(16-04-2012 18:46 )Scottishbloke Wrote:  So this is another analytical post from me and what I'm talking about her is Ofcom's use of the word harm and offence. So first of all are the babe channels offence, ofcourse they are, no getting away from that, they are downright offence but then again so is the rest of the TV Channels out there. There is not one single channel out there that hasn't offended me at some point or another but that is the price you have to pay for having democracy and I'd rather have the choice to be offended that have it taken away from me, also what offends someone won't offend the next person, it's all about interpretation.

So what offends me, Religious channels for a start trying to ram their puritanical moral view's down our throat's and dictating to us that we need to be saved and if not we're all going to hell, not only that but they rely heavily on donations and thus beg viewer's for money to keep their channel's alive, I find that very offensive, religion is the cause of and be all of so many war's that have been fought where good men have died in vain for nothing. I've however learned to live with the fact that not one channel out there is going to be to everybody's taste but we must show fairness and allow for all taste's and culture's to be catered for in the name of democracy, we must show tolerance. So like I said the babe channels are indeed offensive but so is every channel out there, so for me it's all ok or none of it is, no half measures. We do not need censorship, it's a denial of our basic human right to make our own informed choice's whatever the subject matter may be.

Now onto the subject of harm, it just doesn't exsist, not one single channel has the capabilty of achieving this, you are not going to get a broken nose or psychologically scarred from watching what SKY TV has to offer and certainly not from seeing a naked women on the tv, it's been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that seeing this is well - offensive - yes, harmful - no, not in the least, besides which has allready been pointed out the Adult Channels and any other channel for that matter can easily be blocked. Ofcom need to let us make own mind up and stop this agenda against the adult channels just because they don't like porn, that's nothing but an opinion driven argument and hold's no water, never has and never will.

(16-04-2012 21:56 )shan_123 Wrote:  Ofcom takes the view that these babe channels are harmful because of the actions that was shown by babestar tv, you can't really blame ofcom for using the word 'harmful' because it's more than justified through past history. I said this before and I'll say it again- babestar tv is the reason ofcom started sniffing around in the first place

(16-04-2012 22:52 )StanTheMan Wrote:  

(16-04-2012 21:56 )shan_123 Wrote:  Ofcom takes the view that these babe channels are harmful because of the actions that was shown by babestar tv, you can't really blame ofcom for using the word 'harmful' because it's more than justified through past history. I said this before and I'll say it again- babestar tv is the reason ofcom started sniffing around in the first place

Go on then, enlighten us all, shan. Who exactly was harmed by Babestar's output?

Oh, and just a reminder that many of the channels; Sexstation, Babestation, Sport, Live 960, LA Babes, have all shown content far more explicit than Babestar ever did.

Today's generation of Babeshow viewers haven't got a fucking clue what they're talking about. Please stop talking through your arse!!

(16-04-2012 21:36 )Scottishbloke Wrote:  Ok Dave, I have edited my last post and split it into 3 separate paragraph's just for you I hope this meets with your approval

(17-04-2012 00:13 )StanTheMan Wrote:  I'm not even sure your reply is worthy of a response, but I'm feeling in a generous mood so here goes.

Firstly, I very rarely watch the shows these days, save for a quick scan through two or three times a night. It just so happens I've been watching from the start and know how things used to be.

Secondly, why don't you explain to us all what real harm it would do a child if they flicked onto one of these channels, even with explicit content? And then perhaps you could go on to tell us why Ofcom, and apparently you, have no concerns about children's welfare when it comes to all the free-to-air channels showing gratuitous scenes of violence and mutilation. Is it not just as easy for an unattended child to flick onto these channels too?

Thirdly, it only costs viewers £1.50pm if they interact. For the rest of us it costs nothing at all.

And lastly, and for about the 78th time of saying, it has fuck all to do with seeing more explicit content. It's about having a body of complete and utter fuckwits who take it upon themselves to decide what's suitable for us adults to watch.