(20-08-2012 10:36 )shankey! Wrote:  

(20-08-2012 09:22 )rj242 Wrote:  The cost of any challenge is more than most channels could afford (even if they banded together - and do you think they will agree to split the costs equally?). Even if Ofcom lost they could tie the whole process up in appeals for years while the outcry from Daily Mail readers, Mumsnet etc would ensure that the government would simply tighten the legislation as 'saving children from porn' is an easy vote winner. The channels are content to fly under the radar and will continue to do so as long as they remain profitable.

i wouldnt have thought any of them would consider it, but maybe a mediation meeting with ofcom and reps from the channels could be a step forward , at the very least they would be able to find out exactly what the rules are and maybe challenge them across a meeting table , reasonable discussion never did any harm

(20-08-2012 13:51 )Scottishbloke Wrote:  I'm pretty sure that under most business agreements that from time to time they are up for review, renegotiation between ofcom and the channels is definately the way forward. I'm sure if they had a meeting with the tv regulators they could even ask for a trial run into allowing what most european countries allow to be seen to see if ofcom's view on widespread moral objections and harm is really true or is just a lie which they have fabricated because of their own prejudices towards this type of entertainment.

A strong argument has to be presented to the tv regulators that the terms which all the channels have to operate under brings absolutely no benefit to anybody. If this type of show offends you then you are just as likely to be offended by topless action as you are with viewing the vagina. A meeting and change in the rules and regulations is long overdue.

(20-08-2012 18:11 )Scottishbloke Wrote:  Marcee I'm so glad to see you're an optimist. Like I said rules get written, changed and rewritten all of the time and the babe channels are not different from any other business operating out there in the real world.

The current rules and regulations are far too harsh, what is deemed acceptable to be shown on the sexstation websteam should also be the same when on the tv.

A minor is just as likely to view an internet stream in the same manner that they would be for a late night babe show. Infact sexstation has been doing the live web show now for a number of years and porn has been readily available 24 hours a day since the very birth of the internet so why then should ofcom give a fuck about protecting the minors when the stuff thats been shown on the net has allready proved the point that the widespread harm that ofcom go on about simply does not exist other than in the minds of those at ofcom HQ.

Change in needed and can be achieved with the correct approach. This saga is far from over.

(20-08-2012 22:09 )Scottishbloke Wrote:  Marcee what you are reading into here is media and government propaganda, I have yet to meet anybody who gives 2 shits about what is broadcast on the telly or shown on the internet, the majority of people worldwide are only interested in things that effect them personally and directly.

Most people accept the watershed and accept what the world presents to them. I hold absolutely no objections to extra safety measures in place to protect the minors of this world. So long as it doesn't have a knock on effect to what us grown ups like to view.

Alcohol for example you have to be over 18 to drink it. How would you like it if you were told tommorow that this was now forbidden because they needed to protect the minor's of this world.

We need common sense to prevail which ofcom show none of. To expect change to happen is not being unrealistic, to say otherwise is just being defeatist. Widespread harm and offence is a myth and is just some bullshit red tape which ofcom uses to justify it's role. This is reality and this is fact.