(15-05-2010 08:22 )elgar1uk Wrote:  

(14-05-2010 22:49 )BigBen Wrote:  Common sense would be to scrap ofcom, as if anyone needs to make a serious complaint about issues they is nothing wrong with writing a letter direct to westminster.

Who at Westminster did you have in mind?

(14-05-2010 22:44 )BigBen Wrote:  I think double standards springs to mind when talking about ofcom. They come down hard on issues the majority of people dont give two flying fucks about and at the end of the day if the babe channels offend you what are you doing in the 900 channel area and why not just switch over and not watch again. If they have conceres that under 18's could potentially watch babe channels all I have to say to that is Sky now has as part of its settings parental control locks so a pin is required for any channel or series of channels that a parent would deam as unsuitable. So ofcom have no cause for concern at all. Ofcom are only leading an attack on a babe channel because they deem it a easy target to make it looks as though they are actually doing some work for a change. Instead of (What they actually do) skimming off public funds by making deals with large coporations and networks to say they is no cause for concern with many shady activities phone companies such as vodafone get up to (Their advertisement of unlimted texts when you only get 3000 for example).

(10-05-2010 20:00 )Digital Dave Wrote:  It is an absolute fucking joke that the channels think it's a good idea to grass each other up, yet Chilly is right, the overwhelming majority of complaints come from the channel operators themselves, or from stooges, as in the case of Paradiso.

I think to deter such stupidity, any channel found to be making a vexatious/malicious complaint against a rival should have their licence immediately revoked.

What would be left would be one genuine complaint every year or two, which would leave Ofcom without a leg to stand on when trying to harass these channels. The viewers would gain and the channels' future would be more secure, yet the masterminds who run some of the channels are too dumb to see it.

(18-05-2010 21:51 )mrmann Wrote:  

(14-05-2010 22:44 )BigBen Wrote:  I think double standards springs to mind when talking about ofcom. They come down hard on issues the majority of people dont give two flying fucks about and at the end of the day if the babe channels offend you what are you doing in the 900 channel area and why not just switch over and not watch again. If they have conceres that under 18's could potentially watch babe channels all I have to say to that is Sky now has as part of its settings parental control locks so a pin is required for any channel or series of channels that a parent would deam as unsuitable. So ofcom have no cause for concern at all. Ofcom are only leading an attack on a babe channel because they deem it a easy target to make it looks as though they are actually doing some work for a change. Instead of (What they actually do) skimming off public funds by making deals with large coporations and networks to say they is no cause for concern with many shady activities phone companies such as vodafone get up to (Their advertisement of unlimted texts when you only get 3000 for example).

Well said! I had completely forgotten that SKY has pin lock options for certain channels, which could easily be used for the 900 channels. Isn't THIS enough to appease Offcom????

(19-05-2010 02:22 )RRROGER Wrote:  I think that eventually the restrictions on adult material available via the media will be relaxed, relaxation has been a very slow, drawn out process,over a long period & today you can watch these shows & see boundaries being very slowly widened as to what you can get away with before OFCOM comes knocking on your door.
Everybody on this forum has or has access to a computer, tool that is probably becoming as commonplace as TV,the point being that on a PC you can watch almost anything from the callgirl shows up to extreme hardcore porn,much of it free, yet there seems to be no control over what you can watch, although probably have the parental control option.
That being so the restrictions on TV are laughable,saying that you can watch soft porn, but only if you pay for it & only between 10:00pm-5:30am,but if you've got a PC watch free hardcore with no restriction; as a PC is an entertainment medium rather than a work tool for most people & improvement in monitors a lot of people use their PC instead of TV; the issue has been discussed on this thread that OFCOM is a bunch of retard busybodies,implementing policies that have no logic or consistency.
Case in point,if you have TVX/RedHot subs you can watch the soft porn stuff on TV, but you can watch the same stuff on their websites uncensored,included in subscription.

(19-05-2010 19:08 )MARCCE Wrote:  

(19-05-2010 02:22 )RRROGER Wrote:  I think that eventually the restrictions on adult material available via the media will be relaxed, relaxation has been a very slow, drawn out process,over a long period & today you can watch these shows & see boundaries being very slowly widened as to what you can get away with before OFCOM comes knocking on your door.
Everybody on this forum has or has access to a computer, tool that is probably becoming as commonplace as TV,the point being that on a PC you can watch almost anything from the callgirl shows up to extreme hardcore porn,much of it free, yet there seems to be no control over what you can watch, although probably have the parental control option.
That being so the restrictions on TV are laughable,saying that you can watch soft porn, but only if you pay for it & only between 10:00pm-5:30am,but if you've got a PC watch free hardcore with no restriction; as a PC is an entertainment medium rather than a work tool for most people & improvement in monitors a lot of people use their PC instead of TV; the issue has been discussed on this thread that OFCOM is a bunch of retard busybodies,implementing policies that have no logic or consistency.
Case in point,if you have TVX/RedHot subs you can watch the soft porn stuff on TV, but you can watch the same stuff on their websites uncensored,included in subscription.

Quite simply because the internet is a relatively new phenomenon and ways of policing it haven't really been worked out yet.

Ofcom are detailed to regulate tv. They're not going to allow stuff on tv on the basis that people can see stronger stuff on their pc's. It just doesn't work like that.

(19-05-2010 19:34 )BigBen Wrote:  It’s actually because the internet is not allowed to be legally regulated in free west countries. There have been suggestions in the UN that governments would like to regulate it but they cannot get a consensus. I would oppose any government regulating the internet because they would actively abuse their responsibilities (Never trust a politician or a policeperson) and use the opportunity to censor anything that was damming to the government. Ofcom actually have no legal mandate to regulate TV. They simply have guidelines, if their fines & impositions were actually challenged by the channels in court ofcom wouldnt have a leg to stand on.

(19-05-2010 20:13 )MARCCE Wrote:  

(19-05-2010 19:34 )BigBen Wrote:  It’s actually because the internet is not allowed to be legally regulated in free west countries. There have been suggestions in the UN that governments would like to regulate it but they cannot get a consensus. I would oppose any government regulating the internet because they would actively abuse their responsibilities (Never trust a politician or a policeperson) and use the opportunity to censor anything that was damming to the government. Ofcom actually have no legal mandate to regulate TV. They simply have guidelines, if their fines & impositions were actually challenged by the channels in court ofcom wouldnt have a leg to stand on.

The present situation where hardcore porn is relatively easy to access for averagely sexy 10 year olds won't be allowed to continue.

As I said, it's a new world and ideas and ways of tackling obvious problems are still in their infancy.

Radio, tv and even the "free" press are regulated to different degrees without the country having become a dictatorship. Certain parts of the internet will follow suit.

And whilst everyone keeps saying Ofcom don't have a leg to stand on, there's a marked reluctance from any tv channel to actually test that theory, suggesting that Ofcom's standing leg may be slightly more sturdy than many people imagine.