egafd.com

And its not good news though I dont think anyone should be surprised after the ruling on Monday about mail order etc:

"1.25 BBFC R18-rated films or their equivalent must not be broadcast. "

"However, in the case of adult material with a BBFC R18 certificate (commonly known as hard-core pornography), Ofcom believes that it is appropriate to take a more precautionary approach. Research commissioned by Ofcom indicates that some children in the current environment are able to access and use their parents?/carers? PIN numbers without these adults? knowledge. Given the strength of the material ? and adopting the precautionary approach ? Ofcom is not satisfied that under 18s can be effectively protected. Therefore, under the new Code, R18-rated material is not permitted to be broadcast. However, if future developments enable more secure protection, Ofcom would consider whether to review this position. "



Jay

I feel like the lone warrior standing in the mists of battle, when all else where eager to rush in, I remained and true to form, my compatriots were vanquished....

What did I say so many times? This carrot was dangled in front of everyones nose and I knew even back then it would never happen in our back yard. It comes as no surprise at all...Deep down thoough. I did harbour a want that it would happen. I doubt it will happen next year either as the same argument protecting children will be used and to be honest, they do have a fair pont but the powers that be have to be seen to be doing their job, whether anyone likes it or not that is all there is to it and if you accept that you should recognise they will relent at all costs at relinquishing their hold on this decision.

No doubt the European Courts will hear of this and I wait with bated breath if this decision is over ruled.

If it is, then the people who fought it are going to be heroes in my eyes to be remembered through the annals (spelling and word usage correct) of time.

Any appeal to a euro court would fail on this, because they have the right to set guidelines for the domestic market. Germany maintains a ban on satellite xxx, so does Norway (not in EU) to protect the children, France forbids the transmission before midniight local time, because children should be in bed by then. Italy/Spain/Portugal/Holland and a lot of other countries allow 24 hour broadcasting,- and Italy in particular seem to let anything be broadcast round the clock, a lot of it uncoded ... and Ofcom can't stop you watching them, as they well know ... failing to ban Extasi being the latest fiasco for them. They need to prove they have some power and this is how they do it, in the guise of protecting the children, which is actually bullshit.

"I doubt it will happen next year either as the same argument protecting children will be used and to be honest, they do have a fair pont"

I disagree, Tel. All this baloney about protecting kiddiwinkies is spurious nonsense. It doesn?t make the slightest bit of difference if kiddiewinks are aware of sex, or see sexual images. Sex is part of life, a very important part. First and foremost, that is what we are all here for. The accepted view that sex is somehow damaging to kiddiwinkies is just something you have to go along with and pay lip service to, if you are not to face problems in the advancement of your career or social status. It a load of baloney, but to avoid any controversy, most people (even thinking people) go along with it ? in the same way that they might also see the Emperor?s non-existent new threads. If sex was a problem to kiddiewinkies, then we would all by now be raving psychos, inadequate pervs, social misfits, divs and loons - after the traumatic experience of flicking through our dad's secret stash of 1960?s jazz mags. And what about today? kiddiewinkies ? with just two or three clicks of a mouse they can be ogling ?bizarre cannibal dwarfs? gobbling each other?s bellends! Yet the world keeps turning, and if this instant, universal, access to any type of porn imaginable has had an effect on the youth of today it?s no worse than turning them into a load of super-vacuous idiots, only interested in texting, watching big brother, and downloading twatish Frog ringtones. Come to think of it though, that?s pretty serious ? maybe there is a case for banning porn?

This decision was all about politics, all about not rocking the boat, and all about the covering of backs. Nowadays, no one who can be sacked wants to court any kind of controversy or upset the tabloid press ? as they would end up being sacrificed without the slightest compunction, by corporate or public sector cunts higher up the food chain (the accepted way of appeasing both the pious, politically correct, public sector media, and the super cynical trash media). This decision is just passing the buck or putting off the day when the nettle must be grasped. It?s a load of ball bag, but it serves you all right for voting for the establishment - the ones maintaining this whole edifice of twattery.


Officer Dibble

Remember the Tories gave it to us and the Straw man took it away ! and it ain't coming back while labour rules.

On that ruling, we should ban everything, as kids can get into medicine cabinets, I know I did, also the drinks cabinet, I did that as well, in fact I got into pretty much everything as a kid.
And I am sure I read my dads wank mags, And it did not do me any harm.
Look at me now!

Good call Marino. I live on a respectable, private estate but 200 yards from my pad I can buy High Society and Cheri magazines, pure uncut hardcore with anal and cumshots, in my local newsagent. The same shop is full of kids buying sweets, comics etc. The comics are approx 5 feet below the magazines so are in full view. No Pin protection in a newsagents.

I am an atheist and find the ultra right wing religious channels far more scary than porn, they fuck with peoples minds and are free to air 24-7.

Well I must admit I was wrong in gauging Ofcom's intentions. I do not like being fooled by anyone and I take the greatest exception to being given the run around by the likes of Ofcom.

No doubt some people will now give up on this issue but there will be many others who will continue this fight and I will be one of them, regardless of the likelihood or not of success. It is no longer about watching porn on TV It's a matter of principle.

On the bright side Ofcom have dug an enormous hole for themselves with all their talk about light touch, evidence based, consistent, proportionate and joined up regulation. A hole which I intend to dig deeper for them.

If anyone else is interested in continuing this fight with the regulator and feels up to writing the odd letter please let me know. You can find me at paul.tavener@ofwatch.org.uk.

I must say Marino makes some excellent points.

What I really don't understand about the whole R18 TV ban is who exactly do Ofcom/the Government think they are protecting/satisfying by preventing R18 broadcast??? I do not subscribe to any adult channels on Sky. However, I have seen 18-rated porn and the various free-views that run on Sky........the only major difference between 18 and R18 I can see is that of the camera angle! Surely you cannot on one hand say R18 is unsuitable but 18-rated material is acceptable!?

Even though viewers do not directly see much of what is happening in 18 rated porn it is pretty clear what actually is taking place - be it oral, full penetration etc. Simply shooting the scene from an alternative angle does not, in my opinion, affect in the slightest the fact that these acts are actually taking place, a fact of which everyone who sees 18-rated porn is well aware.

At present, a person below the legal age could easily skip through the Sky channels (from a relatively early time of evening) and see people getting up to all sorts, albeit from a "different angle". Even if these broadcasts are PIN-protected, Ofcom themselves argue (in defence of their decision to prevent R18) that PIN protection controls are currently being circumvented by minors. Therefore, by default , Ofcom are saying although minors are currently accessing 18-rated porn on Sky, this is - on balance - acceptable and is NOT a reason to prevent 18-rated porn broacdcasts......but this IS a reason to prevent R18.

How can they say the risk of minors seeing 18-rated porn is fine but R18 rated is not? If one accepts the argument that pornography corrupts, why does it seem that R18 corrupts, but 18-rated material does not. It's the same stuff, shot slightly differently!!!!

I apologise for what is pretty much just a stream of my consciousness above. In fairness, maybe I'm just a randy-bugger who wants to see the good stuff..........

Alicia Fan

That's precisely the point Alicia fan. its not that you know whats going on but the differene between what you see and what you don't. The whole idea is supposed to be that it is simulated as opposed to actually really happening, because if it is real its all the more terrible for it.

I know what you mean though, to know but not see is increasingly frustrating and I'm sure what is hidden is more liable to cause people to go out and act it out for real rather than vice versa.