Is Ofcom Fit For Purpose

Guardian article, its basicly justification by an ex employee (aparently babe channels are porn)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/organgri...tion-ofcom

Typical of the sort of patronising tosser they employ at ofcom. There is no right of reply with these people who just impose their morals on the rest of us. They are typical of a class who think they know best.

(11-04-2011 10:08 )mikeboob Wrote:  Guardian article, its basicly justification by an ex employee (aparently babe channels are porn)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/organgri...tion-ofcom

(11-04-2011 10:08 )mikeboob Wrote:  Guardian article, its basicly justification by an ex employee (aparently babe channels are porn)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/organgri...tion-ofcom

Biog from the Ofcom website:

Quote:First term of Appointment: 3 years (1 May 2003 to 30 June 2006). Reappointed Term: 3 years (1 July 2006 to 30 June 2009). Term extended to 30 June 2010.

Kath Worrall was appointed to the Content Board in May 2003.

She was the chair of the Ofcom Fairness Committee. She is a member (by rotation) of the Broadcasting Review Committee and the Broadcasting Sanctions Committee.

Kath Worrall works as a freelance consultant following a distinguished career in broadcasting with Border Television, where she was Director of Broadcasting, and the BBC. She is a Fellow of the Royal Television Society.

And heres an entry from Coventry University 19 April 2007

Quote:Kath Worrall is Chair of the Fairness Committee of the Office of Communications – charged by law with making sure that what is broadcast is fair, decent and does not invade privacy. These are some of the most contentious issues in the modern media. Judging the public mood and the line to take is not an easy job – she currently has 40,000 complaints about the last series of ‘Celebrity Big Brother’ on her desk.

Note that 4 years ago she was concentrating on "fairness decency and privacy". Quite what Decency and BB had to do with Fairness is beyond me - yes, she sat on both committees but to name one and talk about the work of the other is just woolly thinking.

Also she says she was required by law to ensure that content met standards for fairness decency and privacy - as if these were the only legal requirements. Adhering to the publics generally accepted standards, rather than her own, was another legal requirement. This suggests a biassed regulator who was prejudiced and therefore unfit to hold the position.

Other notable career highlights include being a presenter on Radio Cumbria.

Tessa Jowell appointed her to the old Broacasting Standards Council in Dec 2001. Thats Tessa Jowell, the Labour Minister whose estranged husband David Mills was sentenced to 4 1/2 years jail in Italy for accepting a bribe from Italian media mogul and Prime Minister Silvo Berluscioli (source Daily Telegraph)

Quote:KATH WORRALL BECOMES NEW BOARD MEMBER OF THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS COMMISSION

Kath Worrall today became a new Board Member of the Broadcasting Standards Commission, Culture Secretary Tessa Jowell, announced today. The appointment will be from 1 January 2002 until 30 June 2003.

Biographical details

Kath Worrall is a broadcasting consultant with successful senior management experience in both the commercial and public service sectors, who has worked overseas advising on broadcasting legislation and regulation. She has held a number of senior broadcasting posts in Britain, which include the Director of Broadcasting at Border Television, the Secretary, BBC Scotland, and Managing Editor, BBC Cumbria.

Mrs Worrall was a keynote speaker at the British Council seminar - Broadcast journalism; news and current affairs-setting the standards in a competitive world - which was held in February last year in Cardiff for journalists from the developing world.

She has not undertaken any significant political activity in the last five years and holds no other public appointments.

Notes for Editors

1. The Broadcasting Standards Commission is the statutory body for both standards and fairness in broadcasting. The Commission is accountable to Parliament and the Government and broadcasters finance it.

Its three main tasks are:

- to produce codes of practice relating to standards and fairness; - to consider and adjudicate on complaints - to monitor, research and report on standards and fairness on broadcasting.

2. The remuneration for a member of the Commission is #16,310 per annum for a nominal two days per week.

from Government News

In 2009 the BBC forced Ofcom to postpone publication of a report into the Kennel Club. The "BBC’s lawyers persuaded the regulator to cancel publication of the ruling hours before it was to have been made public because they claimed that the corporation had been misled about the nature of the inquiry. They said that the watchdog had wrongly refused to consider large parts of its evidence.
...
The BBC is understood to believe that Ofcom asked “misleading” questions when it began its investigation, and sources said that the corporation became aware of the path the watchdog was following only when it released provisional findings. The BBC submitted new evidence but claims that Ofcom refused to consider it.
...
Sources also claimed that Kath Worrall, chairwoman of Ofcom’s Fairness Committee, which heard the complaints, had links to the dog-breeding world after acting as a show judge. Mrs Worrall said she had not sat as a judge since 1976."
To be fair it should be stated that there is no indication that the complaint about Kath Worrall was upheld and presumably she continued to sit on the Standards and Fairness committees which suggests no problem.

House of Commons records from 16 June 2003 state

Quote:Kath Worrall
Is a broadcasting consultant with successful senior management experience in both the commercial and public service sectors, who has worked overseas advising on broadcasting legislation and regulation. She has held a number of senior broadcasting posts in Britain, which include the Director of Broadcasting at Border Television, the Secretary, BBC Scotland, and Managing Editor, BBC Cumbria.

Unknown (to me) site Keith Topping Blogspot reported a surprising conflict of interest - as a basic legal point someone hearing an appeal should be independent of the original decision. Whats that high moral tone about "charged by law"?

Quote:BBC sources claimed Ofcom had asked 'odd' questions in its call for evidence, and then would not allow the corporation to submit any additional material which would have supported its argument. They also raised concerns that Ofcom's Kath Worrall oversaw both the initial complaint and the appeals process as a member of the media regulator's content board as well as chair of its fairness committee. 'They got the same person to be judge and jury. It took a record time for Ofcom to rule on and there was an unprecedented level of protest to Ofcom, right up until the last minute,' the source said. Broadcast says it understands that has Ofcom restructured its appeals process following the complaints but maintained that it would stand by its decisions on Pedigree Dogs Exposed

When Ofcom was set up Richard Hooper, shadow Content Board Chairman, said "she was Director of Broadcasting in the 1990s for Border Television and a member of the ITV Network Broadcast Board. She is a Quaker and lives in Cumbria."
Thats good, Ive always liked their cereals.

(11-04-2011 22:06 )Big Stu Wrote:  Typical of the sort of patronising tosser they employ at ofcom. There is no right of reply with these people who just impose their morals on the rest of us. They are typical of a class who think they know best.

That the Guardian ran that piece without an open blog was annoying and I'm sure deliberate.

Her views on encryption are "interesting". Pity her ex-colleagues don't share her views.

(16-04-2011 05:13 )blackjaques Wrote:  Her views on encryption are "interesting". Pity her ex-colleagues don't share her views.

Pity she didnt get off her arse and ask Sky to lock the adult section by default, making the sector opt-in. That way she neednt have worried about accidential viewing.

It just goes to explain why Ofcom will allow male genatalia but not female genatalia on tv. Look Ofcom, take your rules and stick them where the sun don't shine.
I really wish I had the money to start my own babechannel because if Ofcom tried to fine me, i'd tell them to provide me with proof that female genatalia on display causes harm and then IF they can I would pay the fine but they can't and yet they continue to dictate to us what we can watch.
I'm pretty sure they said brief glimpses of pussy on the babechannels was OK but now they're saying its not. Which again prooves Ofcom makes the rules up as they go along. If you don't want to see naked women, then change the channel because it's not exactly rocket science and kids can see far worse things on the internet than anything on tv. Ofcom need to get some perspective.

All 44k members should make a complaint, any complaint, to Ofcom.
Find a TV show and send off a complaint.... Blue Peter, Eastenders about anything you want.

It will keep Ofcom so busy reply that they won't have time to knitpick the Babeshows.

Enough is enough and these bastards need to be dealt with a heavy hand now. 2011 and we're still ruled by TV Censorship, that's not right. I urge all of the babe channels to get together and have a meeting and take Ofcom all the way to the European court of human rights. They I believe will unanimously kick Ofcom out of office for failing to carry out their duties fairly or democratically.

(18-04-2011 19:33 )Charlemagne Wrote:  All 44k members should make a complaint, any complaint, to Ofcom.
Find a TV show and send off a complaint.... Blue Peter, Eastenders about anything you want.

It will keep Ofcom so busy reply that they won't have time knitpick the Babeshows.

sound idea but i dont think ofcom care much about what is shown on mainstream channels.