My reaction to this is mixed - On one hand, I'm perfectly fine with programmes with controversial views on issues, or those that take a look at ideas in such a way, but on the other hand, in terms of visual content, I don't want too big an increase of programmes that border on pornography, or has unnecessary disturbing/violent scenes.
Now the lunatics really have taken over the asylum.
i do not understand your point - surely it's a good thing?
why should the views and expression on television be limited by somebody elses taste and decency threshold?
in the end, the responsibilty of protected children should be with the parents. if there is a strict watershed at a specific time, parents will know when to put their children to bed, or turn over the a kid frendly channel.
i resent peope limiting what i can watch/read etc because it offends 'them'. it is my decision. if i don't like something, if something disturbs me, i will not watch it. simple.
in the end, the responsibilty of protected children should be with the parents. if there is a strict watershed at a specific time, parents will know when to put their children to bed, or turn over the a kid frendly channel.
In an ideal world. But there are parents who couldn't care less what their children are watching on their bedroom TVs so long as it keeps them amused.
Ofcom's assertion that they can lo longer be expected to police peoples' homes and bedrooms is nothing short of dereliction of duty. In an era where viewer choice has never been higher, more regulation is needed.But it is ridiculous to expect one regulator to oversee everything when more specialist bodies (ie. for radio, satellite etc) would surely be more effective.
Simon, I really don't know why you bother having a television, because just about everything on TV apart from Ceefax, seems to offend you.
As the article clearly says
"Those offended by explicit latenight programming will be encouraged to switch off rather than stay tuned and be outraged."
Although, you do seem to tune into a lot of late night television to catch glimpses of Ceefax. Surely it's time you woke up from your extremely out-of-touch position on taste and decency, and let people watch what they want to watch.
If I want to tune into some explicit sex scenes on TV, I will. Afterall, sex is the most natural thing in the world, and it's only people like you that gave sex on TV its taboo to begin with.
Again, if you don't like it - don't watch TV! I suggest you try going on dates, Simon. There is more to life than schools, clocks and Ceefax.
By chance I had the misfortune to stumble across Friendly TV during what must have been a period of downtime. Basically, men were being encouraged to phone in/talk dirty with the girl presenters. Other channels were running a similar service. Fine for over-18s, but what if a child came across that?
The whole argument is a double-edged sword. Yes, I can sympathise with those who say they should be able to watch what they like. On the other hand, TV has a duty to cater for all and for everyone who wants to watch hardcore sex scenes, others will not.
So telling half the audience effectively to "get stuffed" (no pun intended) if they don't like it is as out of touch as you like to think I am.
Well you've only got to compare today's Emmerdale with the Emmerdale Farm of 20 years ago. Hard to believe that back then, creator Kevin Laffan had cut his ties with the show because bosses had "sexed up" the soap!
Well you've only got to compare today's Emmerdale with the Emmerdale Farm of 20 years ago. Hard to believe that back then, creator Kevin Laffan had cut his ties with the show because bosses had "sexed up" the soap!
Oh what I really meant is that I hate soaps more than hardcore porn. Emmerdale has as many slüts in it anyway.
I would LOVE to see some hardcore lesbian sex action between Tracy Barlow and Sarah-Louise Platt! Mmmmm!
You can moan all you like, Simon. Fact of the matter is, is that you're going to see a lot more cock and fanny on your TV screen now! (Whoohoo! I hear you shout secretly!)
in the end, the responsibilty of protected children should be with the parents. if there is a strict watershed at a specific time, parents will know when to put their children to bed, or turn over the a kid frendly channel.
In an ideal world. But there are parents who couldn't care less what their children are watching on their bedroom TVs so long as it keeps them amused.
Ofcom's assertion that they can lo longer be expected to police peoples' homes and bedrooms is nothing short of dereliction of duty. In an era where viewer choice has never been higher, more regulation is needed.But it is ridiculous to expect one regulator to oversee everything when more specialist bodies (ie. for radio, satellite etc) would surely be more effective.
the kind of parent which doesn't care what the child is watching is also the kind of parent which doesn't care if it's child is having sex or getting drunk at 11 years old.
there is no need for more regulation: technology is such, that now, any tv channel showing an adult programme could be barred with a pin, allowing conditional access.
why do you think we need more regulation? aren't our lives 'regulated' enough by other people already?
.