materialistic fervour when I innocently stumble across them whilst channel-hopping, subsequently my monthly overspend reaches the dizzying heights of the national debt of the magnitude of Crete. These shitty items should be sold on the internet and nowhere else- I beseech Ofcom to close these channels and implore them to leave well alone those that give legitimate work to women.

(20-12-2011 21:28 )arron88 Wrote:  

(20-12-2011 20:22 )billyboy1963 Wrote:  The sooner Ofcon cease to exist the better

I doubt things would get better if Ofcon ceased to be...

Why?

I have faith that these channels will find a way around this censorship. Now, we might not see this on our TV's, but perhaps online, while the women are doing their sessions, meaning an uncensored camera for web only. If the quality is the equivalent to that of the channel webstreams, then that would be good enough for me!

No rules would be broken this way, and Ofcom would not be able to do anything about it! Of course I'd much rather see it on the TV, even in encrypted form, but I just don't see that ever happening.

Made me smile watching the TV commercial for "Wonderful Pistachaos" peanuts on Sky Sports 1 with the busty woman dressed in the tight basque and thigh boots cracking her dominatrix whip!

Ok there was no other people in this ad but you could just imagine a girl on a babe phone in chat channel doing this before 10 pm, Ofcom would no doubt act with just one simple sniff of a complaint at a babe channel yet the equivallent action in a tv commercial on a mainstream tv channel would be allowed to continue!

Ofcom would probably use the excuse that it was ok on Sky Sport cos it's encrypted, but not on the babe channel cos it's free to air!

Would be funny to see what would happen if the 2012 UK Dominatrix Whipping Chamionships were broadcast on Sky Sports with the excuse it was a sporting event lol!

“Advertisements must not cause serious or widespread offence against generally accepted moral, social or cultural standards.”

Note the word "CAUSE". Where is Ofcom's evidence that any of these shows CAUSED serious or widespread offence?

Now time for the channels to spend some money on a top class lawyer and take ofcom to the high court where I suspect they would not have a leg to stand on.