(08-06-2010 09:09 )Winston Wolfe Wrote:  The real irony is they're usually the ones with the most "skeletons in the closet"

(09-06-2010 23:47 )eccles Wrote:  

(08-06-2010 09:09 )Winston Wolfe Wrote:  The real irony is they're usually the ones with the most "skeletons in the closet"

Is that legal?

(31-05-2010 00:15 )Censorship :-( Wrote:  

(30-05-2010 23:48 )StanTheMan Wrote:  I have access to the fta hotbid channels and notice that from time to time one of the hardcore sub channels will go fta for a few hours. I presume this is done as an insentive for viewers to subscribe once it scrambles again. Could they get away with that here?

SNIP

No, they couldn't get away with it in the UK; can you imagine the 'outrage' from the tabloids, in the face of which, Ofcon, and perhaps even the Westminster Government, would (over) react in typical kneejerk fashion, resulting in yet more bad law being made on the hoof, to placate the tabloid media, probably resulting in an even worse situation than currently exists.

Quote:Remember, mainland Europe is not obsessed with censorship, or by being offended by the slightest thing, or thinking that offence is some heinous crime to be punished to the full extent of the law.

Quote:Also, given that the UK's encrypted channels are softcore, why would they actually want to let a potential customer see the rubbish that they broadcast, before they hand over the cash? That would be the surest way of stopping people from subscribing, because it would expose the dubious claims they make for ‘XXX content’, or ’we get much harder after encryption’ etc.

(12-06-2010 17:45 )IanG Wrote:  

Quote:Also, given that the UK's encrypted channels are softcore, why would they actually want to let a potential customer see the rubbish that they broadcast, before they hand over the cash? That would be the surest way of stopping people from subscribing, because it would expose the dubious claims they make for ‘XXX content’, or ’we get much harder after encryption’ etc.

Well I sort of agree. Those of us that WANT to see R18 'hardcore' would steer well clear of this softcore tripe. Those that like a bit of sexy fun are however well catered for by this softcore "adult sex material" (why you want to look at strategically placed pot plants beats me though...strikes me as something a bit 'perverse' actually...).

Parliament Wrote:319 OFCOM’s standards code.
(1) It shall be the duty of OFCOM to set, and from time to time to review and revise, such standards for the content of programmes to be included in television and radio services as appear to them best calculated to secure the standards objectives.

(2) The standards objectives are—
(a) that persons under the age of eighteen are protected;
(Quite honestly I don't know where to begin with this one. Tell you what folks, why don't you write down as many things as you can think of that the under eighteens need protecting from and send it to Ofcom. I could of course write to one of the Supreme Court Judges and ask them what it refers to in their Learned Opinion and, indeed, if its at all enforceable under The Law (which it ain't because it FAILS to specify WHAT Ofcom ARE to PROTECT the under eighteens FROM). I don't want to write an essay, suffice to say that it could be interpreted to mean Ofcom can place cameras in everyone's home to make sure the under eighteens ARE being properly protected as Ofcom COMMAND... You see the problem?
My interpretation would be to protect the under eighteens from "anti-porn propaganda the likes of which the religiously-biased and pornophobic Ofcom are masterminding"
Someone else might suggest child-proof on/off buttons on TV sets.
Or what about inserting RFID chips into babies so that as they get older some new 'smart telly' Ofcom demands are sold in the UK can switch off if an under eighteen comes near when something they're not allowed to watch ('cos Ofcom say so) is on TV?)

(b) that material likely to encourage or to incite the commission of crime or to lead to disorder is not included in television and radio services;
(Why highlight this? Because this is one of the FEW examples of material Ofcom are ALLOWED and REQUIRED to BAN according to THIS Legislation. Remember, Ofcom can ONLY DO what this thing says and only then ACCORDING to the Law of the Land.)

© that news included in television and radio services is presented with due impartiality and that the impartiality requirements of section 320 are complied with;

(d) that news included in television and radio services is reported with due accuracy;
(Just had to add it's a good job BBC News don't report on Ofcom's Bullshittings otherwise Ofcom would be fining them for all their own lies and inaccuracies...)

(e) that the proper degree of responsibility is exercised with respect to the content of programmes which are religious programmes;

(f) that generally accepted standards are applied to the contents of television and radio services so as to provide adequate protection for members of the public from the inclusion in such services of offensive and harmful material;
(NB: This does not say "material which may cause harm or offence". It says "offensive and harmful material"...as defined BY Law - which is legal obscenity (i.e. legally harmful material - R18 is definitely EXEMPT from this definition) and, legally offensive material such as racist and sexist propaganda)

(g) that advertising that contravenes the prohibition on political advertising set out in section 321(2) is not included in television or radio services;

(h) that the inclusion of advertising which may be misleading, harmful or offensive in television and radio services is prevented;
(Now would you believe it? It says: Ads which MAY BE MISLEADING are to be PREVENTED. That's a Standards Objective of Ofcom...pull the other one why don't ya!)

(i) that the international obligations of the United Kingdom with respect to advertising included in television and radio services are complied with;
(Now they are taking the piss. "No more than 3 ad breaks per hour" - ITV and $ky would have a fucking fit.)

(j) that the unsuitable sponsorship of programmes included in television and radio services is prevented;
(Anyone any idea what's supposed to be 'unsuitable'? Cigs is it? Chocolate ads in the middle of the 8pm 'health slot'?)

(k) that there is no undue discrimination between advertisers who seek to have advertisements included in television and radio services;
(You try advertising your website address on telly if you've got pictures of naked ladies on the site and then see just how 'undiscriminatory' Ofcom REALLY are... Have Ofcom ACTUALLY READ THIS...EVER...? Think they UNDERSTOOD it...EVER...?)

and
(l) that there is no use of techniques which exploit the possibility of conveying a message to viewers or listeners, or of otherwise influencing their minds, without their being aware, or fully aware, of what has occurred.
(Would that include brainwashing people via some Code with the idea that porn on TV causes harm or threatens 'decent' society despite there being not one shred of evidence in the world to support such an insane and unreaonable claim?

(12-06-2010 16:48 )Winston Wolfe Wrote:  

(09-06-2010 23:47 )eccles Wrote:  

(08-06-2010 09:09 )Winston Wolfe Wrote:  The real irony is they're usually the ones with the most "skeletons in the closet"

Is that legal?

LOL

That depends what kind of skeletons you're talkin' about!

(06-06-2010 22:28 )eccles Wrote:  Ironically in other countries a healthy adult male who admitted NOT watching some form of porn would be considered abnormal.

Quote:Porn on expenses of 'red-blooded' New Zealand ex-minister Shane Jones
FORMER New Zealand government ministers used their official credit cards to buy pornographic films, champagne, flowers for a partner and even a chartered plane, official records revealed yesterday.
...
Former Labour housing minister Shane Jones admitted using his ministerial credit card to pay for "adult movies", blaming it on his libido.

"I'm a red-blooded adult," he said. "It shouldn't have happened – it doesn't make me feel particularly worthy – but I'm not going to hide from it."

He admitted spending thousands of dollars on personal items and called his actions an "egregious lapse".

"It was wrong," he said, adding he had apologised profusely.

He had reimbursed NZ$6,450 (about £3,000) of personal spending on his ministerial card ...