Is it time for a mass attack on OFCOM?

(03-10-2010 15:08 )Dan Volatile Wrote:  

(03-10-2010 03:39 )bobek Wrote:  Cameron won't touch Ofcom. Take a look at the Directorships held / previously held by the board members. How many of those (mostly Blue Chip) companies are contributors to the Conservative party i wonder ?

The current Chief Executive of Ofcom is Ed Richards who formerly worked as an "advisor" to both Tony Blair and Gordon Brown.

Quango board members are appointed by ministers so after thirteen years of Labour government many of these quangocrats will be Labour Party lickspittles and fellow travellers.

41. Ed Richards
19 Jul 2010: Job: chief executive, Ofcom
Age: 44
Industry: regulation
Staff:
Salary: £392,056 (total remuneration)
2009 ranking: 22

http://www.ofcom.org.uk/about/ofcom-in-t...d-regions/

I've said it before that ofcom's job and only job should be to make sure that the customer is treated fairly, for example when sky pulled one their channels off the virgin media epg a couple of years ago ofcom quite rightly go involved and demanded that sky 1 be put back into the virgin media epg as they deemed that the customers were being treated unfairly over financial disputes over the 2 companies, that was fair enough, however as far as censorship go's ofcom has on a number of occasions violated this. A sex line channel should justify its context by doing exactly what it says and not being censored. All box's these days have the capability of blocking any channels that the Parent/Guardian doesn't want their youngsters to see. If I worked for ofcom thats how I would deal with these complaints I would give clear and concise instructions over the phone on how to implement these procedures and also explain to the complainer that under a democratic state all channels and subjects on tv must be tolerated and catered for. If these changes were in place I would imagine that the number of complaints to ofcom would quickly dry up.

(03-10-2010 17:16 )Mister_Gee Wrote:  Ready for the spanner boys? What if the girls do not want to perform to this level?

They go work for a channel that doesn't go 'all the way', yet still finds a means of enticing the customer (like a reduced tariff). Some strippers and dancers don't want to lose it all for their audience, so they go and work in places that have a topless but not fully-nude license. It's that simple.

Missing key events. Talking bollocks. Making stuff up.
~~~SAVE THE KRILL!~~~

(03-10-2010 19:43 )Scottishbloke Wrote:  I've said it before that ofcom's job and only job should be to make sure that the customer is treated fairly, for example when sky pulled one their channels off the virgin media epg a couple of years ago ofcom quite rightly go involved and demanded that sky 1 be put back into the virgin media epg as they deemed that the customers were being treated unfairly over financial disputes over the 2 companies, that was fair enough, however as far as censorship go's ofcom has on a number of occasions violated this. A sex line channel should justify its context by doing exactly what it says and not being censored. All box's these days have the capability of blocking any channels that the Parent/Guardian doesn't want their youngsters to see. If I worked for ofcom thats how I would deal with these complaints I would give clear and concise instructions over the phone on how to implement these procedures and also explain to the complainer that under a democratic state all channels and subjects on tv must be tolerated and catered for. If these changes were in place I would imagine that the number of complaints to ofcom would quickly dry up.

No way should the same organisation set the rules, investigate, prosecute, pass sentence and hear appeals, but thats exactly what Ofcom does. Its like Parliament, the Police, Judge, Jury and Appeal Court rolled into one.

Remove Ofcoms right to decide on breech cases.

Remove Ofcoms right to determine penalties.

Remove Ofcoms right to hear appeals.

Just leave them with policy formation and investigation ("Police" but not "Judge & Jury"). Also reform their internal procudures to remove the bias.

Finally raise the threshold for complaints.

Until the above procedures are clearly separated under different management Ofcom isnot compliant with the Human Rights Act.

(03-10-2010 22:24 )eccles Wrote:  

(03-10-2010 19:43 )Scottishbloke Wrote:  I've said it before that ofcom's job and only job should be to make sure that the customer is treated fairly, for example when sky pulled one their channels off the virgin media epg a couple of years ago ofcom quite rightly go involved and demanded that sky 1 be put back into the virgin media epg as they deemed that the customers were being treated unfairly over financial disputes over the 2 companies, that was fair enough, however as far as censorship go's ofcom has on a number of occasions violated this. A sex line channel should justify its context by doing exactly what it says and not being censored. All box's these days have the capability of blocking any channels that the Parent/Guardian doesn't want their youngsters to see. If I worked for ofcom thats how I would deal with these complaints I would give clear and concise instructions over the phone on how to implement these procedures and also explain to the complainer that under a democratic state all channels and subjects on tv must be tolerated and catered for. If these changes were in place I would imagine that the number of complaints to ofcom would quickly dry up.

No way should the same organisation set the rules, investigate, prosecute, pass sentence and hear appeals, but thats exactly what Ofcom does. Its like Parliament, the Police, Judge, Jury and Appeal Court rolled into one.

Remove Ofcoms right to decide on breech cases.

Remove Ofcoms right to determine penalties.

Remove Ofcoms right to hear appeals.

Just leave them with policy formation and investigation ("Police" but not "Judge & Jury"). Also reform their internal procudures to remove the bias.

Finally raise the threshold for complaints.

Until the above procedures are clearly separated under different management Ofcom isnot compliant with the Human Rights Act.

Do you really believe we in Britain have any Human Rights.

That is not what our politicians think,

We, according to them are just underdogs for them to use as they wish.

what good is all out protest gonna do in this situation.

better just playing the slow game.

(11-01-2011 14:52 )nailpouchofmine Wrote:  Do you really believe we in Britain have any Human Rights.

That is not what our politicians think,

We, according to them are just underdogs for them to use as they wish.

You know what, this attitude gets up my nose.

I have several Czech friends and have visited the country a good few times. The stories their Parents & Grandparents have told me about living under Soviet & Nazi rule would make your hair stand on end.

Human rights have absolutely nothing to do with a few throw-away TV channels.

Well something needs to change. If I were able to vote on my poll again, regarding how the new rules have affected viewing, I would change from my original vote of 'Affected severley - hardly watch' to 'Totally - don't bother at all now'.

People keep saying that the nightshows haven't really been affected by these new rules, but that's a viewpoint I just don't get. Ofcom have always had a downer on pussy rubbing, but up until the new rules there were quite a few channels happy to allow their girls that particular pleasure, namely Bangbabes, Sport, and 'the one that cannot be mentioned'. Now, the girls are terrified to even hint at masturbation.

It's evident that these new rules have affected the nightshows just as much as the dayshows.

2011 and we're still waiting for change. There has to be just a change at the top of Ofcom at some point. Who's to say that in the future the Ofcom panel could be a lot more liberal minded as like any committee the personal change from year to year so even if we don't get rid of Ofcom maybe in the future they will show more support to these types of channels and instead of dishing out fines instead act in a more advisor type role and educate any concerned parents/guardians on how to block these channels from prying eyes. Yes I do agree to make any comparisons between what the Nazi state government acted like and this one a bit over the top. The fact of the matter is we should still be grateful that we live in a democracy and still have the right to freely state our opinions without fear. The only difference between us and the rest of Europe is we need to lighten up in regards to sex shows on the tv. These shows will continue to evolve but it's going to be a long road before all restrictions are removed completely to what you can and cannot show. After the Babestar Tv incident of 2006 and thus the channel having it's licence revoked followed a very long period of tight restrictions and only a few years back the models had to wear 2 pairs of granny pants as full nude was completely banned. At least now although now ideal we now get to see a tits and ass show so it's now all doom and gloom and thankfully Ofcom didn't go over the top after the Bangbabes situation and force the same restrictions as they had previously done to the channels directly after Babestar Tv's closure.

Is it time for a mass attack on Ofcom..?

Er.... no, in a word.

What possible good will that do to challenge a body which can't and won't be reasoned with?