Is Ofcom Fit For Purpose

More inconsistency! Seems like Ofcom are not too keen to take on the biggger boys in the playground.

No 'This Morning' Investigation

Feckin cheek! Didn't realise until I went back to read the atricle that you have to be a paid up member to read the whole thing. How dare they try and make us pay for public news? I've searched for the story elswhere but so far no luck. All the links point to site I've linked to.

If anyone finds the story elsewhere, pass it on, would you?

UPDATE: Very odd. I've just followed another link to the story on the broadcastnow website, and this time I was given more much info. Don't know if it's the full story, but certainly more than the headline the other link provides.

Story in full??

gray warden, Stan and I are trying to pull together a new poll which will hopefully allow the viewers here to state exactly what we expect on these channels.

Unlike Ofcom, we understand that there are a wide range of tastes and opinions. Appeasing the lowest of the low as Ofcom choose is not in anyone's interest, indeed, it is insulting to the broad-minded, liberal souls that make up the vast majority of the British public.

There are however limits - where those limits are is what I hope to discover and present to Ofcom as the "voice of the viewers".

As a rough outline I expect people to say topless is fine after 21:00-21:30, full nude after 22:00, some flashing and perhaps pretend rubbing after 23:00. I don't think full on hardcore will ever be on FTA channels but something far sexier and sexy than is presently 'allowed' by mein frurer Ofcom is most certainly the will and view of the people. If the no. of under 18s viewing after midnight is almost nil, then after midnight there should be no bloody restrictions on what the girls get up to - IF its what they want to do to please their customers. And here's the thing - if these channels are indeed selling a product or service then that service has, by law, to be FIT FOR PURPOSE. In terms of sexual gratification, what is 'fit for purpose' is entirely dependant upon the customer's needs, their fantasies, their imagination. And IF the customer wants to see the 'full-frontal monty' then it is Ofcom who are denying the product's requirement to be fit for the customer's purpose.

There is no proper 'adult' material on TV because Ofcom have failed spectacularly in their duty to protect children and so only allow sexual material fit for kids to be broadcast. That's the truth of it.

As I've tried to make clear elsewhere, only IF real adult material were on 'adult' channels would parents/guardians actually make sure the children in their charge were properly protected from anything they themselves deem harmful or offensive. Ofcom's claim to be protecting 'vulnerable children' is completely false and without foundation. Quite literally anyone who wants to abuse children is free to do so whether Ofcom impose censorship on TV or not - FACT. Abusers can access hardcore 'grooming materials' direct from the internet or any high street sex shop (if indeed, that's what they do/use...?!). Ofcom's resistence is futile, illegal, wrong, evil, incompentent, disingeuous, insulting, purile, sycophantic, undemocratic, shameful and pathetic. Ofcom are clearly not fit for purpose for they have no other purpose than to unnecessarily interfere with everyone's right to share information and ideas freely. And if this is the Government's best idea for protecting children then we desparately need a whole new fucking means of Government because this system clearly isn't fit for purpose either - indeed, they haven't got a fucking clue and peddle all the same old tried and failed bullshit from years gone by.

(14-03-2010 16:02 )Chilly Wrote:  The foot fetish guys really do get some great wank material by watching these shows, especially during the daytime. Don't tell Ofcom that though.

Hey Chilly some of the best slips happen while the cameraman is concentrating on the feet and not watching whats happening at the other end. But I think we are getting off the subject here

(17-03-2010 11:09 )Kenilo Wrote:  ... But I think we are getting off the subject here

Yup, the original idea was to provide a single reference point containing examples of Ofcom's inconsistency and illogicallity. Who knows, one day someone might quote their own words back at them in a stanards case.

When conducting so-called "research" into audience expectations, acceptability and risk to children, there is one major area of well documented evidence that they have totally failed to take into account.

Ofcom.

And their predecessor, the ITC.

They have years of evidence about exactly how many complaints babeshows generate and how this compares with mainstream broadcasters. Exactly how many parents write in and say their kids have accessed shows, both free-to-air and encrypted. They even have evidence from multiple years when FTA and encrypted shows were much more explicit. Instead they go out and get 158 people (2005 report) or 169 people (2009) in shopping centres (2005 report) and show them a handful of clips.

I'm serious, willfully neglecting the mountain of evidence they have in their own filing cabinets is grounds for rejecting their "research".

Good Point H-H.They probably had more actual complaints about those two blokes that killed and ate a rat on Im A Celebrity Get Me Out of Here than in all the years of the babe channels. And how many did they get after Jade Goody let loose with that infamous rascist rant on big brother. now that was more offensive than anything that you will see on the babe channels. You only have to watch a live football match and you will see an abundance of foul language and gesturing with the fingers being hurled at opposing fans and players. Do the TV Stations get fined for broadcasting that in the middle of the day when there are actually children watching?

In Broadcast Bulletin 151 (8 Feb 2010) Ofcom complained bitterly that BangBabes has taken a previous Ofcom ruling as justification for showing stronger content after 10pm. Here is what they said: “Ofcom is also particularly concerned that the Licensee appears to have formed this view based on Ofcom's published decision regarding 'Bang Babes, Tease Me 2, 17 March 2008; 21:0022:00' (Broadcast Bulletin Issue number 120, 27 October 2008), which states that such content in that particular broadcast was not suitable before 22:00. In Ofcom's opinion by stating content is not suitable before a particular time does not therefore suggest it is automatically acceptable to broadcast later.”.

So exactly what positive guidance has Ofcom given in the past about what is permitted after certain times?

Bear with me if the quotes are a bit long, I am trying to quote Ofcom's own guidance in context in exactly their own words. It's worth it to see what they say IS acceptable.

First there is the Broadcast Code itself. Section 1.18 explicitly permits encrypted channels to show “adult-sex” material after 10pm. That is more explicit material up to 18 certificate strength, deliberately intended for sexual arousal (but not R18 hardcore). It is a perfectly reasonable inference that Ofcom believe this time has some significance, and if it is acceptable to show “adult-sex” material on PIN protected channels from 10pm, then free-to-air channels can also take a step up, particularly as Ofcom themselves believe that PIN-protection is weak.

Then there is Broadcast Bulletin 60, published way back on 15 May 2006, that contained a ruling against a trailer for More4 broadcast on E4 at ten minutes past midnight. The trailer was sandwiched between two programmes with adult content, and was a humorous attempt to highlight that More4 would have more “adult”, ie “serious” content. The promotion, which lasted nearly a minute, started with two women, wearing only thongs, kissing, fondling and embracing each other. As they lay on a bed, they engaged in foreplay. the images were not explicit or graphic, they simply showed two women engaging intimately. Ofcom itself described the content thus “The scenes of “foreplay” between the two women were detailed - as one woman lay between the other’s legs, there were close-ups of her crotch as well as of the other’s naked breasts”.

The entire basis for finding More4 in breach was that viewers could have no likely expectation of what they would see, unlike a drama where there are warnings and a plot build up to sex scenes. In Breach of Section 2.3 (Generally Accepted Standards).

Interestingly, in it’s Decision Ofcom said “While the images were certainly sexually strong in the context of a trailer, they were not as explicit as would be expected under encryption on “adult entertainment” channels. In itself, the imagery was not of a nature that could be described as unacceptable for transmission on a channel like E4 after midnight.”

So here is a clear ruling by Ofcom, that after midnight it is acceptable to show “two women, wearing only thongs, kissing, fondling and embracing each other. As they lay on a bed, they engaged in foreplay … two women were partially naked, the images were not explicit or graphic … simply showed two women engaging intimately … While the images were certainly sexually strong in the context of a trailer, they were not as explicit as would be expected under encryption on “adult entertainment” channels. In itself, the imagery was not of a nature that could be described as unacceptable for transmission on a channel like E4 after midnight. … The scenes of “foreplay” between the two women were detailed - as one woman lay between the other’s legs, there were close-ups of her crotch as well as of the other’s naked breasts.” (light italic text from E4 submission, bold from Ofcom Decision).
… only subject to Rule 2.3 “Generally Accepted Standards”. Ofcom says this strength material is not a breach of Rule 1.17 (R18) or 1.18 (“Adult-sex material”). Give it context and warnings and it is OK.

Very interesting read!

So they can show 18 after a certain time, but not hardcore. OK, so what is considered hardcore to them? They state that the two fondling women in thongs with exposed breasts IS in fact fine and not 18 rated, but they can't show fully nude women DURING the 18 rated time? Maybe I read that wrong, but that's very backwards on their behalf. Fully nude to me and most people is 18, but not hardcore. They won't even abide by their own guidelines!

Lame.

(08-03-2010 01:15 )H-H Wrote:  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?

Ron Jeremy had a few things to say about "violent video games" a couple months ago... http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8453043.stm

I can understand him wanting to stick up for the porn industry, and he does make some valid points... However, I think a lot of people misunderstand the "stigma" that regulators like OFCOM have towards hardcore porn...

For example, in the films you mention, nobody really gets shot in Hamburger Hill... Josh Hartnett doesn't really chop off that Vampires head with an Axe, in graphic detail, in 30 Days Of Night. Everyone obviously understands that it's staged, and they're all "acting". If it wasn't, then they would be considered "snuff films". The same thing applies with video games...

Now with porn, this is when the problems start... Even though most porn is "scripted" like they're all acting, the actual hardcore scenes are "real". In Miss Badcock's "Blowbang" for example, six guys all fuck her mouth and spunk on her face for real. That's the main problem OFCOM have with it, so they don't compare them favourably with regular films.

OFCOM's line in the sand is far too conservative though, and I agree with most people who think it's bullshit... They are after all "consenting adults".

You make an interesting distinction but to be honest Ofcom are even affronted by scenarios that are obviously simulated.

Time after time you read in their salacious reports that e.g. 'the female presenter, scantily clad in a minuscule thong, appeared to simulate fellatio'.

So when something's obviously mimed (especially given that there's no man on the bed with the presenter!) it's still offensive to Ofcom. There's just no pleasing them.