Ofcom Discussion

^ I agree Block.

The new regime at Ofcom have been far less persecutory as you say. I think there has been some evidence of the channels loosening up the reigns a little on the day shows - at least the outfits are better than the knitting circle gear the babes wore at the height of Ofcom's oppression . There has been a welcome return of the nislip to these shores too - once thought to be extinct, or at least moribund and on the verge of extinction, returning in small numbers. Observers hope that they breed successfully!

However, these are small rays of light in the gloom. Nightshows remain utterly insipid, emasculated affairs that are unwatchable.

Ofcom released their latest research on online VoD services yesterday.

This was based on a a survey "conducted via a face-to-face omnibus among 2,121 adults aged 16+. Respondents were screened to ensure that they viewed at least one of the range of relevant on-demand and online content types. The sample size of on-demand and online users was 1,453."
In addition an "online survey of 500 interviews was carried out among 12-15 year olds."

Those surveyed were asked to comment on all VoD material they'd seen online (both regulated and unregulated) because "Ofcom has a duty to advise Government on the need for protection of consumers and citizens in their consumption of audio-visual services, and in particular the need to protect children. Therefore, Ofcom seeks to understand people’s use of, and concerns towards, notified ODPS [on-demand programme services] in the broader context of all on-demand and online audio-visual services in the UK, and has carried out quantitative consumer research for this purpose."

Stats revealed that are relevant to this board:

• "The proportion of UK adults claiming to have seen something of concern on an online or on-demand service remains stable at just over one in ten (12%)"
  

(The headline quote used by advanced-television.com.)
Ofcom adds that, "there are higher levels of concern among the younger age groups. The level of concern among all adults is relatively low." They continue, "a quarter of teens (28%) have been concerned by content they have seen on demand or online. This represents a significant increase since 2014, when the level of concern was 16%." (The 'concern amongst adults' figure for 2015 is not specified exactly as a whole, as far as I can see, but looks around 11% from other figures given.)

• This year's top concerns among adults are given as "violence (50%), welfare of children/young people (32%), bullying/victimising (31%), racism (30%), discrimination (29%), bad language (28%), and pornography (24%).
  

Concerns regarding violence, bullying and racism have increased significantly since 2014, while concerns about sexually explicit content have decreased [to 18%]." (The report later comments that Ofcom is sure of this "significant" decrease to a "a 95% confidence level".)

Yes, Pornography and "sexually explicit content" are somewhat confusingly listed separately in the VoD "concerned" rankings. The former's figures are conversely up (22% to 26% amongst parents and 14% to 22% amongst non-parents).

• Amongst parents the overall top rankers are: "violence (54%), the welfare of children/young people (36%) and bullying/victimisation (37%)
  

Bullying/victimisation is now in the top three concerns, up from sixth position (20%) in 2014. This represents a statistically significant increase and mirrors the increase in concern over bullying seen among teenagers."

Ofcom highlight that "These concerns largely reflect the same concerns people have regarding broadcast content: bad language (44%), exposure to violent content (41%), sexually explicit material (41%), and discrimination (23%). However, bullying is a specific online concern that appears to be on the increase." (Although they later specify that VoD "concerns among parents regarding sexually explicit content have fallen from 33% in 2014 to 19% in 2015." So that would seem outside of their "largely" comment then!)

• "Things of a sexual nature" scored 19% amongst those teens that expressed concern about VoD content they had seen online. "Seeing things that are too old for me" scored 18% from the same group. (These two things concerned this group roughly as much as "Trolling" [19%]. By comparison "Bullying/victimising" was top with 42%.)
  

Of course the helpuly vague concerns about "welfare of children/young people" have already been selected for quoting to the press by Ofcom's spokesperson. This, as ever, will be their hat to hang any number of things on no doubt.

R country is so boring
Perfectly replicated by our BABE channels
*****


I blame all the rules under the current regime

We had the pad house babe office babe ect
I know who I'll be still voting for next time again and it ain't the ones now ?
But for now to be honest these shows are poor at best with a very rare exception
All work an no play ....

On BBC breakfast news this morning there was a woman representative from a government quango saying they were continuing to explore ways to make it more difficult for under aged teenagers to enter porn sites. Mainly by having to have credit card details to do so, ( already talked about in the past ). As pointed out to her by the interviewer, these sites operate all over the world and the majority of them will not conform and how will they then be able to stop them looking at them. Only getting a few sites to sign up ( probably close to our shores ) would not solve the problem. As the majority of porn watched by the under aged I believe to be on a phone or tablet,make the provider tell the parents it's their responsibility to make sure their child does not enter such sites by way of them signing an agreement as such.
Which leads me to the question of the similar problem, supposedly, on tv, with our babe shows being highly censored, because an underage person could enter the programs accidentally or on purpose, as is in most cases. Why doesn't the parent put the child lock on and install a pin number for access if they are all afraid their little Johnie might see something naughty and let us hot bloodied, overage persons look at something worthwhile for a change Without these draconian rules set by Ofcom.

^ This is so funny to me, because there's so much online that you don't need a credit card for lol. Just type pussy ass tit fuck etc into Google, and click images and presto

(16-02-2016 22:33 )mrmann Wrote:  ^ This is so funny to me, because there's so much online that you don't need a credit card for lol. Just type pussy ass tit fuck etc into Google, and click images and presto

I know what you mean but for me I have been fighting for female genitals to be shown on tv like males are since 1996. Its about pushing ofcom etc into answers about uk censorship and their problem with female nudity.

Yes we can get this online now but back then it was very serious sexist problem and then ofcom strolled in and allowed erections on tv but STILL female labia/clits still blurred out in the same programme prolonged close male genitals shown.

Any fanny slip on babestation out come 250,000 quid fines yet all the channels rule break and just get a telling off,,so are ofcom there purely to punish babestation?

^ I agree entirely!

It's ridiculous that the women have to be overly censored as they are.

^ The babe show operators might not be unhappy enough with Ofcom's decisions to take them to court but plenty of others do:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/02/12/...l_threats/

£5 mil a year on lawyer fees! Good to know where our taxes go I always think.

To be honest I read a few above posts
How can seeing the babes on TV setting cameras for online visuals be allowed
I personally think it's disgusting

A.the people making the show clearly have no respect for their staff for getting them to do it but also them doing it knowing how bad the shows r for the TV audience either not being seen covered in on-screen graphics telephone numbers or just completely covered with the big controller full screen graphics when it's suppose to be a TV show not internet porn
B.absolutely pointless having shows with babes who aren't allowed to show more than a shin on television

^ Another name from the past moves on from Ofcom:

http://radiotoday.co.uk/2016/02/radio-gr...its-ofcom/

Davies had many jobs at the regulator being promoted by them every couple of years or so. (He's been Head of Market Intelligence; Head of Radio Review Board; Director of Radio and Multimedia; Director of Radio Content and Broadcast Licensing; and finally Director of Content Policy, which includes overseeing TV content, from ca.2011).

His time at Ofcom was not without controversy. For instance in 2007 his impartiality was called into question for being 'wined and dined' by a commercial broadcaster the month before the broadcaster was awarded a licence by Ofcom. (The regulator conducted a "discreet internal investigation" and took Davis word that his attendance at the diner in question was an "honest mistake" and "had not affected the subsequent award process": http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/migra...dined.html.)

As far the here and now, if the consensus view is that the White regime at Ofcom represents a somewhat less censorial view of the babe channels than the previous one, the continued erasure of remnants of the Ed Richards era can only be a good thing surely.

---

A more minor point this one:

A good while ago I remember having a little discussion, shall we say, on this forum... I had made a half-serious comment that, on occasion, an operator might think it best to, erm, "not find" ( ) their regulatory recording of a particular event for presentation to Ofcom in the case of an investigation. This would not happen I was told as it would not work out beneficial to the operator... Well, I think, this story is perhaps indicative of how Ofcom can sometimes treat this type of breach:

http://www.media247.co.uk/bizasia/1-umma...ofcom-2016

Now of course I'm sure Ofcom treat all breaches of their rules on a case by case basis but the above does show that Ofcom gave the operator in question a second chance to find a recording (from a different date) before declaring that they were "considering these breaches for the imposition of a statutory sanction."