What's the hardest channel out of those satellite

[Malloo]

9xx channels?

[number 6]

They are all soft,you will see harder stuff pre watershed on channel 4.

[number 6]

Back in the 90s when they first started up tvx and the adult channel were pretty good,but they seem to have became more and more constrained as the years have gone by strangely.

[JamesW]

They are not allowed to be hard.

[Jacques]

Yes they are.

There is nothing in UK law to prevent the broadcast of R18 equivalent material and even Ofcon admit this. And before anyone goes on about the Code, has it ever been laid before Parliament and been put onto the Statute books? No, so it's not law.

And whilst they can still con the 'soft pound' from you pocket, nothing will change.


Ask this question to sexbabebangcast or whoever (I guarantee you won't get a proper answer, ambiguous at best):

What do you show, what do you say you show and what does ofcon say you can show?

[andy at handiwork]

Jacques wrote:

> Yes they are.
>
> There is nothing in UK law to prevent the broadcast of R18
> equivalent material and even Ofcon admit this. And before
> anyone goes on about the Code, has it ever been laid before
> Parliament and been put onto the Statute books? No, so it's not
> law.
>

I think you will find that although not every power weilded by a regulatory body such as Ofcom has been laid before parliament, when set up these organisations are given a framework to interpret and operate under as they see fit, for the general purpose of regulating the industry they oversee. Rightly or wrongly, Ofcom err on the side of caution when it comes to matters of porn on tv. A parliament imposed remit to protect minors from exposure to sexual material (never did me any harm) is interpreted by them as giving the need for a ban on explicit broadcasts. Strangly I find the constraints imposed on these channels actually result in a more exploitative atmosphere to their output than if they were allowed to be more explicit. Regulatory body decisions are probably answerable to judicial review if anybody wished to so proceed, as you may recall was the BBFC decision to refuse a certificate to several videos back in 1999. It was the finding against the board that finally allowed adults in this country to buy h/c porn legally. Who knows, a similar case today might free up the airwaves in the same way. I wouldn't bet on it though.

[alicia_fan_uk]

Jacques, I think JamesW was making a statement about the reality of the situation rather than the technical legalities. Until someone takes the considerable time and expense to challenge this, it won't change, and the situation is further complicated by the current political environment.

I completely agree with you that none of the 9xx channels will want to change anything as long as the cash keeps coming in. Why would they? It would just mean more cost and they couldn't show rely on the huge stock of softcore they have available for repeats (of which I hear there are many).

The solution for those in search of hardcore on TV? My pref approach has been mooted before, and is relatively simple - get Hotbird or even Astra 1 (Sky broadcasts on Astra 2). Standard 60cm dishes will generally pick the relevant channels up for most people in the UK (although I prefer the "multi-LNB-arm-on-one-dish" that offers a range of satellites). If I can set up such a system, most people can!

Combined with a cheap receiver like one from the Technomate range (c ?50+) and a 5-channel Dorcel card (< ?60 per year), this will offer you enough to satisfy most tastes. Just the other day, the delightful Ms Alicia Rhodes was beamed right into my livingroom in full hardcore glory, for example.

ukmg

[Jacques]

No, I think you'll find that Ofcon are there to provide guidance on broadcast regulation and ensure those that are licensed operate within the remit of that license. Ofcon have a code of practice which if followed you will not fall foul of the various broadcasting laws as it should provide guidance to such in the same way as HSG65 does with health and safety. You get prosecuted, fined et.c under the code of practice not necessarily the laws. However this code it's self falls foul of the broadcasting regulations so how can you be fined and punished under it?

Back to 1999. R18 video certificates were around along time before then, something everybody forgets. What this particular case was about, was a company was promised an R18 certificate by the BBFC for one of their movies. Jack "Boots" Straw stepped in and scuppered it, his argument was the 'harmful evidence of R18'. It went to court, no evidence could be supplied as it did not and still does not exist (Both the BBFC and Ofcon acknowledge that this is the case). And so began the R18 we know today.

Nothing will ever change whilst the 'soft pound' squad are still spending.

Here is the rule of thumb - is what they say in any way, shape or form ambiguous? If it is - walk away.

[Jacques]

Somebody just got fined for showing an arsehole (insert BGAFD fourmite of your choice here for comedy value)

Yet Five show anal bleaching and fuck all is said ....

[andy at handiwork]

I bow to your inestimable knowledge, though as for..

'However this code itself falls foul of the broadcasting regulations so how can you be fined and punished under it?' ...

I imagine it is similar to the rules pertaining to many an organisation, where you can, as a member of that org, be subject to sanction arising from something that may not actually be against the law per se. For example, the sanctions issued from such bodies as the BMA or the FA and other sporting bodies, etc would I feel come under this. To operate in various fields you have to be a member of or make yourself subject to, the rules of the relevent authorising body, whose remit from parliament allows it to police them.

None of the above should be taken in anyway to suggest that I approve of the restrictive activities of Ofcom with regard to adults accessing adult material on tv in their own homes.