(24-06-2011 21:23 )Rammyrascal Wrote:  

(24-06-2011 20:16 )Renfrew169 Wrote:  mr mystery/ mr anderson post is very interesting and also very worrying. There have been many posts on the Forum encouraging various companies to " challenge" Ofcom but it seems that SEL has done so and paid the price for it.

There are one or two morals to this. Firstly, if you are going to defy the authorities, it needs a coordinated unified approach ( individual companies will always be picked off one by one), secondly, it's not a good idea to have the intended course of action advertised or encouraged on a public forum such as this ( it may be that this only encourages the authorities to ramp up the fines to make an example of the recalcitrant ) and thirdly ( being a cynic) where the channels are going wrong is in the descriptions they are using, they should try" 40+ embarrassing bodies" or " Northern Birds - experimental drama " - they would then be able to show anything they liked and when they were reported it would all be turned away as perfectly acceptable **?!!*.

This is an appalling situation, this channel and the two others have been forced off the screen by double standards operated by the authorities. It, and it's sister channels, have now been sanitised and homogenised. I deal with the agents of the authorities every day; some of these agencies are merciless in following their own agendas which are often light years distant from the statutes which either set them up or regulate them. This is clearly a similar case.

I am not given to inflammatory language but one has to wonder what is the difference between this type of overreaction by Ofcom and the so called thought police of the Eastern Block in the 20th century.

well said and agree totally and backs up what jamie (elitetv boss) has said he'd like to challenge ofcom but at the moment its too much hassle and risk and this proves it so for now he's sitting tight waiting to see what happens with ofcom

(24-06-2011 21:36 )shankey! Wrote:  am i missing something?,the statement above says that they were fined for not providing material on a specific date in order to get their broadcasting licence not that there was a court date or legal challenge made !

(24-06-2011 22:09 )Renfrew169 Wrote:  My point is that the challenge is one of non compliance or if you like civil ( or maybe uncivil) disobedience.

(24-06-2011 22:19 )SYBORG666 Wrote:  Either way, the channel got screwed and not in a good way.

(26-06-2011 20:34 )dirtyharry1962 Wrote:  All I've got to say is thanks Foxy for the last 8 months, you've been great, but as I've said before all things must pass.
Going to find my very own Foxy now.