Ofcom Discussion - Printable Version +- 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: Ofcom Discussion (/showthread.php?tid=14756) Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 |
RE: Ofcom Discussion - hatessexistofcom - 29-09-2013 19:27 Don't know what to make of this cause I must be thick..Is it Ofcom staff been caught watching/searching for porn of they are searching for it for a real purpose? http://www.scotsman.com/news/uk/ofcom-staff-tried-to-watch-porn-4-000-times-1-3117439 RE: Ofcom Discussion - Scottishbloke - 29-09-2013 21:00 Having read the article it would appear to me that yes the cat is out of the bag. Employee's at ofcom have indeed been looking at porn. So a moral censor paid for by us the hard working tax paying citizens are funding certain individuals to be scouting around for porn. I suppose ofcom might peddle out some bullshit line about how it was research being carried out. My arse says it was. Let me make it crystal clear also that one shouldn't be using the workplace to look at porn, it's just not right especially when you are being paid to act professionally at all times. I used to have a colleague who got fired for exactly that. Also despite the fact from a moral point of view that it's wrong to look at porn whilst at work you have to bear in mind too that you are using a company computer and looking at such sites also carries the risk of virus's being downloaded, not just onto the one computer but the whole network of computers which can cost companies potentially a shit load of money on time spent wasted whilst the computers are having downtime. How ironic, ofcom an organization as bloody minded as the UK Government doesn't even bother to put on adult filters on any of it's own companies work computers when it preaches to the rest of us about harm and offense. Maybe the cunts should get their own house in order first and deal with the wankers that walk the corridors of their own building before they even attempt to piss on our front doorstep about what's right and wrong RE: Ofcom Discussion - eccles - 30-09-2013 01:50 (29-09-2013 19:27 )hatessexistofcom Wrote: Don't know what to make of this cause I must be thick..Is it Ofcom staff been caught watching/searching for porn of they are searching for it for a real purpose? Hilarious. The official guardian of our morals on TV and the internet says it is incapable of distinguishing between actual porn, Page 3, and swimsuits. RE: Ofcom Discussion - lovebabes56 - 30-09-2013 06:49 (29-09-2013 21:00 )Scottishbloke Wrote: Having read the article it would appear to me that yes the cat is out of the bag. Employee's at ofcom have indeed been looking at porn. So a moral censor paid for by us the hard working tax paying citizens are funding certain individuals to be scouting around for porn. I suppose ofcom might peddle out some bullshit line about how it was research being carried out. My arse says it was. That is so unbelievable!! Cameron needs to take them down a peg or two but I reckon he won't. How does an official government body set up, lets it's employees get away with looking at porn during working hours without realising the consequences of their actions could be so potentially damaging? And who would be footing the bill for replacements? They may force our babe channels to a point on non existence, but when it comes to their own house their let it be carte blanche there. As for the porn filters I can't understand why they aren't in place. They force them onto us but not in their house. And I wonder how many of our MP's actually look at in in the houses of parliament when they should be working for the good of our country. do the porn filters exist there I wonder? RE: Ofcom Discussion - eccles - 01-10-2013 01:29 Is it a bad thing if MPs and Ofcom employees enjoy porn? RE: Ofcom Discussion - Scottishbloke - 01-10-2013 01:43 To answer your question eccles. Short answer to that - No. It just goes to show that they too have exactly the same desires as most of us also do and it's called being human. What however is wrong is once again, MP's are being funded by us the tax payers so ofcourse if they wish to look at porn in their spare time and on their own computer then fair enough but not on their works one within the houses of parliament when they are supposed to be getting paid to work, not fucking around looking for pussy Also eccles if you don't mind me asking, have you been drinking tonight or something because thats a very short post going by your usual standards Normally you're the man that is answering the questions, not asking them My question to the forum - Has eccles been drinking tonight RE: Ofcom Discussion - lovebabes56 - 01-10-2013 17:36 I would answer it's probably possible RE: Ofcom Discussion - matt38 - 01-10-2013 18:35 Need to know if someone watched that Channel4 programme last night about porn, I saw a few minutes and some school kids about aged 14/15 were discussing what type of porn they had seen if any, some had, some not, my query is, I wonder if someone from Ofcom was watching because it might have opened their eyes to what kids watch, and from what I could tell these kids all seemed normal teenagers. RE: Ofcom Discussion - Addison - 02-10-2013 00:09 (01-10-2013 01:43 )Scottishbloke Wrote: What however is wrong is once again, MP's are being funded by us the tax payers so ofcourse if they wish to look at porn in their spare time and on their own computer then fair enough but not on their works one within the houses of parliament when they are supposed to be getting paid to work, not fucking around looking for pussy What if it helps them to clear their heads so that they work better? RE: Ofcom Discussion - eccles - 02-10-2013 00:12 (01-10-2013 18:35 )matt38 Wrote: Need to know if someone watched that Channel4 programme last night about porn, I saw a few minutes and some school kids about aged 14/15 were discussing what type of porn they had seen if any, some had, some not, my query is, I wonder if someone from Ofcom was watching because it might have opened their eyes to what kids watch, and from what I could tell these kids all seemed normal teenagers. I saw a small part of this, but not enough to tell if the brain scans allegedly showing porn to have the same effect as drugs were part of a properly conducted scientific study. Did that well respected scientist, the ex Editor of Loaded, only show the effects of porn on porn addicts, or were ordinary people tested too? Did the brains of non porn addicts light up, or not? Did he show the effects of other everyday (legal) substances that people become attached to, like chocolate, fags, coffee, TV soaps and Justin Bieber pictures? Because without that there is no objective comparison against which to gauge risk. I am serious about this - ask a woman you spend a lot of time with to go a week without coffee and chocolate and see how cranky they get. See if they secretly have some and lie about it. Then try telling the Daily Mail and your local MP that these are dangerously addictive substances that should be banned and see what reception you get. Did the documentary put any figures on how many young males are genuinely addicted, in the sense of not being able to function without porn? As for young men finding porn models more attractive than real women they meet, that's hardly news. One is an airbrushed fantasy, the other is real. Likewise its hardly surprising that that some young men prefer to, ahem, pleasure, their dates best feature rather than, um, visit, the same part every time. Cute fanny=vaginal. Gorgeous face=oral. Fantastic arse=anal. Amazing knockers=boob job. At least thats the fantasy, and there is nothing new about that. The cavemen who sat around the fire while one carved the Venus of Willendorf probably discussed whether to "do" boobs or arse. What men tend to find out is that women have their own views on which bits get done. |