Is Ofcom Fit For Purpose

(07-03-2010 17:41 )IanG Wrote:  Anyone notice something missing from this list of channel viewing figures?

http://www.barb.co.uk/report/weeklyViewingSummary?_s=4


@blackjaques, are you elluding to Ofcom's PIN research, which states that the BARB viewing figures for ages 11-17 "declines dramatically after midnight"? To put this in context, 26% of people aged 11-17 in homes with subscription channels claim to be watchng after 11pm - this figure then "declines dramatically after midnight"...

Actually, folks, this little section on viewing figures makes for some startling reading in light of what Ofcom allow $ky movies to show after 8pm....

Ofcom: Research into the Effectiveness of PIN Protection Systems in the UK (2005) Wrote:The number of children watching TV post watershed every day/most days drops off significantly as the evening progresses, with 66% watching post 9pm and 23% watching post 11pm.

Analysis of BARB viewing data for this age group also shows a relatively high level of viewing in the 2300– 2400 slot, which declines dramatically post midnight.

70% of the children interviewed claimed their household subscribed to premium subscription channels at home.

Within premium subscription households, the vast majority (86%) of children are watching these subscription channels.
• 11 – 15 year olds are significantly more likely to be watching premium subscription channels in households with access than 16 – 17 year olds (88% cf. 78%)
• Males are significantly more likely to be watching premium subscription channels in households with access than females (91% cf. 80%)

(emphesis added)

Are Ofcom really protecting the under 18s from more 'adult' material?

Don't you just love hypocrisy!

Yes, I am Ian. I believe that Ofcom have used the term "premium subscription channels" to encompass adult channels as well when asking young people the question "Do you watch premium subscription channels". Young people would take it to mean Sky movies, Sky sports, Box Office etc.
I firmly believe that Ofcom have no evidence of where households subscribe to adult channels that the parents are allowing their children to watch these programmes. I didn't believe it back in 2004 & I don't believe it today.
It's all a con to stop explicit sex on UK tv. They just don't want it at all and no-one at the moment can do anything about it.

I had to read the quote several times before understanding it. What Ofcom seems to be saying is that Dads are more likely than Mums to shell out money for Pay Per View boxing matches/football/box office films. Well there's a surprise. In most households the reality is that the man holds the purse, whatever feminists may wish for. (I'm not saying that's right, just that it is. No letters please).

Second they seem to be saying that if Dad shells out the money, the family actually watch to program. Well there's a surprise.

But older teens are more likely to be developing a life of their own and not sit quietly in the corner watching Dads hobby. Sur-prise.

Finally as blackjaques says, they conflate Odeon-equivalent PPV with Adult premium services, either out of deliberate malign intent to harm an entire industry sector through a misleading document or plain old incompetence. Of course I could be wrong, but I don't have 2-6 hours to read the research.

Of course we should expect nothing less from a statutory regulator with Court-type powers that is pathologically incapable of using the term "encryption" correctly. Almost all Free-To-View channels on Sky are encrypted - no viewing card = no view. It's to protect copyright material against foreigners who would use it to make cheeze and garlic.

Finally a quick look at tonight's viewing. Hamburger Hill is showing without restriction on Five (started 11:05pm) and contains graphic violence from the start, much of it realistic and involving gun use. "30 Days of Night" is the gory vampire movie showing on Channel 4 (10:30pm start).

Would you feel happier knowing that disturbed violent inner city teenagers were watching these, or consentual sex?

One more quick point. Nowhere in the enabling legislation are sex or bad language singled out for special treatment. I am not aware of any research that justifies this. Yet Ofcom only ever applies the term "Generally Accepted Standards" [GAS] to sex and swearing and commissions special research into accepability. Yes, it has researched the effect of violence on children, but that is not the same acceptability. GAS should also apply to amount of ad breaks, adverts for tampons, condoms, gambling, shows featuring gambling, premium rate quizzes, political bias ...

(07-03-2010 17:41 )IanG Wrote:  ...

Ofcom: Research into the Effectiveness of PIN Protection Systems in the UK (2005) Wrote:...

70% of the children interviewed claimed their household subscribed to premium subscription channels at home.

Within premium subscription households, the vast majority (86%) of children are watching these subscription channels.
• 11 – 15 year olds are significantly more likely to be watching premium subscription channels in households with access than 16 – 17 year olds (88% cf. 78%)
• Males are significantly more likely to be watching premium subscription channels in households with access than females (91% cf. 80%)

Interesting how, in those four statements, the subjects are children, children, (11-15 year-old) children, then males.

It's almost like they're wanting people to infer that teenage boys (under 16, significantly) are watching *particular* 'subscription channels'

They've picked statistics which suit their case, and been vague about definitions - in the first three statements a good proportion of the respondents could be easily be girls, but by tacking on the final statistic, they've focused the reader toward boys; also, as discussed, they've not stated what they mean by 'premium subscription channels'

Given the current media obsession with disaffected male youth (knife crime, potential joblessness etc.) it's a powerful and seductive tactic. Sneaky.

There AREN'T any sexually explicit programmes on UK television, it's breasts, breasts and breasts, the Sun page3 on TV.This country is the most sexually repressed country of all the developed countries in Europe. We have regulations for this and regulations for that, it's now even illegal for 16 and 17 year old girls to expose their babs in media content, we have internet spy centres, GCHQ, CEOP and for TV OFCOM, these are just the tip of the iceberg. Control, control, control; controlled allowance is the watchword of the UK's Nanny State, we are all treated like the so called children (many of whom are murders and gang members) bless them. Hypocrasy reigns!

Ofcom's latest bulletin (153) is being discussed at BACVA (see link in my signature)

NO!!!!!

(08-03-2010 13:26 )SOCATOA Wrote:  NO!!!!!

No what?

(08-03-2010 13:28 )StanTheMan Wrote:  

(08-03-2010 13:26 )SOCATOA Wrote:  NO!!!!!

No what?

Dont get me started Stan. Lets just say i think Ofcom is a pathetic out dated so called censor watchdog. Staffed with people who should have been pensioned off years ago. Will that do for starters Stan?

(08-03-2010 14:13 )SOCATOA Wrote:  Dont get me started Stan. Lets just say i think Ofcom is a pathetic out dated so called censor watchdog. Staffed with people who should have been pensioned off years ago. Will that do for starters Stan?

That's fine. I just thought the 'No!' was a straight refusal to visit the campaign blog.

(08-03-2010 13:28 )StanTheMan Wrote:  

(08-03-2010 13:26 )SOCATOA Wrote:  NO!!!!!

No what?

No Sir would be fine.