(21-08-2012 13:57 )mrmann Wrote:  Now, my alternative is for the women to be nude, but to be wearing prosthetic vaginas and bums, so that we can see what we like, without any real rules being broken

(21-08-2012 13:54 )MARCCE Wrote:  Exactly what new information do you think they can add?

(21-08-2012 13:54 )MARCCE Wrote:  

(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.

http://www.metro.co.uk/tech/898231-david-cameron-considers-strengthening-porn-blocking-controls

This doesn't happen when people don't give 2 shits. And the fact is people do see this as affecting them directly because many of them are parents. The simple fact is the most vocal people with regards to this subject are the ones who want it heavily controlled both on tv and the internet. The government doesn't consider measures like that unless they think it's a possible vote winner. The people who don't give 2 shits either way are less likely to be vocal and are also not going to see it as a reason to vote against any party that brings in the measures.

And I know all that about alcohol and the rest of it. I've posted enough times on various threads about the situation.

What I have actually said is that change isn't going to happen from the channels having yet another meeting with Ofcom. In fact, based on previous history, the outcome of any further meetings with Ofcom is the likelihood of further restrictions! And the channels have argued all the points about harm and offence etc. Exactly what new information do you think they can add?

Change can happen but for it to happen the general public have to see the situation for what it is i.e. a restriction on their rights. And whilst the babe channel situation doesn't directly affect them if more and more people see the possible wider consequences then change could happen.

But it's not going to come about from the channels having another meeting nor is it going to change as a result of girls whipping off their knickers and pressing fannies up against the camera I'm afraid to say.

(27-08-2012 22:04 )eccles Wrote:  There needs to be a clear separation between people who draw up the rules and ones who decide cases.

There also needs to be an independent appeals process.