'simulated masturbation' should not be broadcast before 22:00", wouldn't you take it as read this would be fine after 22:00? Indeed, taken 'as a whole', you might even interpret it to mean no 'sexualised action' before 22:00?
What really strikes me as very odd indeed is that there's no appeals process against what are ostensibly arbitrary rules in Ofcom's guidelines/Code. The Code is not law, it's not been round the Houses of Parliament, it's not been declared compatible with the HRA and it sure as hell hasn't been granated Royal Assent - it's not even a Statutory Instrument. It is simply a set of guidelines laid down without proper legal and Democratic scrutiny and, as such, there should be a completely independant body to deal with appeals against Ofcom's rulings. Failling this, the only recourse to the law a broadcaster has is to take it to court and let the letter and precedents of the law decide if an unelected, unaccountable bunch of cretins can act as legislator, judge and jury with out evidence to back up their position (and we all know how the BBFC faired in the same circumstances).
One complainant does not represent widespread harm and offence, indeed, unless thousands complain to Ofcom about something there is no evidence any real and substantial harm or offence is being done or even being perceived to be done.
And Ofcom's hypocrisy is self-evident. Of the dozens of hardcore channels available in the UK via non-$ky satellite systems, Ofcom have proscribed (banned) just one in the last 5 years, despite the fact these systems have no mandatory PIN protections and children under 18 could easily access them. Moreover, Ofcom received over 30,000 complaints re the BBC airing Jerry Springer:The opera and did nothing, nada, zip, ziltch. Yet they get ONE complaint from some over-sensitive desexualised cretin and launch a full frontal attack on programmes many tens of thounds of people are quite happy with. It's not Democratic, balanced or remotely right. Indeed, it is discriminatory and likely illegal sexual discrimination on the grounds of our orientation toward open acceptance of sexually explicit material in favour of those who wish to restrict and control our enjoyment of life - there's a reason many of us are angered by Ofcom's actions, and this is it! Our rights are being ignored and abused!
Great post - until the point you spelled Sky as $ky. There and then, you just made yourself look like a kid. It wasn't funny 15 years ago, it's not funny now. If you want to be taken serious, write seriously.
ReplyDeleteRe $ky
ReplyDeleteThis illustrates the "rip off" culture in this country, where those with power and authority can do just about anything they want. If Sky had any interest at all in their customers except as cash cows to be milked, they would challenge some of the ridiculous decisions made by the Ofcom censors. In other countries, Sky themselves broadcast explicit adult material it seems. Indeed there's currently a row going on in Italy because of it. Here they just seem to collude with their friends at ofcom, never challenging anything they do or say. $ky could show their power for the consumer by broadcasting some of their channels from other European countries which are more liberal and then be subject to regulators in those countries. Will they do this to assist with freedom of expression ? No I don't think they will. If it hadn't been for $ky we'd have all had European standard boxes now, and been able to choose for ourselves what we watch PAN EUROPEAN, without extra equipment. Indeed I haven't forgotten how $ky seeemingly broke the broadcasting rules when they broadcast on an unlicensed communications satellite, IE Astra 1, back in 1988 direct to the home, and completely ruined the fledgling LICENSED service, "BSB" (with the squarials) in the process.
$ky ? Yes it sounds right to me.
People need to STAND UP to these ofcom censorious bullies. But $ky seem to be just interested in money and a cosy relationship with the regulators.
Shaun. (Not the original poster)
I agree with all the comments so far about how ofcom deal with complaints about the "adult" channels in a biased and discriminatory way.
ReplyDeleteHere we have a quasi group who have set up as arbiters of public taste, but seem to be driven by the most severely perverse moralistic view imaginable.
I too fail to understand why a single complaint against an adult channel carries so much weight, where other multiple complaints of greater merit against normal channels are dismissed out of hand
I also fail to comprehend the mentality and motivation of someone who watches an obviously up front adult channel and then complains about the content. I have also wondered, before now, whether or not these people are in cahoots with ofcom, or are encouraged to complain to justify ofcoms survival by the way in which ofcom respond to there complaints
What is it about sex that so appals the staff at ofcom. Do they not have sex? Do they truly believe that everyone who watches adult material is a dangerous pervert who needs to be prevented from seeing anything which might just sexually excite them.
In law you are presumed innocent until found guilty. The discriminatory way in which ofcom responds to complaints about adult channel content, seems to derive its energy from the obverse perspective. The very fact that legislation also now exists which seems based on an attempt by the Government to stifle any content which promotes sexual excitement, allows ofcom to continue what they are doing and labels everyone who enjoys sexual material as a dangerous pervert.
I wonder what they would do if every adult channel provider got together and agreed to ignore ofcom and transmit hardcore activity, all at the same time, on every adult channel, every night from 10pm onwards
Ofcom are able to excercise control because the adult channels respond to them by bowing down. The oppressed make the tyrant.
I am a firm believer in the fact that the more you attempt to stop something that people want, the more it is driven underground and out of any control. Perhaps their idea is that providing it is no longer visible, it doesn't matter what goes on.
More power to the adult channels, go for it chaps, let the girls free to do what they want or perhaps move from SKY adult channels onto a foreign based transmitter using ASTRA and continue broadcasting out of the reach of ofcom
it's true - typing $ky is the domain of the sad
ReplyDelete"it's true - typing $ky is the domain of the sad"
ReplyDeleteNo it isn't.
But complaining about those that do, certainly is.
Now contribute someting a bit more substantial to the debate if you would be so kind.
But why should any provider risk further fines by going a bit further? Looking at the babe channels, It's reasonably rare to see a girl without a caller for long periods at peak hours, and of course we're not including the off screen babes. Given that to run these channels you need a small studio/lockup, a camera, some lighting, one man and some "babes" the set-up fees can't be extortionate, and at over £1/min the recoup fees must be pretty good. Persuading people not to phone these lines en masse would be virtually impossible to achieve. So the ripoff will continue, with all sides happy except the viewing public - but who cares about them!
ReplyDelete'the set-up fees can't be extortionate'
ReplyDeleteWhy don't you look into channel costings and hiring airspace on a platform before making ridiculous comments like that. Then have fun mortgaging your house and everything you own for a shot at 'doing it right' because you obviously know better. Go on, put your money where your mouth is.
nice post thanks admin see my blog
ReplyDeletekatrina-k.blogspot.com have latest news of hot katrina kaif
photo, gallery, videos, upcomming film new, biography even everything what you need to know about her character.