Ofcoms reply
Ofcoms reply
Someone's posted on the Sky Digital Forum the details of a reply they had from Ofcom. It doesn't look very good at all, the way it sounds Ofcom have already decided that R18 materail woudnt be allowed on Sky subscribtion sevices.
Re: Ofcoms reply
Never really expected anything else.
-
Paul Tavener
- Posts: 159
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: Ofcoms reply
A liitle depressing, but it's hardly suprising. Ofcom are still operating under the ITC programme code. The letter published on digital spy is very similar to my first letter from the ITC in November 2002 (see letters section at www.ofwatch.org.uk). Its a standard letter which Ofcom have inherited from the ITC. Until Ofcom make any changes its business as usual (ie the ITC in Ofcom's clothing).
contact [email]admin@ofwatch.org.uk[/email]
Re: Ofcoms reply
That truly is sad !
With TAC recently showing "testers" I actually began to believe we were going to move forward and be treated as adults.
Should have known better !
With TAC recently showing "testers" I actually began to believe we were going to move forward and be treated as adults.
Should have known better !
Re: Ofcoms reply
Somebody at TAC has got scared. I noticed not one sniff of complaint in the national press or from the Mary Whitehouse Brigade. The last few nights have been the tamest for months.
What really narks me is you can show a man performing almost uncut cunnilingus on a woman but not show her fondling or sucking his knob. Yet on Spice Gay night a man can be seen fondling another man's genitals.
Why is the gay channel allowed to show and not TVX/TAC etc? Are we looking at positive discrmination and censorship rolled into one?
Strange indeed or has Peter Battyboy-Mandelson got himself onto Ofcom?
What really narks me is you can show a man performing almost uncut cunnilingus on a woman but not show her fondling or sucking his knob. Yet on Spice Gay night a man can be seen fondling another man's genitals.
Why is the gay channel allowed to show and not TVX/TAC etc? Are we looking at positive discrmination and censorship rolled into one?
Strange indeed or has Peter Battyboy-Mandelson got himself onto Ofcom?
-
marcusallen
- Posts: 651
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: Ofcoms reply
Simple:
Poofs are a great vote-getter.
They have a very great lobby - "Gay Rights" (No politician in his right mind would ever DREAM) of installing any kind of restriction on them)
AND, I pass no judgment.
We, of the heterosexul persuasion are not "vote getters"
We of the persuasion who like watcing others have sex via the internet or Vids/Dvs are considered to be, in some way "perverted"
The recent Court case decisions prove this. After all, who has the temerity to dispute the decisions handed down by such an Authority as a "Judge"
who may or may not, in his personal life lust after/fuck his poor little minion of an assistant? or book an escort - and I DO KNOW.
We have one hell of a battle on our hands and only people like Pabo and the others(don't take offence other guys) ALL OF YOU who fight this can HOPEFULLY sort out this fucking silly mess.
Because it takes BIG money to fight it thro the Courts which is why I had to quit a few years ago, because I didn't have the dough.
Some of you are BIG GUYS and can offord the legal costs - PUSH it the the ULTIMATE limits
And a suggestion to your lawyers,: look at the "Restrictions of Trade"
Poofs are a great vote-getter.
They have a very great lobby - "Gay Rights" (No politician in his right mind would ever DREAM) of installing any kind of restriction on them)
AND, I pass no judgment.
We, of the heterosexul persuasion are not "vote getters"
We of the persuasion who like watcing others have sex via the internet or Vids/Dvs are considered to be, in some way "perverted"
The recent Court case decisions prove this. After all, who has the temerity to dispute the decisions handed down by such an Authority as a "Judge"
who may or may not, in his personal life lust after/fuck his poor little minion of an assistant? or book an escort - and I DO KNOW.
We have one hell of a battle on our hands and only people like Pabo and the others(don't take offence other guys) ALL OF YOU who fight this can HOPEFULLY sort out this fucking silly mess.
Because it takes BIG money to fight it thro the Courts which is why I had to quit a few years ago, because I didn't have the dough.
Some of you are BIG GUYS and can offord the legal costs - PUSH it the the ULTIMATE limits
And a suggestion to your lawyers,: look at the "Restrictions of Trade"
Re: Ofcoms reply
Good call Marcus. You can drive a car at 17, buy a shotgun, vote, drink, and have a passport but can't watch porn on TV. We are in the 21st century, not Victorian times. Personally I find the Religious channels grossly offensive.