Ofcom stoops to a new low.

arron88 · 25-06-2010 13:41

(25-06-2010 00:07 )amandasnumerounofan Wrote: Like the government will listen. Mine, like most of you, is to cut the funding of Ofcom.

How much do you propose they get per year? Give us a number.

blackjaques · 25-06-2010 23:19

(25-06-2010 13:41 )arron88 Wrote:
(25-06-2010 00:07 )amandasnumerounofan Wrote: Like the government will listen. Mine, like most of you, is to cut the funding of Ofcom.

How much do you propose they get per year? Give us a number.

arron88, most of us on this site dislike your organisation for one reason and one alone; their continuing persecution of the sexual entertainment industry on UK television. Because of this you get reactions like you see on here i.e wanting to close Ofcom down.

I think you do need a regulator for TV in this country and Ofcom could be that very organisation if it weren't for their ridiculous stance against both the Babe channels and the encrypted services.

A fair and, dare I say it, adult approach to this subject and you may get a fair and adult response when asking questions about your guys' future.

Ofcom are a TV regulator, not the social services.

KateP · 26-06-2010 02:15

what I don't get is ofcom get a complaint and they ask the show what was happening and I am guessing the show sends them a tape of it to show what happened so why still punish them if you know the complaint is a load of rubbish is it not there job to take on both sides and make a fair decision

eccles · 27-06-2010 01:58

(25-06-2010 13:41 )arron88 Wrote:
(25-06-2010 00:07 )amandasnumerounofan Wrote: Like the government will listen. Mine, like most of you, is to cut the funding of Ofcom.

How much do you propose they get per year? Give us a number.

Arron88, rather than just disagreeing with people, why don't you make some concrete suggestions that people can discuss? Are you seriously saying that Ofcom are OK as they are, or do you think they shoulf change.

Don't PM me, this is for open discussion.

IanG · 27-06-2010 02:48

eccles, the only type of shows Ofcom are required to give special attention are religious - 319(2)(e) iirc.

I don't know if anyone else has seen the old ITC/BSC "The Public's View" annual reports from 1996 to 2002? If these ever surface again there's a question about adult services (usually around no. 72 or 73 iirc (varies year on year)) which asks "Should people who pay more to see paricularly sexually explicit material be allowed to do so?". EVERY YEAR at least 75% of a random sample of 1000+ people said they agreed, with can you believe, around 40% agreeing STRONGLY (5% more than the plain 'agreers'). Only 22% - the moral minorty - ever disagreed.

Just where Ofcom got the notion sexual material needed special attention I guess we'll never know. What I do know is R18 was almost a dead cert until one completely censored meeting when an unknown figure gave some unknown information to the Board and from that point on the whole Code changed and Ofcom's attitide to R18 did a U-turn. I can't quite remeber how long the FoI request for these minutes took - months followed by more months after raising the issue with the FoIC. When we (Ofwatch) finally got them they were quite literally all redacted and blacked-out save for the date and title "in the interests of keeping the public in the dark".

I know I was a bit angry and mixed-up when I wrote my piece last week but when I said "you can take your anti-porn bee in your bonnet and shove it...", I had good reason.

It is at best the British "no sex please" clap trap. It's the old dozen monkey's trick. We don't know why the Brits have a thing about porn and sex, all we know is we're supposed to have a thing about it - unless you break your brainwashing.

eccles · 28-06-2010 00:04

Interesting, the ITC has an established methodology and body of research in favour of porn that it's successor chooses to ignore.

Freedom of Information
I know you have been down this road, but some exemptions are time limited.
A quick look at the Department for Constituional Affairs website suggests these examptions might apply:
Section 36 - Conduct of Public Affairs: Policy making relies on free and frank discussion, and this could be inhibited if every debate was published.
This exemption is public interest tested, and the sensitivity of publication may fade over time.
Section 40 - Other people's personal information. Pretty debatable whether this covers the name of an employee or guest, rather than information about them. The test is would it be covered under the Data Protection Act. This is an absolute.
Section 41 - Information supplied in confidence, for example turnover and cost breakdowns. This is an absolute.
Section 43 - Commercial interests - Information that would damage the business of any person, for example the channels might theoretically supply information about what they pay their models, or how many subscribers they have.
Subject to public interest test.
This makes it difficult to argue that information several years out of date would still damage someone's business.

I have heard that the Information Commissioner has ruled that most exeptions do not apply for ever. What was sensitive 5 years ago is unlikely to be sensitive now. It can be worth revisiting the requests.

I hestitate to mention MediaWatch, but in their consultation response to BCAP TV advertising rules, they state that 9 million men in the UK have used porn websites in the past year (2009?). They equate this to 40% of the adult male population. They also say that 1.4 million women were users of pornography on the Internet. This does not support the argument that porn is unusual or likely to cause offence to the majority of people. (To be fair, they also say increasing numbers of children access web porn - an argument for effective filtering software and parental supervision). MediaWatch BCAP Advertising Review Response

~~pewack1976~~ · 28-06-2010 09:14

(26-06-2010 02:15 )KateP Wrote: what I don't get is ofcom get a complaint and they ask the show what was happening and I am guessing the show sends them a tape of it to show what happened so why still punish them if you know the complaint is a load of rubbish is it not there job to take on both sides and make a fair decision

i cant see what the problem is hun ?
if you put the channels into the 900`s then you should be prepared and expect these oops or blunders,i wait eagerly for them Big Grin

so the people who watch shouldn`t be suprised if a girls boob falls out or something ?
i mean,didn`t god think it was a good idea for us men to admire you womens beauty ? i just think ofcom and the shows are a little unfair with what ive seen go on in the past to what happens now,daytime veiwing was amazing at 1 time and i really enjoyed watching the sexy girls having a laugh but now its all too controlled and the tit tape they wear looks dreadful and so unattractive its beyond beleif....
and now nearly everyones wearing nipple pads i just think its a disaster
for the simple reason,one day everyone will get pissed off[pardon the french] and just stop watching the shows completely and then they will all cease to be which is a shame coz theyre something a bit different from the usually crap on telly Huh

,anyway,i still have fond memories of a few girls who i`d like to give a shout out,savanna holly & ani james...
tj,danni/lucy/elle/lori/lynzey/emma-s/heveanly aswel as danica/alice/AMBER ?/ava/alisa/jenny badeu all the girls are great but these girls where my favourites and it would be totally awsome having them all back on during the daytimes Sad

carmen/denni/samantha/ the list of gorgeous babes just goes on & on really ....so its sad and i miss them all loads

Gold Plated Pension · 28-06-2010 22:49

eccles wrote

GPP: "Ofcom were not given any additional resources when they were given this responsibility"
~ I had not realised until last week that Ofcom are industry funded through compulsory fees. In theory that gives them tremendous scope to fund a huge organisation (except during current cuts). Be afraid. Be very afraid.
[EDIT] Curious. The Communications Act 2003 empowers Ofcom to raise fees for telecom and broadcasting licencing purposes. But not Digital Economy. So either they potentially have unlimited fee raising powers as I speculated above, or Digital Economy is not covered and any spending on it is illegal. Hmm.

Where government, either local or central through licensing or otherwise raises finance these would normally be 'ring fenced' to support that service either through admin costs, enforcement, education, infrastructure (speed camera's/humps) etc. Sometimes authorities can get around this legal requirement through creative accounting or some sort of association with that service.

This would be the case with Ofcom and the Digital Economy Act if the DEA only dealt with ISP's but it does not.

The Digital Economy Act 2010 makes reference to and amends the Communications Act 2003 as well as repealing certain sections of both the Broadcasting Act 1990 and Communications Act 2003.

It deals in part with Radio and Broadcasing, section 37, in relation to substitution of part of section 263 of the CA 2003.

So Ofcom may be acting lawfully if they indeed go ahead and start enforcing under the DEA against ISP's, but they do not want to and have proposed that the industry self-regulates.

"Our first task will be to establish the feasibility of an industry drafted code," Ofcom said.

"Such a code would need to have the support of a sufficiently wide range of stakeholders for it to be credible and would need to be submitted to Ofcom within a period of time to satisfy the deadline for implementation."

Ofcom said if this failed, the watchdog would "move quickly to draft an appropriate code on which we will seek input from all stakeholders".

and we know how much of a ball's up that would be from past experience.

A useful link to follow progress is the ISP Review web page.

http://www.ispreview.co.uk/

KateP · 29-06-2010 01:08

(28-06-2010 09:14 )pewack1976 Wrote:
(26-06-2010 02:15 )KateP Wrote: what I don't get is ofcom get a complaint and they ask the show what was happening and I am guessing the show sends them a tape of it to show what happened so why still punish them if you know the complaint is a load of rubbish is it not there job to take on both sides and make a fair decision

i cant see what the problem is hun ?
if you put the channels into the 900`s then you should be prepared and expect these oops or blunders,i wait eagerly for them so the people who watch shouldn`t be suprised if a girls boob falls out or something ?
i mean,didn`t god think it was a good idea for us men to admire you womens beauty ? i just think ofcom and the shows are a little unfair with what ive seen go on in the past to what happens now,daytime veiwing was amazing at 1 time and i really enjoyed watching the sexy girls having a laugh but now its all too controlled and the tit tape they wear looks dreadful and so unattractive its beyond beleif....
and now nearly everyones wearing nipple pads i just think its a disaster
for the simple reason,one day everyone will get pissed off[pardon the french] and just stop watching the shows completely and then they will all cease to be which is a shame coz theyre something a bit different from the usually crap on telly ,anyway,i still have fond memories of a few girls who i`d like to give a shout out,savanna holly & ani james...
tj,danni/lucy/elle/lori/lynzey/emma-s/heveanly aswel as danica/alice/AMBER ?/ava/alisa/jenny badeu all the girls are great but these girls where my favourites and it would be totally awsome having them all back on during the daytimes carmen/denni/samantha/ the list of gorgeous babes just goes on & on really ....so its sad and i miss them all loads

but is that not the point there was no slip there was boob out or anything like that the girl was covered

eccles · 30-06-2010 03:13

Oh, but Ofcom say that someone might have mistakenly thought that the woman was naked.

A woman some distance away from the camera shown on a fuzzy picture.

I sometimes think that Kate Silverton is naked from the waist down while reading the News. I know I would be in this heat. Should the BBC be fined?

And when a couple are having a romp under the sheets in a play or film, I somethink it's real sex. Have you seen "Don't Look Now"? Skins? Desperate Housewives?

Let's have some consistency.

Threaded Mode \| Linear Mode Ofcom stoops to a new low.
Author	Message