Ofcom & The UK Adult Industry

(11-06-2010 19:34 )Scottishbloke Wrote:  Heres an amusing newspaper report of the naked office which just about sums this horrible program up and it yet again highlights ofcoms stance and double standards when it comes to what you can and cannot see on tv, hence before the watershed on a Saturday at 8pm more to the point. http://www.guardian.co.uk/tv-and-radio/2...burn-naked

Much as I would like to see more sexually explicit material on the FTA channels, I can quite see why it is not permitted. Personally I cannot see any connection between a show like that mentioned in 'The Guardian' and a nearly naked girl lying down with her legs open and a hand down her knickers masturbating or simulating it. I quite agree that more should be allowed on pin-protected programmes and cannot see any reason at all why R18 material should not be considered totally acceptable on subscription channels. Surely these are two different things entirely and I do not feel that conflating them into one argument is rather missing the point. All IMHO, of course.

TW

(18-06-2010 17:07 )Tonywauk Wrote:  ... Surely these are two different things entirely ...

Please explain why.

The thing I don' like about this is that PIN protection involves a cost and usually results in a subscription to view.

Going down this road creates a two tier society, those with money to burn can subscribe and access R18 while those that have better things to spend their cash on can't.

I fundamentally disagree.

OFCOM have no power whatsoever to demand every single adult in this land has to use a Parental Control. NONE. Ofcom were designed to patrol TV services to keep ILLEGAL content off air - FULL STOP.

BECAUSE Ofcom CHOSE to interpret the written law as they saw fit, they actually set the bar so low, they've been failing to fullfil THEIR REASON TO EXIST ever since - AND FREQUENTLY!

Ofcom FAILS its Standards Objective according to 319(2)(f) of the Comms Act EVERY TIME someone complains about 'harm or offence'.

They should have been SACKED for DERELICTION OF DUTY six years ago!

If a copper stood by while your car was broken into what would you do?

Ofcom are REQUIRED BY LAW to ensure NO offensive and harmful material EVER LEAVES their licensees transmitters.

So, folks, if the Government had intended to ban all sexual material wouldn't the Comms Act have said that?

If the Governmnet had intended to allow Ofcom to DICTATE 'standards of taste and decency' wouldn't the Comms Act have said that?

Show me the LAW that lets Ofcom behave as they are doing.

The Comms Act GOVERNS Ofcom and Ofcom alone - if they fail on any Standards Objective AS REQUIRED BY LAW they are up shit creek.

Now, go and see HOW MANY complaints Ofcom have filed under supposed "breaches" of 319(2)(*) or (YOU ARE TAKING THE PISS) the 'review' criteria under section 319(4)(*) and ask yourself how these fucking lying cheating scum are still breathing.

If Ofcom were doing as REQUIRED BY LAW there should be NO BREACHES AT ALL - that's THEIR JOB AS DEFINED BY THE LAW.

Ofcom CANNOT QUOTE the Comms Act TO ANYONE. THEY ARE NOT JUDGES. The Comms Act APPLIES ONLY TO THEM. They're supposed to produce a Code which their licensees must obey - and that's IT. They CAN quote their CODE to their licensees BUT no one else. URSURPERS. TRAITORS. VILLAINS. CRIMINALS.

They are the lowest scum on Earth and THEY ARE GOING TO PAY DEARLY FOR THIS BETRAYAL OF OUR TRUST.

You HEAR ME OFCOM!

*Feeds IanG*

Did you hear the one about the OfCom statement that the Human Rights Act's reference to freedom of speech and expression 'doesn't apply as much to the broadcasting of adult material'?



They're even re-writing the human rights act for us.


...how kind.

[edit] Oh yeah, almost forgot. Not only are they rewriting the Human Rights act, but also the Oxford English Dictionary.

'Freedom' is an absolute. It's not a grey area. You are either 'free' or you're not. You can't partially apply the term. It has to be applied fully or not at all.
Their own wording spotlights how wrong they are...'...doesn't apply as much to the broadcasting of adult material'.
It either applies or it doesn't. Like I said, you can't partially apply the concept of freedom of expression.

Adult material either has the right to freedom of expression, or it doesn't, there is no grey area here.


...or there wasn't until OfCom came along.

Yes, the lies will all be revealed as we NOW KNOW EXACTLY what sort of CORRUPTION LIES AT THE HEART OF OFCOM.

They can't read. When they do they ignore.

BALGARDS. TRAITORS. SHITS.

TRY THEM - ACCORDING TO THE LAW. NOW!

TDK, further

I'm a long-serving anti-censorship campaigner and that "doesn't apply so much..." bull came from some Baroness in the Lords a few years ago when someone appealed against the refusal of a sexshop license by a Council in Northern Ireland (Belfast iirc).

Here's what the law says. (not that Ofcom seem to need to care)

According to the Bill of Rights 1688

Quote:Freedom of Speech.
That the Freedome of Speech and Debates or Proceedings in Parlyament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any Court or Place out of Parlyament.

According to the Human Rights Act 1988
Explained : http://www.justice.org.uk/images/pdfs/HRAINT.PDF

Quote:· Human rights are inherent, inalienable and universal.

· Human rights are inherent because they are the birthright of all human beings. They are not granted only to citizens, but belong to people simply by reason of their humanity.
· They are inalienable because no one can agree to give up their human rights, or have them taken away.
· They are universal because they apply to everyone regardless of their nationality, status, sex or race.

Article 10

Freedom of expression

1 Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.

2 The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

Ofcom have NO RIGHT, NO POWER, NO AUTHORITY to shut anyone up, close anyone down or restrict the Right to Freedom of Speech or Freedom of Expression in any form.

Ofcom are usurpers and Rights abusers. Traitors!

They are making up 'law' as they see fit that could NEVER be enforced or condoned in Court because it is FUNDAMENTALLY ILLEGAL.

I'm gonna lighten the mood a little here

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00...Episode_1/

Interesting episode of 'Have I got news for you'. 2 things worth noting here, 10 minutes in, Hislop delivers a monolouge that gives us an indication of the kind of shit you'll have to put up with if they ever decide to scrap the human rights act.

And a little later, check out the audience reaction to the 'sliding watershed' that OfCom pulled out of their arses.

(19-06-2010 11:47 )IanG Wrote:  TDK, further

I'm a long-serving anti-censorship campaigner and that "doesn't apply so much..." bull came from some Baroness in the Lords a few years ago when someone appealed against the refusal of a sexshop license by a Council in Northern Ireland (Belfast iirc).

The irony is that the sex shop legislation, introduced by Margaret Thatcher and drafted with help from the anti-porn leader of Westminster Council, was intended the REDUCE the number of sex outlets in an area. By adopting the legistalation a local council could set a limit on the number of sex outlets in an area, allowing the council to close VERY OTHER sex shop, strip pub, etc in the area. Well that was the idea.

As I understand it - no doubt someone will correct me - either Belfast Council has adopted the legisalation, and by law MUST grant an "appropriate" number of sex shop licences. Or they have not adopted the legislation and have no power to regulate sex shops. The only thing they can do is say the area is inappropriate, the owners/operators have convictions that make them unsuitable, or the required number of licences has been granted. But if they don't grant the licence someone else can apply elsewhere. I'm pretty sure that some councils have even been dragged through the courts for not issusing enough licences.

Unless of course that law only applied in England and Wales.

(18-06-2010 16:31 )TheDarkKnight Wrote:  To Wolfy, I seriously object to your point of view. You assume that if hardcore content were available then all girls would be forced to produce hardcore material. This point of view completely fails to take account of the current situation where we have at least 2 tiers of girls. The ones that only do daytime shows and the ones that do the nighttime shows as well.

If what you're saying is true, all the daytime girls would have been forced to produce nighttime material and we all know that that is simply not the case.

The girls dictate what they will or won't do and if the producers don't like it the girls simply move to another station.

...as it should be.


In short, the whole 'girls being forced to do stuff they don't want to do' argument is completely baseless and something I would expect to hear from the worst scaremungering OfCom officials.

Assumptions? I think you've got the wrong end of the stick there... I'm not the one making them!

Clearly some people have misunderstood the original post... I've stated before on this forum that hardcore porn should be allowed on adult pay-per-view. It's just one of many aspects of the UK Adult Industry, which I have well covered... Ya follah?

My main interest in the channels is looking out for the right talent for one of my projects, which is an alternative form of adult entertainment. If my plans don't work out, for whatever reason, then I move onto another industry and another project...

Yeah sorry man, I got your post completely wrong there.

My apologies.

I assumed, because you mentioned there being no alternatives for girls not wanting to do HC except the babe channels, that you were saying the deregulation of the babe channels would lead the producers to force those girls into shooting HC.

When you say you would keep the availability of hardcore as it is currently (internet and DVD only), are you saying that purely for commercial reasons? (your first post)

When you say you *would* allow hardcore on pay-per-view (your last post) why would you object to HC being available on freeview, given that the only difference between the two is the customers ability to pay for it?

Good luck with your project, I'm all for new forms of adult entertainment, especially creative ones.