Viewer Expectations : Audience Survey

(14-02-2010 22:27 )seth Wrote:  I know, but if everybody stopped subscribing, it may force these channels to contest Ofcom's ridiculous censorship on porn. All the time people are subscribing, there's no incentive for these channels to take ofcom to the courts, human rights, or whatever they can to try to change these silly rules.

Sorry, seth, I didn't really take on board what you were saying before. I now understand your point and agree whole heartedly.

(14-02-2010 05:49 )Cobblers Wrote:  I expect when watching adult entertainment channels to see adult entertainment.

If that adult entertainment takes the form of sexual material, then I expect no restriction on the type of material depicted, providing it is legal and generally considered not harmful. This is the criteria the BBFC decided on after their major overhaul of the classification guidelines a few years ago, and I fail to see why it does not apply to television viewing. Anyone who finds an R18 DVD lying around can watch it by simply bunging it in a player. The BBFC have taken this into account, and concluded that the danger and potential harm posed by someone under the age of 18 doing this are not sufficiently proportionate to justify banning such material altogether.

Actually, that was the conclusion of the High Court, not the BBFC - it is a legal precedent and part of the UK Constitution which, Ofcom have completely ignored.

Quote:With digital TV platforms, you can't just bung an adult channel on like you can an adult DVD or video. You need to know the PIN code, you need the adult section of the EPG to be visible through the digibox settings and, in the case of the subscription channels, you need access to a credit card or similar age verification payment system. Yet Ofcom consider that these obstacles are not sufficient to protect children, and that the harm posed to them by viewing such material DOES justify a complete ban. Why the discrepancy - does Ofcom know something about this that the BBFC don't? Why won't they reveal the criteria which they used to reach a different opinion than the BBFC?

As I said above, its not the BBFC's opinion, its the opinion of the High Court that Ofcom are ignoring - they're probably in contempt of Court but blythly go on interferring with our legal right to view legal matieral (because its been declared harmless to kids) on our own TVs.

Quote:Why do I frequently see in the Ofcom Bulletins that broadcasts on various channels which have attracted multiple complaints, sometimes in the hundreds, do not even warrant a written response before being noted as not upheld, yet upheld complaints about the adult channels often come about due to 1 or 2 complaints.

Bias. Discrimination. Call it what you like, it clearly indicates Ofcom are incapable of true impartiality.

Quote:Exactly what benefit do broadcasters of the 900 channels receive from being in the adult section of the EPG? Ofcom frequently respond to complaints about them in the Bulletin by saying that being in the adult section of the EPG does not offer any concession on the guidelines by which channels not in the adult section abide by. So why bother with it at all?

The channels have no choice - the "adult section of the EPG" is Ofcom's bastard creation. The only people who benefit are Ofcom because, in wonderfully circular fashion, anything broadcast on a channel in this section is of an adult nature and simply because its there gives it no special protection. Ofcom have ENGINEERED a situation they can exploit to extort money from these channels by always finding them in breach whenever they receive a complaint - and like tossers, the channels just take it lying down.

Quote:And why should harder material be restricted to those who can afford it? If, as is frequently claimed, the use of credit cards is as much an age verification process as a payment method, then what's to stop a channel with PIN protection charging a token 10p a month to verify age, then broadcasting harder material for free supported by income from, say, a Babe style phone operation?

Because YOU aren't TRUSTED by YOUR Public Servant to look after YOUR kids.

Quote:But yeah, basically - expectations? I expect as an adult to be allowed to watch whatever I want, within the confines of the law. I don't expect a self-appointed body to apply a far heavier set of restrictions than the law without some serious, academic research showing that such controls are both necessary and proportionate.

Let me quote Ofcom on the subject and see if we can't all pull their illogical shit to pieces.

Ofcom Wrote:Ofcom ... concluded that the transmission of R18 material is compatible with Article 22 (1) of the TWF.

In the absence of evidence of “serious” harm to minors, there can be no justification for an outright ban on this type of material under Article 22 (1) of the Television Without Frontiers Directive (“the TWF Directive”). However, if the material is caught by the test of being material which is “likely to impair” the development of minors (TWF Directive, Article 22 (2)), then Ofcom still needs to be satisfied that suitable protections are in place so as to ensure that minors will not normally see or hear such broadcasts, before the transmission of such material can be allowed.

Ofcom’s view is that measures currently available, such as PIN security and a late watershed, are consistent with the requirement that minors will not “normally” access these broadcasts. Article 22(2) does not therefore require a prohibition on the transmission of this material.

However, Ofcom is not bound to adopt the standards applied in other European countries. It must consider its policy in the light of the UK legislation and its specific duties under the Act.

In addition to the European provisions [above], UK legislation namely, the Act places specific duties on Ofcom, in particular it sets out a standards objective to protect the under-eighteens (Section 319 2(a)). It also requires Ofcom to have regard to “the vulnerability of children and of others whose circumstances appear to Ofcom to put them in need of special protection” (section (3)(4)(h)). In light of this, if Ofcom is not satisfied that sufficient measures to protect the under-eighteens can be applied (for example, through scheduling and/or security mechanisms), then R18 material should not be transmitted.

Firstly, those 'standards' applied in other European countries ARE the "generally accepted standards" to which the Comms Act refers BECAUSE Ofcom can't make up and accept their own can they? - they don't have the mandate of the People do they? I sure as hell didn't vote for the Ofcom Board(s)! And surely folks, these European 'standards' must now be OURS as this Gov. signed us up to the Lisbon Treaty without so much as a by your leave...

Anyhow, just read it all again and this time replace 'under-eighteens' and 'children' (in the Comms Act) with the TVWF 'minors' and ask yourself "What fucking planet are Ofcom on?" because it sure as hell ain't this one.

I MUST remember to ask Ofcom what apparent vulnerabilities and circumstances they decided upon and to whom they applied to warrant Ofcom's special protection re: "the vulnerability of children and of others whose circumstances appear to Ofcom to put them in need of special protection". Anyone want to guess who and what they might come up with? "Err..we're not sure but, if they exist we're definitely looking after them" is my best guess.

Yet again another post by IanG perfectly highlighting Ofcom's hypocrisy and practices that ignore established high court rulings.

But why oh why can't the PTBA put these points you have articulated to Ofcom?

Ian, is there any chance you could amend your above post by omitting cobbler's quotes - as without the contexts of this thread it wouldn't really make sence - and PM it to me for the blog?

Hi guys and gals,

As some might have read further up the thread, there seems to have been some confusion over what the 'exceed my expectations' options might actually mean. I didn't anticipate this ambiguity - I got it in my head that people understood what Ofcom were suggesting or at least what I (perhaps wrongly) assumed they meant.

There are clearly two 'forms' of exceeding expectations e.g.:

a) "This is utterly beyond anything I would expect to see on UK TV, its disgusting and depraved"
or
b) "I thought this would be the usual tame stuff but, this is more like it!"

I'm really sorry about this confusion but, its not actually my fault. It's the language Ofcom used - "exceeded expectations" - it means different things to different people (probably exactly what Ofcom intended by it). Of course the inference is option 'a' - Ofcom are prudish censors and they don't want sexy shows on TV. But they made their claim without knowing what the audience really thought so, to cover their bases, they used a phrase that can cut both ways. Thankfully, the vast majority of people's expectations don't appear to be met, let alone exceeded - so if anyone answered this the 'wrong way' according to what you thought it meant it likely isn't going to matter if we get more people to vote.

So, we still need more votes to get a true picture - I need a representative sample of you good folks - 1000 votes would be awesome so please, please vote!!!!

And answer the question like this: If the shows don't go 'too far' in your opinion then they don't exceed your expectations of what a channel in the 'adult section of the EPG' should be able to show. I hope this clears up any confusion from now on.

But please answer honestly according to your tastes and preferences. This is a serious audience survey.

Many thanks

IanG

For what it's worth, I jumped in with my vote way too soon.

Now that I've read the thread properly and thought about it I would have voted very differently.

I think there's been some confusion in the voting, I would wager the vast majority of the 26 rarely or often exceeds expectations votes had a different idea of what it meant - at least I would hope so, on a forum like this!

Cobblers/Yoko, yeah I know. I bet you meant "it hardly ever exceeds my expectations". Such is the english language. I should've used 'occasionally' to make it clear - my fault so I'll just have to live with it but, I do think, looking at the shape of the graph (and knowing a bit about these things...), that some people did answer it as 'occasionally' (it takes all sorts - that's what the graph shows). It's all fine, the results speak for themselves...

This poll refers to the free channels in the adult section, not the channels shown under encryption, as it would be logical to have higher expectations of encrypted and paid for material.

(19-02-2010 19:03 )aaron Wrote:  This poll refers to the free channels in the adult section, not the channels shown under encryption, as it would be logical to have higher expectations of encrypted and paid for material.

This is primarily about the FTA babe channels - that claim by Ofcom relates to Bang Babes.

If you paid for a subscription channel, do any of them measure up to your logically higher expectations?