Is Ofcom Fit For Purpose

Ah they do, they've issued any number of warning against various soaps down the years. Just google OFCOM Eastenders

(18-04-2011 22:20 )mikeboob Wrote:  Ah they do, they've issued any number of warning against various soaps down the years. Just google OFCOM Eastenders

But their hearts not in it and they always let them off with a gentle slap.

No Broadcast Bulletin this week. Something to be thankful for, but it hardly inspires confidence in their ability that they skip a fortnightly bulletin just because there will be a Bank Holiday 4 days LATER. Lazy sods.

(18-04-2011 20:29 )johnm Wrote:  

(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.

I beg to differ johnm. Tell me, which has the potential to cause widespread harm and offence: a niche satellite channel watched by a few broad minded folks or, a mainstream, primetime channel watched by millions of moms, dads, kids and grannies from a variety of backgrounds and differring beliefs/'standards'?

OFCOM's primary purpose is to regulate the type of TV the majority of adults and children watch and, indeed, to ensure that there are a wide range of TV services catering to a broad range of tastes and interests.

OFCOM appear to believe one size fits all - that one poxy Code for mainstream TV is sufficient to cover all aspects and audience expectations. The Comms Act states in no uncertain terms that OFCOM are to create as many Codes as are necessary to ensure WE the VIEWERS get EXACTLY what we WANT on the services we CHOOSE to watch and/or pay for.

Since taking over from the ITC, OFCOM have fined and/or closed-down dozens of so-called 'adult' channels and completely decimated the services that were operating perfectly safely (and/or without generating viewer complaints) for several years beforehand. All these channels were bound by the ITC's Code which revolved around 'taste and decency' and which banned R18 content. So, despite nothing actually changing in terms of what's supposedly allowed and, OFCOM claiming to be maintaining the ITC's broadcasting 'status quo', they have in fact done no such thing and have moved the proverbial goal posts so far that adult TV is no longer recognisable from how it was in 2003/4.

Meanwhile, general entertainment channels like $ky Box Office can broadcast 15-rated movies containing foul language, violence and sex all day long. They can and have shown movies containing 18-rated explicit hardcore material. Channel 4 gets away with showing explicit views of "labial and anal detail", not to mention cocks, balls and tits on various 'edutainment' programmes as soon as the clock strikes 9pm.

Exactly what evidence OFCOM has to show that sexual material is fine for young kids to see in one context but, apparently 'offensive and harmful' for grown adults to see in another context, has not been made public. Indeed, any such 'evidence' has no basis in truth or reality and is undoubtedly a matter of OFCOM's beligerent, ignorant and prejudiced opinion. OFCOM's Content Board have simply used and abused their unchecked and unbalanced position to impose their personal (i.e. religiously-inspired) 'moral' standards upon the rest of us - and the law sure as fuck doesn't allow for that sort of dictatorial, fascist, human rights abuse.

(19-04-2011 03:17 )IanG Wrote:  

(18-04-2011 20:29 )johnm Wrote:  

(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.

I beg to differ johnm. Tell me, which has the potential to cause widespread harm and offence: a niche satellite channel watched by a few broad minded folks or, a mainstream, primetime channel watched by millions of moms, dads, kids and grannies from a variety of backgrounds and differring beliefs/'standards'?

OFCOM's primary purpose is to regulate the type of TV the majority of adults and children watch and, indeed, to ensure that there are a wide range of TV services catering to a broad range of tastes and interests.

OFCOM appear to believe one size fits all - that one poxy Code for mainstream TV is sufficient to cover all aspects and audience expectations. The Comms Act states in no uncertain terms that OFCOM are to create as many Codes as are necessary to ensure WE the VIEWERS get EXACTLY what we WANT on the services we CHOOSE to watch and/or pay for.

Since taking over from the ITC, OFCOM have fined and/or closed-down dozens of so-called 'adult' channels and completely decimated the services that were operating perfectly safely (and/or without generating viewer complaints) for several years beforehand. All these channels were bound by the ITC's Code which revolved around 'taste and decency' and which banned R18 content. So, despite nothing actually changing in terms of what's supposedly allowed and, OFCOM claiming to be maintaining the ITC's broadcasting 'status quo', they have in fact done no such thing and have moved the proverbial goal posts so far that adult TV is no longer recognisable from how it was in 2003/4.

Meanwhile, general entertainment channels like $ky Box Office can broadcast 15-rated movies containing foul language, violence and sex all day long. They can and have shown movies containing 18-rated explicit hardcore material. Channel 4 gets away with showing explicit views of "labial and anal detail", not to mention cocks, balls and tits on various 'edutainment' programmes as soon as the clock strikes 9pm.

Exactly what evidence OFCOM has to show that sexual material is fine for young kids to see in one context but, apparently 'offensive and harmful' for grown adults to see in another context, has not been made public. Indeed, any such 'evidence' has no basis in truth or reality and is undoubtedly a matter of OFCOM's beligerent, ignorant and prejudiced opinion. OFCOM's Content Board have simply used and abused their unchecked and unbalanced position to impose their personal (i.e. religiously-inspired) 'moral' standards upon the rest of us - and the law sure as fuck doesn't allow for that sort of dictatorial, fascist, human rights abuse.

that proves my point ofcom only seam to regulate the adult section while the mainstream channels get away with showing more explicit material

johnm, the mainstream channels don't "get away" with showing more explicit material. OFCOM's Code actually allows them to show what no FTA adult channel is allowed to show so long as its not in a sexually arousing context. OFCOM's Code actively discriminates against porn channel viewers with no justification whatsoever - just some unsubstantiated claptrap about "protecting vulnerable people". WHO are these vulnerable people? WHERE are these vulnerable people? OFCOM haven't proven the existence of these vulnerable people nor have they stated WHAT it is they're protecting them from. What we can be certain of is that these vulnerable folk sure as hell aren't being protected from any of the explicit content OFCOM's Code allows to be broadcast on the various sex-ed programmes on CH4 or Five.

We can also be certain that OFCOM have no reason or evidence to suggest children are at risk from exposure to sexually arousing adult content. Indeed, OFCOM stated way back in 2004/5 that they had no reason whatsoever to ban R18-type material on the grounds of child protection...and then immediately banned it for the protection of those other unknown 'vulnerable people'.

As only the people that regularly watch and subscribe to adult services are the ones being affected by OFCOM's unjustified ban on sexually explicit material and on-going tirade against any sort of titilating adult programming, it seems clear to me that WE, the porn fans and viewers, are the supposed 'vulnerable people' OFCOM believe need 'protecting'. Obviously, having a relaxed and open attitude toward all matters of human sexuality doesn't fit with OFCOM's puritan beliefs and thus they believe there's something wrong with us sexually liberated souls.

One need only read the utter tripe OFCOM publish in their fortnightly Bullshittings to find evidence of their prejudice and contempt for TV sex fans. OFCOM claim to know when our expectations are exceeded, which means they somehow believe they know what's going on in all our minds, what our limits are and, consequently, what our expectations 'should' be.

It is not that OFCOM treat adult channels differently - that is merely a consequence of how they have decided to discriminate against adult channel viewers and treat us, the law and our rights with utter contempt.

(20-04-2011 02:57 )IanG Wrote:  johnm, the mainstream channels don't "get away" with showing more explicit material. OFCOM's Code actually allows them to show what no FTA adult channel is allowed to show so long as its not in a sexually arousing context. OFCOM's Code actively discriminates against porn channel viewers with no justification whatsoever - just some unsubstantiated claptrap about "protecting vulnerable people". WHO are these vulnerable people? WHERE are these vulnerable people? OFCOM haven't proven the existence of these vulnerable people nor have they stated WHAT it is they're protecting them from. What we can be certain of is that these vulnerable folk sure as hell aren't being protected from any of the explicit content OFCOM's Code allows to be broadcast on the various sex-ed programmes on CH4 or Five.

We can also be certain that OFCOM have no reason or evidence to suggest children are at risk from exposure to sexually arousing adult content. Indeed, OFCOM stated way back in 2004/5 that they had no reason whatsoever to ban R18-type material on the grounds of child protection...and then immediately banned it for the protection of those other unknown 'vulnerable people'.

As only the people that regularly watch and subscribe to adult services are the ones being affected by OFCOM's unjustified ban on sexually explicit material and on-going tirade against any sort of titilating adult programming, it seems clear to me that WE, the porn fans and viewers, are the supposed 'vulnerable people' OFCOM believe need 'protecting'. Obviously, having a relaxed and open attitude toward all matters of human sexuality doesn't fit with OFCOM's puritan beliefs and thus they believe there's something wrong with us sexually liberated souls.

One need only read the utter tripe OFCOM publish in their fortnightly Bullshittings to find evidence of their prejudice and contempt for TV sex fans. OFCOM claim to know when our expectations are exceeded, which means they somehow believe they know what's going on in all our minds, what our limits are and, consequently, what our expectations 'should' be.

It is not that OFCOM treat adult channels differently - that is merely a consequence of how they have decided to discriminate against adult channel viewers and treat us, the law and our rights with utter contempt.

Right again, Ian, but the bastards are still there. There's nothing we can do about them. They are being supported in the background by civil servants and government.
They are achieving nothing other than satisfying their own little egos.

(19-04-2011 01:33 )eccles Wrote:  

(18-04-2011 22:20 )mikeboob Wrote:  Ah they do, they've issued any number of warning against various soaps down the years. Just google OFCOM Eastenders

But their hearts not in it and they always let them off with a gentle slap.

True and I suspect this is an example of going easy on the mainstream broadcasters when they cross a line and newspapers leering coverage of same

As expected the X Factor got off scotfree. Maybe the babe channels would do well to recruit Simon cowell to take over the channels because it's obvious for all to see that he won't be fucked around by Ofcom but yet again blatant double standards being shown by all at Ofcunt. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-13140813

Furthermore to this Ofcom discussion I have just sent this e-mail to Graham Howell regarding the current regulating of the babe channels. I most likely probably won't get a reply but you never know and if I do I will be sure to post his response to this e-mail.

Dear Mr Graham Howell

First of all one of the great things about living the UK and any western country is that it is a democracy and with that we all have the right to question and comment on the way the Government and other various quangos are run. What annoys me a lot is your current regulating of the UK free to air so-called Babe Channels and I find your rules to be draconian and non reflective of what the expected audience expectation levels are. To be truthful these channels are all failing miserably to do exactly what they do on the tin and I have a few idea's and obvious pointers I would like to make you aware of as I believe you are treating Adults like Children and find your organisation to be patronising and do not believe that this Country should be run like a nanny state.

First of all these channels can be blocked by going into the Parental Control section and with the use of a four digit pin code and can be changed as many times as you wish unlike your Bank Card which also only has a four Digit Code and all box's have this inbuilt facility whether it be SKY or Freeview for example. To me this alone meets the current regulations in this country. Why then are you then continually hounding these channels when they are doing nothing more than providing harmless late night entertainment to a grown up audience and just for the record the UK has the highest TV Censorship rules now in the whole of Europe thanks to your organisation but I have also seen blatant double standards being applied too. This morning for example featured a naked chef on it and you didn't find ITV to be in breach of the current Ofcom code when yes Children not could have but would have been watching the programme but you tell the Babe Channels during the day to cover up. This to me is madness and just for the record the This Morning incident or the X Factor incident who also got off scotfree didn't bother me in the least but why are mainstream channels getting away with nudity and sex being shown on a mainstream channel which is watched by millions and just for the record cannot be blocked and channels that can be blocked and are only watched by a small percentage get punished time and time again. Correct me if I'm wrong but aren't Ofcom supposed to allow for a diverse number of Channels to be shown and are not allowed to judge channels on their own personal judgement's, religious beliefs and opinion's but it's clear for all to see that this is not the case. I believe that your regulating and censorship rules of the Adult Channels is an abuse of Basic Human Rights and no one should be telling Adults what they can and cannot watch in the privacy of their own home. Furthermore there is nothing harmful about the sight of a naked female body and Ofcom are showing discrimination towards this being shown on the Babe Channels as they believe it to be harmful, even more harmful it would appear than Violence being shown. I urge your organisation to start to use commonsense and just for the record the High Court ruling in the year 2000 legalized R18 type material to be shown in this country.

To finish just to say we have the technology available to block all Adult Channels and urge Ofcom to have a drastic rethink about how they are currently regulating the channels.

Kind Regards