(08-02-2011 19:45 )RCTV Wrote:  

(08-02-2011 01:07 )HenryF Wrote:  Yes, but: A it was shit; B no way was it equivalent to R18; C since when has implied urination been R18.
It is as nonsensical as the ruling against Asian Babes, which claimed skin toned underwear when seen from a distance left a complainant sure that the model was not wearing underwear.

There is plenty of material on the net. If these service providers are not prepared to grow a pair and work in the interest of their customer base, they should be shunned and deprived of revenue.

And just to emphasize the hypocrisy of this investigation, I've just watched Bear Grylls pull two hand-fulls of camel shit from a dead animal and squeeze the juice into his mouth, before promptly removing his tea shirt and pissing on it - definitely not implied.

who are you to judge what the content is? that's ofcoms job, they know what is and what isn't, they've broken the rules, they should pay for it, simple as. it don't matter if it was shit it was R18 material

Quote:World Cup free-to-air television ruling due
The European Court of Justice is to make a ruling which may decide whether UK football fans can still watch major events on free-to-air TV in future.

Fifa and Uefa are challenging a decision allowing the UK government to designate the World Cup and European Championships as free to watch events.

Both are on the UK list of "protected" events of national sporting importance.

But Fifa and Uefa argue this interferes with their ability to sell their television rights at the best price.

They say there is no reason why all games at tournaments should be shown free on British television.

If the court sides with the two football authorities it could mean drastically reduced numbers of games being shown on terrestrial television, as Fifa and Uefa look to sell off packages of games to pay-TV broadcasters.

However, any games featuring England, Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland would still be shown on free TV, as would the finals and semi-finals of the tournaments.

More...

(17-02-2011 02:40 )eccles Wrote:  Ofcom vs Fifa

Looks as if the Euro Courts can and do intervene sometimes. Ofcom vs Fifa, its like watching 2 ugly sisters fight and wanting both to loose. From the BBC

(08-02-2011 19:45 )RCTV Wrote:  

(08-02-2011 01:07 )HenryF Wrote:  Yes, but: A it was shit; B no way was it equivalent to R18; C since when has implied urination been R18.
It is as nonsensical as the ruling against Asian Babes, which claimed skin toned underwear when seen from a distance left a complainant sure that the model was not wearing underwear.

There is plenty of material on the net. If these service providers are not prepared to grow a pair and work in the interest of their customer base, they should be shunned and deprived of revenue.

And just to emphasize the hypocrisy of this investigation, I've just watched Bear Grylls pull two hand-fulls of camel shit from a dead animal and squeeze the juice into his mouth, before promptly removing his tea shirt and pissing on it - definitely not implied.

who are you to judge what the content is? that's ofcoms job, they know what is and what isn't, they've broken the rules, they should pay for it, simple as. it don't matter if it was shit it was R18 material

(18-02-2011 16:11 )IanG Wrote:  Indeed, Scottishbloke, OFCOM have produced no evidence whatsoever to show R18-type material is harmful and thus warrants an outright ban. And, moreover, sensitive members of the public can be adequately protected from any other supposed 'offence' they may feel by proper labelling of programmes, audio anouncements and on-screen symbols. What exactly is the point of "the adult section of the EPG" if not to warn the public of the content of the channels therein?

OFCOM are simply enforcing their own brand of religiously misguided bigotry. They insult the rights and intelligence of every adult in this land that enjoys porn in a responsible way. Indeed, they insult the rights and intelligence of every under 18 in this land that's already been exposed to porn at home or on the Internet and suffered no harm or offence as a result.

OFCOM are simply perpetuating the irrational and typically 'British' phobias with regard to sexual expression and sexual entertainment. There is not one shred of evidence to show pornography is a danger to anyone and, moreover, the only way to desensitise those who hold irrational hates and/or fears is to expose them to the thing they fear and/or find offensive and let them understand that it is they who are wrong about it.

(18-02-2011 17:08 )mrmann Wrote:  I agree with most of what you say. The main thing, is that there's nothing dangerous about a fully nude woman. We should at least be allowed to see that!

(08-02-2011 23:09 )eccles Wrote:  

(08-02-2011 02:42 )Gold Plated Pension Wrote:  The backbone of the response by the Adult Industry Trades Association back in 2004 to Ofc@m was about inadequate pin protection and that broadcasters would have an unfair advantage both financially and legislatively over licensed sex shops. ...

The sex shop owners real point was a plea for restraint of trade to protect their own sales, and should have been treated as disgraceful self interest. The bit about inadequate pin protection was just a fig leaf to give the first part respectability.

Good point about convictions for illegal postal sales of R18 DVDs. It would have been interesting to see if this trade body consisted of small independents or companies also operating babe channels. Unfortuantely the AITA seem cagy about their membership. Surprising that sex shop owners should want to hide behind the blacked out windows of anonymity.