Ofcom Discussion

Can someone explain how Virgin1 can show naked women on the naked office before 9pm and nobody says Booo and yet a simple slip on the babe channels gets hammered. Is it the fact that the babes on the channels have beautiful bodies and they dont want us to look at them while if someone is slightly out of shape thats OK??? what is the difference? Where do they draw the line as to what is causing harm? Why is full nudity Ok when it suits them and yet an accidental slip (which most of them probably are) is deemed offensive?

dont know. this annoys me as well when mainstream channels show nudity and ofcom pretty much say ok and yet the babechannels get hammered even though they dont get properly raunchy till well after the watershed

remember when channel 4 was doing naked life drawing earlier this year and had naked men and women posing full frontal and yet ofcom said it was fine

(30-05-2010 11:46 )Rammyrascal Wrote:  dont know. this annoys me as well when mainstream channels show nudity and ofcom pretty much say ok and yet the babechannels get hammered even though they dont get properly raunchy till well after the watershed

remember when channel 4 was doing naked life drawing earlier this year and had naked men and women posing full frontal and yet ofcom said it was fine

As has been said many times before, it’s to do with so-called editorial justification; sexual stimulation is not considered sufficient editorial justification for nudity, let alone real sex, to be broadcast, so adult entertainment gets hammered; I know, completely nonsensical, but this is Ofcon, and the wider, repressive, barley living in the 20th century, let alone the 21st, UK we are talking about: Sex in general, and adult entertainment in particlular, is evil, don’t you know, and must be treated as such; we can’t have anyone being offended, now, can we?

The BBFC are the same, which is why real sex in adult entertainment (sex works) receives an R18 (unless it is banned completely), whereas real sex in mainstream movies, documentaries etc. might be passed as an 18. This means that broadcasters can broadcast real sex on FTA channels, after the watershed, if it has an 18 certificate. R18, as we all know, is completely prohibited from broadcast.

Realistic but fake and highly illegal activities can be shown from 9pm with no access restrictions - tomorrows schedule has Rush Hour (gun violence, murder? theft? high sped car chases) on Five from 8pm and a slasher movie on The Horror Channel and that's just a boring old Monday. Violence, drug taking, armed robbery, torture, murder are all IMITABLE activities and ANTI-SOCIAL. You wouldn't want to find out that a cousin of your was involved.

But totally legal nudity or even sex is not permitted on TV, even though 99% of all respectable married couples have done it and quite a few teens have. And as the Times Saturday Supplement said last week, familiarity with the female anatomy is the best way of improving marital satisfaction. (Not female viagra).

(30-05-2010 11:12 )Kenilo Wrote:  Can someone explain how Virgin1 can show naked women on the naked office before 9pm and nobody says Booo and yet a simple slip on the babe channels gets hammered. Is it the fact that the babes on the channels have beautiful bodies and they dont want us to look at them while if someone is slightly out of shape thats OK??? what is the difference? Where do they draw the line as to what is causing harm? Why is full nudity Ok when it suits them and yet an accidental slip (which most of them probably are) is deemed offensive?

Well as I understand it (Btw I dont agree with this. Obviously registered adult stations like bangmedia etc should be allowed to show as hard content as they like. Seen as they are away in the channel line up from mainstream stations and parental control comes as standard with all sky boxes. Just this is how I understand the rules go). A naked women can be shown before 9pm, as long as there is no split legged open vagina showing/shots. Also no simulated sexual acts or actual sexual acts. A naked man can be shown before 9pm, as long as his penis is flaccid. Also with no simulated or sexual acts.

(30-05-2010 11:12 )Kenilo Wrote:  Can someone explain how Virgin1 can show naked women on the naked office before 9pm and nobody says Booo... ?

Many of these programs are transparent vehicles for sexual content on TV, thinly disguised as documentaries. Playboy used to argue that it's shows were "lifestyle" and in a different category from the babe channels. It hardly inspires confidence in Ofcom that they cannot see through a shallow pretence. (Unless of course a babe channel tries it).

(01-06-2010 01:23 )BigBen Wrote:  Well as I understand it (Btw I dont agree with this. Obviously registered adult stations like bangmedia etc should be allowed to show as hard content as they like. Seen as they are away in the channel line up from mainstream stations and parental control comes as standard with all sky boxes. Just this is how I understand the rules go). A naked women can be shown before 9pm, as long as there is no split legged open vagina showing/shots. Also no simulated sexual acts or actual sexual acts. A naked man can be shown before 9pm, as long as his penis is flaccid. Also with no simulated or sexual acts.

Not quite, nudity is still supposed to exceptional, and to need a good reason, doubly so if there is any chance of kids watching. Still, a documentary about nudie painting (C4 Life Class), a comedy about misdirecting a nudie painting class (FaceJacker, E4), any scene in a non-porn film (orgy scene disrupted by police crashing through roof - Dirty Harry) is considered justification. Provided it is occasional.

The boss of communications watchdog Ofcom, Ed Richards is on a reported renumeration package worth £392,056. This is some 22 times the £18,000 salary of his lowest-paid staff, approx 700 staff.

David Cameron pledged earlier this year that no public sector boss should earn more than 20 times the salary of the lowest-paid worker was coupled with a promise of a review ‘to investigate pay inequality in the public sector’.

He also pledged to look at quango's in general so his minister Jeremy Hunt should now start this process and not concentrate wholly on the olympic delivery, otherwise it's going to be another two years before we see any action.

Ofcom today find themselves in the High Court to defend their 'Generally Accepted Standards' and 'Offensive Material' policy following a ruling they made against an interview carried out by radio presenter John Gaunt.

Gaunt was presenting TalkSport in November 2008 when during a live interview with councillor Michael Stark about Redbridge Council's decision to prevent smokers from becoming foster parents accused him of being a "Nazi", a "health Nazi" and an "ignorant pig".

A total of 53 complaints were received by Ofcom who decided in May 2009 that Gaunt had breached Generally Accepted Standards.

The ruling is in Ofcom Broadcast Bulliten number 133 dated 11th May 2009.

http://www.ofcom.org.uk/tv/obb/prog_cb/o...sue133.pdf

Following this ruling Gaunt lost his job at TalkSport but won the right in January 2010 to judicial review the Ofcom decision with the backing of Liberty, a human rights and civil liberties organisation.

Gaunt also found an unlikely backer in Shami Chakrabarti, the director of Liberty, whom he once branded "Britain's most dangerous woman".

Chakrabarti attended the hearing, and said afterwards that the case was a very significant test of free speech in Britain.

"This is not about one journalist and one politician," she said. "There is a big principle here. People do not have the right not to be offended. It's a very dangerous right to assert."

She said it was "a chilling moment" when Ofcom's barrister argued that Gaunt's interview did not represent "political speech". "Ofcom needs to wear its power with a little more humility," she added.

Gaunt himself criticised Ofcom as an unnecessary regulator that curbed freedom of expression. "We don't need Ofcom, we have got an off switch," he said. "We have a draconian, unelected, expensive to run quango of do-gooders who can stand there and say 'this is good taste and decency'. We don't need them

The review is set to last two days and it will be very interesting to see what evidence Ofcom presents to defend it's decision, especially when they have just relaxed their stance on offensive language following a consultation of just 130 people.

If i had been aware of this case last week i would have happily taken two days off work and made the twenty minute journey from my office to the High Court to listen to the evidence and Ofcom's justification.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/jun...port-ofcom

I for one fully support Gaunt's view of Ofcom and people's ability to use the off switch.

Watch this space it may have more impact on Ofcom's code than just the right of free speech.

(30-05-2010 11:12 )Kenilo Wrote:  Can someone explain how Virgin1 can show naked women on the naked office before 9pm and nobody says Booo and yet a simple slip on the babe channels gets hammered. Is it the fact that the babes on the channels have beautiful bodies and they dont want us to look at them while if someone is slightly out of shape thats OK??? what is the difference? Where do they draw the line as to what is causing harm? Why is full nudity Ok when it suits them and yet an accidental slip (which most of them probably are) is deemed offensive?

Yes, I think I CAN answer your first question, Kenilo. Ofcom are BIGOTS and HYPOCRITES acting without ANY Judicial Oversight to ENSURE OUR RIGHTS as GUARANTEED and PROTECTED BY The Crown ARE being RESPECTED - simple really. We are BEING OPPRESSED, indeed, REPRESSED...BECAUSE someone NEGLECTED to put a leash round Ofcom's neck. They've gone Colonel Kurtz.

This is entirely Tony Bliar's (SIC) New Labour Government's fault because they didn't give a fig about our Rights, Lives and Liberties. That, or, they were so incompetent or ignorant it never crossed the mind of MPs (Yes, that's YOU, Parliament, as a WHOLE) that they are to SERVE IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST. However, NL had the Parliamentary MAJORITY so it was in their power to act as DICTATORS, because the remainder - the minority - of Parliament couldn't stop them. We can check the records of the voting OF COURSE (I haven't as I'm not sure I care but I might like to know who it was did this if we cannot free ourselves from this TYRANNY). What's done is done. No point crying over spilt milk.

RIGHT! Ofcom.

Ofcom rule TV land, NOT ENGLAND. You do NOT get to tell ANY OF US what to DO, Ofcom - WE PAY YOUR WAGES and I'm about to get YOU FIRED!

Your game is UP, Ofcom!

I am going to make you face the LAW Ofcom and explain to the highest possible Court what it is in your poxy legislation that you BELIEVE gives YOU any Right WHATSOEVER to tell any of us what we 'MUST DO' and where we 'MUST BE' to watch or record a programme we want to watch, and indeed, may have paid to watch.

Get OUT of MY HOME, MY LIFE, MY VIEWING CHOICES or so help me Ofcom I will see you slung in jail for TREASON.

What does "adequate" mean?

Is too little, adequate?
Is just enough, adequate?
Is totally over the top, adequate?

Just enough IS the definition of ADEQUATE, Ofcom! Do you possess a dictionary? Better yet, Ofcom, why don't YOU ask a Court of Law (who make sure you FOLLOW the LAW that GOVERNS YOU) what ADEQUATE means? Ask what ADEQUATE PROTECTION means too, Ofcom. The Court is your God and the Comms Act your Bible, Ofcom - they CREATED YOU OUT OF THIN AIR and, I'd suspect it may be only a formality to make you disappear again - especially if you'd betrayed some form of trust with your masters.

Yes you tyrannical pissants - THE LAW IS COMING FOR YOU, Ofcom!

I did WARN YOU.

Here's what Ofcom's favourite clause says that Ofcom, that is OFCOM, are SUPPOSED to DO with regard to drawing up their Code according to the law:

319(2)(f) that generally accepted standards are applied to the contents of television and radio services so as to provide adequate protection for members of the public from the inclusion in such services of offensive and harmful material;

YOU, Ofcom, CANNOT interpret this clause as you see fit. You follow it to the letter or YOU aren't conforming to YOUR SPECIFICATION. And REGULATORS that don't conform exactly to the specification are usually returned to factory as a REJECT. Offensive and harmful material is that which is offensive and harmful material. It is NOT that which may cause harm or offence, it is offensive and harmful material, FULL STOP! It is the type of material we'd rather not speak about. It is so vile evil and/or repulsive that it satisfies BOTH criteria simultaneously. THE LAW, Ofcom, says offensive and harmful material and THAT is the only interpretation that there is...it is, as I hope you've gathered by now, THE LAW. Which, BY THE WAY, GOVERNS YOU, Ofcom! NOT ME or anyone else in this LAND.

Who do YOU think YOU are? Some god? Oh yes, you do of course, don't you with your abilities to see into thousands of people's feelings and expectations. PUKE.

What would be "adequate protection"...for something that's been declared to pose an insignificant risk to children by The Royal Courts of Justice in the shape of Her Majesty's High Court of England and Wales?

The Answer is: NIL! Ofcom.

Remember Ofcom YOUR tatty piece of Legislation ONLY has any Legal Force by grace of Her Royal Majesty and that Legal Force IS THE LAW. Remember the Court and the LAW is YOUR God and YOU have totally DISOBEYED IT AND a High Court RULING - i.e. a RULES OF LAW.

Penny dropping?

The Courts will tear you to shreds Ofcom - they're coming NOW. You are TRAITORS to the People of this Nation AND the Rule of Law.

Pray tell, Ofcom, WHERE did you go to get your "generally accepted standards" (plural) to APPLY in your Code to PROVIDE that "adequate protection" we've ALREADY established is TOTALLY UNNECESSARY...according to the LAW?

Do you know what the DEFINITION of a 'generally accepted standard' IS according to a Court of Law, Ofcom? It's what THE LAW says it means that matters Ofcom - NONE OF US have to give a toss what you BELIEVE it 'might be' - The LAW DECIDES - get it? NOT YOU pissant.

Did you ask the Law what constitutes "offensive and harmful material", Ofcom? This has to be enforced as it is in a Court of Law - you know why? Because the Law, Ofcom, applies equally to all the people; public busybodies; and the generally accepted standard definitions of clauses in Legislation according to The Courts - they have to all mean the same thing else we can't all be EQUAL under the Law in every Court up and down this land. This IS WHAT Standards ARE FOR, Ofcom!

We all sing from the same song sheet, Ofcom. It appears you think you don't have to. That makes you a fool and a criminal. YOU are NOT ABOVE The Law, Ofcom. You are an OFFENDER!

You are BY LAW, Ofcom, SUPPOSED to APPLY the generally accepted standards to the CONTENTS of programmes. Are the CONTENTS the SERVICE? Are the CONTENTS the STATION or, the CHANNEL? No. Can YOU actually READ, Ofcom? Are you dyslexic, illiterate or just plain insane? You CONTROL a signal at its SOURCE, Ofcom, NOT its DESTINATION which can be one or many, far and wide. Your POWERS APPLY TO LICENSEES NOT THE PUBLIC - YOU GOT THAT? THIS IS LAW matey, AND YOU OVERSTEPPED IT! YOU CORRUPTED IT! Oh yeah, and porn corrupts eh?...pull the other one.

Mandatory PIN eh? Just you try it!

When I see a sign that says "Please do not feed the ducks", guess what, I don't feed the ducks. When my frail old mum sees a sign that says "Enter your PIN", guess what, she DOES. Incompetent doesn't come close to describing the idiot that thought this COULD EVER PROTECT ANYONE FROM ANYTHING. She's OLD Ofcom and I know SHE HATES PORN - and she will swear to it in Court, Ofcom. She, being old, crippled, with fading eyesight doesn't always hit the right keys on your digital switchover nor can she read the station numbers. Your little PISS TAKE, as it clearly is to EVERYONE NOW, isn't going to happen EVER! Got that, Ofcom? Sorry, but NO, Ofcom, I do NOT recognise your right to DICTATE to me, an adult, that has no children living at home, that I must use a Parental Control of any kind - You're not my MOTHER - got it, Ofcom! The people say NO - DON'T WE FOLKS!

MOTION: ANYONE WHO WANTS TO SEE OFCOM PULLED UP BEFORE A JUDGE, SAY AYE!

"AYE!"

OUR COUNTRY Ofcom, NOT yours. My PIN, Ofcom, NOT yours. My TV, Ofcom, NOT yours. Without filling this sentence with a stream of obscenities, Ofcom, there is not ONE English word I can think of that completely describes you. Satan pales into insignificance.

Here's how it is going to be Ofcom.

PARENTS and ADULTS will choose whether or NOT they will enable PIN controls on any channels they so choose - your JOB is to make sure they know HOW to secure those channels (it can be switched on by default on new devices) - get on with that NOW I COMMAND YOU AS YOUR BOSS DON'T WE BRITAIN! You don't know what you're up against OFCOM! IDIOTS.

We will have R18-type material on encrypted age-verified-access channels as a reasonable precaution to prevent underage access whether they be free to air services or funded by some means of payment.

You can take your anti-porn bee in your bonnet and SHOVE IT right up your foul, stinking, discriminatory shit hole, Ofcom.

We will have a broad range of channels catering to a wide range of interests. Most believe UK TV is the best in the world and we DO want to keep it that way. Even if we add a bit more 'European' flavour to it, thank you, your most gracious slime ball Ofcom.

Only carers can actually provide the correct type of protections vulnerable people need where and when they need it. You couldn't save Baby Peter or Khyra Ishaq from nutters Ofcom, stop trying to do the IMPOSSIBLE.

We are all sane, rational and extremely reasonable people Ofcom. AND THERE ARE 60 MILLION OF US - you wanna fight or summin - YOU DON'T HAVE A LEG. Indeed, as you did not implement what you rationally concluded under the TVWF Directive, we can only conclude you acted irrationally from that point on. What you did is thus unjustifiable in every sense. We do not pamper to the whims of infantile nutters Ofcom, it just makes them worse and holds progress in our society back or, worse still, sets it back by decades.

YOU are OUR SERVANT. We pay your wages and we can stop them by sacking you lot and finding a fresh team - OK? You are NOT FIT FOR PURPOSE AS WE CAN SEE. YOU ARE SACKED - THAT'S A PROMISE, isn't Nick n Dave!!??? - if this is all deemed correct ACCORDING TO THE LAW. I BOW TO THE LAW OFCOM, because it is the EQUALISER.

YOU Ofcom, do not get to decide that the High Court of England and Wales was WRONG to declare R18 absolutely safe for children to inadvertently watch - got it?

YOU Ofcom, do not have the right to deny every adult in this land the perfectly safe and legal right to watch R18, 18-rated 'sex works', naked babes on sex chat lines or anything else that's legal to make, view, sell or rent - got it?

You are incompetent, lying, hypocritical, cheats and fraudsters, Ofcom. There's no place for you on the streets of Britain - you are criminal through and through.

Tell us, Ofcom, HOW EXACTLY it is you can claim to know when an unknown and anonymous audience's EXPECTATIONS become EXCEEDED? You're clearly telepathic - fruitcake! NUTTERS RUNNING OFCOM. How do you claim to know when the VAST MAJORITY of this unknown and anonymous audience has likely had its EXPECTATIONS EXCEEDED, Ofcom? This, Ofcom, is deceit - YOU, according to established legal precedents, Ofcom, CANNOT BE TRUSTED. This making of completely deliberate and utterly false claims IS the legally accepted mark of an UNTRUSTWORTHY CHARACTER. You are liars, all of you.

When, no, EVERY TIME, you DARED to claim you knew it was LIKELY that the EXPECTATIONS of the VAST MAJORITY of a totally unknown and anonymous AUDIENCE HAD BEEN EXCEEDED, dear Ofcom, YOU LIED. UNLESS, Ofcom, the VAST MAJORITY of a KNOWN AUDIENCE do complain that a show EXCEEDED THEIR EXPECTATIONS then, and ONLY THEN, can you KNOW without any SHADOW OF DOUBT that you can make that claim. One complaining willie is a tiny fraction of the AUDIENCE for the 'programmes of a particular description' (I want this term in part 4 investigated - WHO wrote it and why?) on the BangBabes channel. There are 20-30 THOUSAND registered members on the babeshows forum, Ofcom. I conducted a poll on that site (everyone can see it for themselves on babeshows forum) and, guess what, 50% of the 200 respondents say their EXPECTATIONS ARE BARELY MET let alone EXCEEDED...EVER. I am a scientist and professional. You are a liar, fraudster, satanic deity or some creature so foul there has yet a name to found to label it. LIES, Ofcom. But to LIE while justifying a SANCTION or, handing down some more of your worthless 'guidance' which can't even be trusted to be ABSOLUTE, dear Ofcom, is FRAUD...according to the law. Stick that in your pipe of evil and smoke it. You're likely GOING DOWN FOR A LONG TIME. And I don't think I'm telepathic, it seems blatantly obvious according to any form of decency. AND YOU DARE LECTURE US ON THE SUBJECT - HYPOCRITE.

Tell me Ofcom, did you sleep well after WRIGGLING out of your little faux pas with a "When we said this we didn't mean that, oh sorry you MISCONSTRUED but, we're still god and we're still doing you anyway"? YOU ARE NOT FIT TO JUDGE. YOU ARE NOT FIT TO GUIDE. YOU ARE A NEGLIGENT PEDANT - A HYPOCRITE, a LIAR, and a FRAUDSTER. Are the boys in blue there yet?

I have never seen such a litany of CORRUPTION in my entire life. You are MONSTERS, Ofcom. ROTTEN and EVIL to the CORE.

This my fellow Countrymen, is what happens when you allow twisted amateurs to act as judge, jury and legislator in a single unsupervised Body - absolute power corrupts absolutely. There are TWO Houses in Parliament for a reason, aren't there, Ofcom! The Courts are completely independent of Parliament too I think. We call these Democratic Checks and Balances. They're kind of important in a Democracy - know what one of them is, Ofcom? You are completely OFF THE RAILS, Ofcom. And its time to haul you in.

COME ON IN, Ofcom, YOUR TIME IS UP!

319(2)(f) of YOUR JOB DESCRIPTION, Ofcom, as you don't seem to be able to READ IT, says that you are to make sure no offensive and harmful material according to The Law, emanates from any of your Licensees else you've failed on this Standards Objective. You are the broadcasting police OFCOM, NOT the uk tv government and courts of justice - GOT IT!

Now, as you chose to read the law as "may cause harm or offence" instead of what it actually says, you failed your Standards Objective 319(2)(f) the first time you got a call under that section. YOU ARE FIRED!

You know, maybe its NOT Parliament's fault after all...who oversaw all this overstepping the mark? Stephen Carter? We will await to see I suppose if Lord Carter is in anyway involved? An investigation must surely be on the cards.

I just want to add...OR ELSE, MR John Glover of Ofcom, I will set the LAW ON YOU! It maybe what, 6 or 7 years, Mr Glover but, let me tell you, I, WE pay your wages and when YOUR BOSS TELLS YOU TO DO SOMETHING, YOU DO IT - OK, Mr Glover? NEVER UNDERESTIMATE the PATIENCE or INTELLIGENCE of your OPPONENT. PISSANT!

The Communications Act 2003, Ofcom, applies to YOU and YOU alone as far as I know. You have no legal Right or authority to wave it under anyone else's nose. It is YOUR operations manual, Ofcom - yes, you are but a tool (and don't we know it!). You OBEY The Comms Act, Ofcom, and your licensees follow your Code. If your Code is so shoddy that you must offer dodgy 'guidance' to supposed 'offenders', then YOU have FAILED in your remit to exist. Your licensees answer to your Code ALONE. How can you possibly believe that the UK Government can hand you sole right and power over what we watch on TV? The People are the Sovereign Power of this NATION. It is clear to me you have no concept of what this Democracy is or how it functions. What do you think you are doing when you quote passages, like a JUDGE, designed to tell YOU how to operate at your licensees? What bloody Right do you think you've got to tell US what OUR LAW TO CONTROL YOU allows YOU to do to The SOVEREIGN POWER OF THE NATION? The LAW TELLS YOU WHAT TO DO. I know because the Queen instructed Her Courts to ENFORCE the Comms Act which spawned your meteoric rise to TV Supremo. You EXIST by the GRACE of the LAW, NOW OBEY IT OR CEASE TO EXIST.

Why is there no Court or legal authority actually CHECKING Ofcom are operating ACCORDING TO THE LAW? Are they a State unto themselves? And does the Government know about it? How can this happen? WHAT ARE THEY? A Public SERVANT or TYRANT? They cannot be trusted. This is completely ILLEGAL: "I say I know something everyone knows I cannot possibly know and, just because I'm saying you will accept it as truth anyway". What happened to The TRUTH, The WHOLE TRUTH and nothing but The TRUTH? Ofcom, are operating without any legal restraint or supervision and they're psychotic, illiterate, monsters.

Heel, Ofcom!

we\ll said Iang i coulndn't have put it better myself.