Comments on: Gay adult TV channel breaches broadcasting code

By: Mihangel apYrs

Mihangel apYrs — Tue, 21 Jul 2009 12:56:00 +0000

at 10pm youi can see real dead bodies and horrific injuries on hte news.

you can't see a cock.

Go figure our priorities

By: ric

ric — Tue, 21 Jul 2009 08:11:04 +0000

I don't think its an issue of homophobia, merely another outdated cencorship law. You can have sex at 16 but can't watch porn or see a naked willy on TV. Yet you can see violence on the news almost every night. People shot at, mortally wounded, legs blown off, but GOD forgive you for showing two people naked. British moral law is living in the Victorian times. Violence or sex I know what I'd rather teenagers watch.

(Report comment to the moderator)

By: AnthonyB

AnthonyB — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 23:39:34 +0000

Ofcom said its concerns were mainly due to the fact that the promotional material was "freely available to view by anyone who might have come across it unawares".

Is it really feasible that someone could come across a channel called Gay TV unawares?

(Report comment to the moderator)

By: Ian M Laughlin

Ian M Laughlin — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 17:58:38 +0000

Ofcom is in theory the unified regulator for all broadcasting and telecommunications services in the UK. It is true that there are a myriad codes for television, radio and other broadcasters to follow and interpreting these might be difficult, but a number of questions about Ofcom's priorities present themselves. Why is a small gay TV station, reaching only a small specialist audience, being censured when far right broadcasting stations such as Premier Christian Radio (on Medium Wave in London, nationally on Freeview) are airing biased homophobic material on a daily basis?

Credit where it is due, Ofcom have licensed a small number of gay stations to broadcast, such as Gaydar Radio's DAB services and Gaydio's forthcoming low power FM service in Manchester. But I cannot quite shake the feeling that well-financed zealot stations are able to air biased, partisan and downright hate-fuelled material with no apparent action being taken.

(Report comment to the moderator)

By: PCG, Germany

PCG, Germany — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 17:04:25 +0000

Well, taking into account that traditional dinner time is between 5pm and 7pm in the UK, it seems to me that 10pm is pretty late and thus an appropriate time. Anyway, technology allows parents to block the channel's access by inputing a pin code, therefore this rulling does not make any sense.
This is like Gay nude beaches, you know where they are, if you do not like it, you do not go there. If you do not like seeing this stuff on TV, switch channel and move on, but do not interfere on other people's freedom.

(Report comment to the moderator)

By: Dan

Dan — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 15:58:35 +0000

How homophobic is this whole situation? Granted, those gay premium channels are dreadfully tacky, but each to their own!

Thing is, I remember gawping at breasts and vaginas on the free previews of premium satellite channels as a child. Watching two 'hot girls' actually getting off with each other. It's been that way for YEARS. What is the difference here? Oh yeah, it's because there's a cock on show and it's gay!

What a load of crap, and how homophobic of Ofcom.

Advice to straight homophobes:-
1. Don't let your child watch TV after 9pm
2. Don't watch the free view of gay TV channels and expect to be surprised and delighted

Simples!

(Report comment to the moderator)

By: PM

PM — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 13:40:44 +0000

but said that the time of 10pm was not "well after the watershed"
=
WTDickens?!

So apparently there's 'pre watershed', 'a bit post watershed', 'really quite post watershed', 'well after the watershed' and 'holy crepes I can't even see the watershed from here'?
Who knew.

(Report comment to the moderator)

By: Craig

Craig — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 13:24:49 +0000

When are we going to get a Judicial Review of Ofcom’s homophobia?

(Report comment to the moderator)

By: tsuchan

tsuchan — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 13:18:07 +0000

It just seems to me, that Gay TV is running the risk of satisfying its viewers' appetites without the need to pay to see the encrypted content.

(Report comment to the moderator)