+- The UK Babe Channels Forum (https://www.babeshows.co.uk)
+-- Forum: Channels (/forumdisplay.php?fid=8)
+--- Forum: UK Babe Channels (/forumdisplay.php?fid=9)
+---- Forum: Broadcasting Regulations (/forumdisplay.php?fid=138)
+---- Thread: Is Ofcom Fit For Purpose (/showthread.php?tid=17796)
RE: Is Ofcom Fit For Purpose - Captain Vimes - 05-03-2010 19:40
Purpose?
Unfortunately, and I admire what IanG is trying to do with his BACVA campaign, OFCOM does not change the goalposts, there are no goalposts or pitch.
Their decisions are arbitrary in the extreme.
Re post concerned with snake shown at 11 a.m.
RE: Is Ofcom Fit For Purpose - vostok 1 - 05-03-2010 19:51
(04-03-2010 16:10 )IanG Wrote: Ofcom have no evidence to support their position. Ofcom are also in clear contempt of the High Court ruling of 2000, which basically states that any risk from porn to children is so insignificant it cannot justify and outright ban.
But why do the broadcasters of encrypted channels continue to accept Ofcoms stance? Why don't they challenge them?
RE: Is Ofcom Fit For Purpose - Captain Vimes - 05-03-2010 20:04
Can you imagine the response of the Daily Mail if the broadcasters of the encrypted channels challenged OFCOM in the courts. I seem to remember, point out if I'm wrong, that the sale of R18 adult videos/DVD's was quietly introduced due to European law and before the so called moral majority had time to react.
RE: Is Ofcom Fit For Purpose - vostok 1 - 05-03-2010 20:42
(05-03-2010 20:04 )CaptainVimes Wrote: Can you imagine the response of the Daily Mail if the broadcasters of the encrypted channels challenged OFCOM in the courts. I seem to remember, point out if I'm wrong, that the sale of R18 adult videos/DVD's was quietly introduced due to European law and before the so called moral majority had time to react.
This link details the Judicial Review in the High Court concerning hardcore porn classification that took place in 2000.
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2000/341.html
The ruling declared that the film censors were wrong to ban the sale of explicit hardcore porn videos.
RE: Is Ofcom Fit For Purpose - Captain Vimes - 05-03-2010 20:58
(05-03-2010 20:42 )vostok 1 Wrote:(05-03-2010 20:04 )CaptainVimes Wrote: Can you imagine the response of the Daily Mail if the broadcasters of the encrypted channels challenged OFCOM in the courts. I seem to remember, point out if I'm wrong, that the sale of R18 adult videos/DVD's was quietly introduced due to European law and before the so called moral majority had time to react.
This link details the Judicial Review in the High Court concerning hardcore porn classification that took place in 2000.
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2000/341.html
The ruling declared that the film censors were wrong to ban the sale of explicit hardcore porn videos.
From http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2000/341.html
© Finally, the BBFC considers itself bound by the provisions of Article 10 of the European Convention. I know the VAC is familiar with this provision which guarantees the right to freedom of expression "subject to such ... restrictions .... as are necessary .... for the prevention of disorder or crime or for the protection of health or morals ....". The BBFC seeks to exercise its discretion in a fair and reasonable manner having proper regard to all material factors."
Ah the old health or morals. Whose morals? Until recently, when Annie Sprinkle challenged this in court, it was illegal to show female ejaculation, let's not have a debate about whether this is true or not, in R18 movies. So before this it was perfectly acceptable, morally, to show male ejaculation but not female.
You could not make this stuff up. According to our Guardians, women are second class sexual citizens.
Sex - enjoyable only for one gender. What bollox.
RE: Is Ofcom Fit For Purpose - blackjaques - 05-03-2010 22:41
(05-03-2010 20:58 )CaptainVimes Wrote:It's quite staggering to think that this unelected bunch (Ofcom) are acting in loco parentis for the whole of the UK. Where would we be without them?(05-03-2010 20:42 )vostok 1 Wrote:(05-03-2010 20:04 )CaptainVimes Wrote: Can you imagine the response of the Daily Mail if the broadcasters of the encrypted channels challenged OFCOM in the courts. I seem to remember, point out if I'm wrong, that the sale of R18 adult videos/DVD's was quietly introduced due to European law and before the so called moral majority had time to react.
This link details the Judicial Review in the High Court concerning hardcore porn classification that took place in 2000.
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2000/341.html
The ruling declared that the film censors were wrong to ban the sale of explicit hardcore porn videos.
From http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2000/341.html
© Finally, the BBFC considers itself bound by the provisions of Article 10 of the European Convention. I know the VAC is familiar with this provision which guarantees the right to freedom of expression "subject to such ... restrictions .... as are necessary .... for the prevention of disorder or crime or for the protection of health or morals ....". The BBFC seeks to exercise its discretion in a fair and reasonable manner having proper regard to all material factors."
Ah the old health or morals. Whose morals? Until recently, when Annie Sprinkle challenged this in court, it was illegal to show female ejaculation, let's not have a debate about whether this is true or not, in R18 movies. So before this it was perfectly acceptable, morally, to show male ejaculation but not female.
You could not make this stuff up. According to our Guardians, women are second class sexual citizens.
Sex - enjoyable only for one gender. What bollox.
Well, it would make no difference at all.
What do they think they're achieving?
RE: Is Ofcom Fit For Purpose - stoly - 05-03-2010 22:58
It's all good and well talking about this, but what do we need to do, to get these fuckers out of the picture.
The rest of the Of companies have no powers, ofgen etc, how come these clowns get to wield a mighty sword, or is it the babe channels are pussies and just pay up.
RE: Is Ofcom Fit For Purpose - Captain Vimes - 05-03-2010 22:59
blackjues,
It's quite staggering to think that this unelected bunch (Ofcom) are acting in loco parentis for the whole of the UK. Where would we be without them?
Oh, I know for sure that I would be a better person. I like having my likes and dislikes proscribed for me by an unelected body. It takes all the pain out of having to think for yourself.
RE: Is Ofcom Fit For Purpose - Captain Vimes - 05-03-2010 23:02
(05-03-2010 22:59 )CaptainVimes Wrote: blackjues,
It's quite staggering to think that this unelected bunch (Ofcom) are acting in loco parentis for the whole of the UK. Where would we be without them?
Oh, I know for sure that I would be a better person. I like having my likes and dislikes proscribed for me by an unelected body. It takes all the pain out of having to think for yourself.
F'ing Hell sorry mate couldn't even spell your name right. blackjaques
RE: Is Ofcom Fit For Purpose - bombshell - 06-03-2010 12:45
I understand where you are all coming from,but let's say all regulations were dropped tomorrow, do you honestly think all the girls on Babechannels would suddenly lay back naked with their legs in the air?
I think not, some may,but a lot would'nt and where would that leave them,i really dont see what all the fuss is about,there are plenty of porn sites,or even Sexstation on here if you want to see pussies all day,i know your saying why should they govern what we watch,and to some extent i agree,but i also feel there has to be some control,otherwise you would have all the unsavoury characters doing whatever they want.