What is now the point of these channels

It's quite ironic that the decision makers at ofcom are who ones who have lived through the 1960's, you know the decade where they would preach make love, not war, yet violence on on the telly is the norm to pass off as entertainment as Stan has pointed out, if's it's any crumb of comfort the committee board won't allways be the same, I've said this before that if ofcom were just to have a few more liberal minded members on the board then the current predicament that the babe channels find themselves in at present could be over, but realistically speaking the government needs to dispose of their services when it comes to the regulating of the TV and have them stripped of this power as they have not carried out their duties with any fairness, when all the adult channels moved to the Adult EPG 900's in early 2006 this should have been the end of it all, they were now in the correct area and all safety measures to protect them from the under 18's had now been met, this agreement they had with ofcom concerning this matter has been breached on numerous occasion's and what ofcom are doing is illegal if only the Adult Channels were willing to address this issue once and for all. If ofcom backed off completely the UK channels which I've got no doubt in would be the best in Europe just going by the sheer amount of them. I hope one day that all talk about ofcom and censorship is consigned to history, this thread will simply read RIP Ofcom and years from now we can look back and laugh at the way TV used to be regulated in early 21st century Britain but by the rate of progress so far I'll be about 150 years old before anything changes.

We are comfortable with violence, not very comfortable with sex. That has always been our way.

(25-05-2011 18:46 )blackjaques Wrote:  We are comfortable with violence, not very comfortable with sex. That has always been our way.

Who's 'we'?

I'm certainly not comfortable with violence, or to be more specific, the glorification of real violence such as we get in reality shows depicting fights and attacks caught on CCTV. Fictional violence is a whole different kettle of fish and I have no problem with it's dipiction in films and drama.

(25-05-2011 19:47 )StanTheMan Wrote:  

(25-05-2011 18:46 )blackjaques Wrote:  We are comfortable with violence, not very comfortable with sex. That has always been our way.

Who's 'we'?I'm certainly not comfortable with violence, or to be more specific, the glorification of real violence such as we get in reality shows depicting fights and attacks caught on CCTV. Fictional violence is a whole different kettle of fish and I have no problem with it's dipiction in films and drama.

The British, Stan.

No sex please.....................


I, too, am totally uncomfortable with violence in our society. I suspect that those in charge are less uncomfortable with it as they are with sex.

Explicit sex on tv is a big vote loser, imo. No party is going to risk it.

I think that Ofcon have found a great niche for themselves. Perhaps they were worried about what Cameron's lot would do to them?

I think they decided to get oficious to justify their existence. "Look at what we are doing to keep this filth of Uk television, Mr Cameron". "If you get rid of us, beware of what British TV will be like"!!!

Only my opinion, of course, but they have done something to justify their non-dissolution.




per

(25-05-2011 19:47 )StanTheMan Wrote:  

(25-05-2011 18:46 )blackjaques Wrote:  We are comfortable with violence, not very comfortable with sex. That has always been our way.

Who's 'we'?

I'm certainly not comfortable with violence, or to be more specific, the glorification of real violence such as we get in reality shows depicting fights and attacks caught on CCTV. Fictional violence is a whole different kettle of fish and I have no problem with it's dipiction in films and drama.

This thread could go off topic, so i apologise for this reply.

I'm certainly not comfortable with it either. Fictional violence is different, but in my opinion, as times are going by, the gap between majorly different and only slightly so, is fast diminishing. This in turn, is why "we" seem to accept/tolerate it *. But i am not of the "we" - i am not comfortable with it at all to be honest.

* Also then why the "gap" between accepting/tolerating violence is not frowned upon (as it should be) like anything sexual is (as it shouldn't be). Sums our totally f*cked up country up.

And in the job i do, i see/speak to many people from abroad and they can clearly see how f*cked up we are - part of the reason they are here (but that's another story)..

Shame the powers that be cannot see it, or refuse to accept it more like.

(24-05-2011 03:27 )wasteofspace Wrote:  lonely men and disabled men would see a point in these channels lets not forget that they deserved abit of fun too

A good point that gets scant attention. Some countries recognise that the disabled still have sexual needs but sometimes lack the same opportunities that that rest of the population take for granted, and in those countries having the home help do a bit of shopping to help out with that physical need is seen as little different from buying food to help with a more obvious physical need.

In the UK a disabled person who asked their home help to buy a porn mag or KY jelly would probably have the carer withdrawn and forced to attend an equalities awareness non harassment course, whatever the local authority might say about holistic care.

(25-05-2011 17:31 )Scottishbloke Wrote:  It's quite ironic that the decision makers at ofcom are who ones who have lived through the 1960's, you know the decade where they would preach make love, not war

I think it was Stalin who asked what to do with the revolutionaries after the revolution. Of course in Russia the ones who werent shot became fat and complacent, having got what they wanted.

And thats the problem. We have regulators who see sex as a category apart. They have their freedoms to watch documentaries that criticise the government, expose expenses scandals by sitting ministers of the crown, they dont see that 16,000 complaints about Jerry Springer The Opera indicates any problem because it doesnt offend them, and being enlightened liberals they even permit unlimited use of words like F*** C*** and A**H**e after 9pm with a warning on 10 OClock Live, South Park, etc. In their book Politics, Satire, Religious Offence, Violence are all fair game for entertainment no matter how offended some people get, but somehow they see sex as uniquely harmful. They have the freedoms they want and cannot see why anyone would want anything more.

(25-05-2011 23:52 )eccles Wrote:  

(25-05-2011 17:31 )Scottishbloke Wrote:  It's quite ironic that the decision makers at ofcom are who ones who have lived through the 1960's, you know the decade where they would preach make love, not war

I think it was Stalin who asked what to do with the revolutionaries after the revolution. Of course in Russia the ones who werent shot became fat and complacent, having got what they wanted.

And thats the problem. We have regulators who see sex as a category apart. They have their freedoms to watch documentaries that criticise the government, expose expenses scandals by sitting ministers of the crown, they dont see that 16,000 complaints about Jerry Springer The Opera indicates any problem because it doesnt offend them, and being enlightened liberals they even permit unlimited use of words like F*** C*** and A**H**e after 9pm with a warning on 10 OClock Live, South Park, etc. In their book Politics, Satire, Religious Offence, Violence are all fair game for entertainment no matter how offended some people get, but somehow they see sex as uniquely harmful. They have the freedoms they want and cannot see why anyone would want anything more.

truth is this is as good as it gets now anyone who thinks there is anything they can do or say to change things are deluding themselves it will NEVER EVER EVER CHANGE why? quite simply every single babe channel are VERY HAPPY INDEED with their CARTEL no problems no agro no extra payments to the girls all channels producing the same inane boring drivel and the cash keeps pouring in from the poor easily satisfied mindless mugs and the babe channels buddies at ofcom are happy too so result allround everyone happy except the great unwashed but since when did they ever count

(25-05-2011 23:52 )eccles Wrote:  We have regulators who see sex as a category apart. They have their freedoms to watch documentaries that criticise the government, expose expenses scandals by sitting ministers of the crown, they dont see that 16,000 complaints about Jerry Springer The Opera indicates any problem because it doesnt offend them, and being enlightened liberals they even permit unlimited use of words like F*** C*** and A**H**e after 9pm with a warning on 10 OClock Live, South Park, etc. In their book Politics, Satire, Religious Offence, Violence are all fair game for entertainment no matter how offended some people get, but somehow they see sex as uniquely harmful.

Maybe they don't 'see sex as a category apart' or as being 'uniquely harmful.' Maybe they just tossed a coin and it landed 'heads' for sex instead of tails for 'violence' and that means they're going to take issue with violent content once they're through dealing with sex! If that's how it eventually pans out, then I guess it'll be of comfort to some here at least: no more explicit freebie sex, but no more police car chases, drunken street fights, cartoon brainings and domestic soap flare-ups to deal with either (supposing y'all were genuinely concerned about the amount of rough stuff documented or portrayed on TV in the first place, and not just grabbing 'violence' as the nearest stick with which to figuratively rap Ofcom over the knuckles whilst yelling 'double standards!' and not actually giving a flying cack about the amount of violence on telly before Ofcom's curtailment demands started affecting your wanking routines ).

It's just because Ofcom doesn't like the women to be able to get away with having sex or showing their normal body parts on live TV. They don't agree with it, and therefor they want to push their moral views onto everyone else.

Now, if these women were in a public place (NOT including the beach, spa or strip club), fully nude or doing sexual acts (Best not on the beach or spa for this ), then I'd be against it, because that's innappropriate. Unfortunately, Ofcom seems to think that these women are exposing themselves to the public, when infact they most certainly are not. They are on a adult TV channel, which the viewers have an option of turning to or blocking, and they are on at night, so it's beyond sad that they are still under the petty scope of Ofcom even to this day for just showing something natural.

2011 is the year for change! Lets make it happen!!!