Ofcom Discussion

Thought people would jump on RCTVs comment about being in the room when some decisions were made. Lets not forget that when Ofcom started out things were a lot less clear cut than they are now. Ofcom were not as anti babe channels as they are now. There was a genuine expectation that R18 was about to be legalised. Recordings of encrypted shows from the time are eye watering and borderline hardcore with oral and finger action shown. It is hard to believe that Ofcom were not aware and never sampled content broadcast 7 nights a week. The decision about banning or permitting R18 was unclear and had to be referred to the full Ofcom board. Even after that babe channels showed harder material than would be permitted today with dental floss thongs revealing anal and labial detail, slips and over the top knicker rubbing.

The territorial argument is a tricky one. Western governments like to say they have nothing to fear from foreigners. UK citizens can access foreign papers, magazines and satellite channels unlike citizens in repressive states like North Korea and China. But what if a foreign journalist films interviews with striking miners in the UK and uplinks from abroad? Suppose they use a satellite link to transmit to their country, where content is uploaded to a different satellite that UK citizens can receive? Now cut out one of the satellites, and replace the foreign journalist with a UK one like George Galloway or Ken Livingstone, but paid by a foreign broadcaster, on a channel regulated abroad, where foreign based management set the agenda. Put it the other way. If the BBC employ an Egyptian national to report on Egyptian news, that is broadcast on BBC World and received in Egypt, do you think of that as Egyptian or British news?

Of course, unlike the UK and Egypt (or Russia), all EU states have a shared understanding about broadcasting, porn and propaganda, differing just in detail.

As for Babestar, the reaction may have been over the top, but the Advertising Standards Authority repeatedly ordered them to stop broadcasting certain content. They blatantly ignored a direct order from the regulator, so the ASA asked Ofcom to act. Much as I liked Babestar, there is such a thing as asking for it.

My comment about babe channels having to stop selling pics and vids was half joking, half serious. The rules have ALWAYS said free to view channels must not advertise pornographic products. This has generally been understood to mean R18 DVDs and porn websites. For years Ofcom have been selectively blind to mobile downloads.

If anything Ofcom look as if they have softpeddled on Studio66. They always come down hard on daytime material and the transition period “shortly” after 9. They could have gone straight to a fine. Instead S66 gets a warning that if they do the same again they might be considered for fine.

As for encrypted channels, either Ofcom accepts age verification measures like those for mobile phones and credit cards, or they dont. To lift the age gate on a mobile phone actual proof of age must be given. It might be possible for under 18s to have a company credit cards, ones guaranteed by parents or ones issued abroad. Even if a credit card was issued to an adult, the argument that adults might let kids use their phones applies to credit cards too. There are parents that let their kids enter the PIN at the cashpoint. It is not unknown for parents with chronic arthritis to get their kids to make online transactions using their bank cards. The big question is not whether kids ever use adult registered phones and credit cards, but if the level protection is adequate.

(19-02-2013 23:06 )eccles Wrote:  As for Babestar, the reaction may have been over the top, but the Advertising Standards Authority repeatedly ordered them to stop broadcasting certain content. They blatantly ignored a direct order from the regulator, so the ASA asked Ofcom to act. Much as I liked Babestar, there is such a thing as asking for it.

If anything Ofcom look as if they have softpeddled on Studio66. They always come down hard on daytime material and the transition period “shortly” after 9. They could have gone straight to a fine. Instead S66 gets a warning that if they do the same again they might be considered for fine.

Well said Eccles, cut down quote a bit, but like all of it.

Most of you seem to be getting tied up in that they were done over things which you don't see as relevant from YOUR point of view, there are others and these all have to be taken in to account when looking at a complaint.

Also Babestars were given several warnings and fines, before this, so not as if they didn't know they were doing wrong, if someone was continuously committing a crime, would you not expect the punishment to get worse? some of you on here seem to think it shouldn't.

S66 will be the next to go if they carry on for sure. Can see that very easily.

I do agree that it would be difficult for what you said in the main part at the beginning on what you say on territorial argument but believe it could be done, or it follows the strictest rules.

(19-02-2013 22:27 )RCTV Wrote:  

(19-02-2013 22:14 )Digital Dave Wrote:  So someone who claims to have worked for Ofcom is unaware that when they publish their investigation list, and their findings, they detail how many complaints were received. That's how I know. Facts rather than fantasy.

I am aware, but you look at what the complaints received were about. Also you compare the number the babe channels get to other sectors of the industry is far more. Look over a period of time, you will see that the babe channels get more than quite a few other sectors, which is why ofcom is the way it is

Well ive just checked the last four Ofcom broadcast bulletins, unless iv'e missed a complaint or two i can only find one complaint made to Ofcom about a night time babe show, even that complaint was thrown out and Ofcom said they wouldn't be investigating further, complaints Ofcom receive concerning the night babe shows are very low in numbers, mostly they are by just one single person .

if you look over a long period of time e.g. years it is bigger. months is pointless for analysis.

(19-02-2013 23:30 )RCTV Wrote:  if you look over a long period of time e.g. years it is bigger. months is pointless for analysis.

It's not pointless as a comparison, in the same period of time Ofcom received hundreds of complaints for non babe channel broadcasts .
I've been checking out Ofcom broadcast bulletins for the last few years now and the complaints have been low in numbers for the babe channels.

(19-02-2013 23:46 )mr mystery Wrote:  

(19-02-2013 23:30 )RCTV Wrote:  if you look over a long period of time e.g. years it is bigger. months is pointless for analysis.

In the same period of time Ofcom received hundreds of complaints for non babe channel broadcasts .
I've been checking out Ofcom broadcast bulletins for the last few years now and the complaints have been low in numbers .

if you split those in to different sectors, rather than just one sector against all the others.

For all those at ofcom or have been involved with ofcom in the past. Get a grip. It's only a fucking babe channel. No big deal. Ain't going to cause anybody any harm. Infact they make a lot of people happy away from all the doom and gloom of the ever increasing negative news coverage. Why all the fuss.

Fucking sanctions and fines and final warnings being dished out left right and centre when the majority of the general population don't give a flying fuck about these channels.

Also on a final note. Keep it light. A lot of the recent posts have been moved to the twilight zone without making any reference to them other than let's keep this thread at a debate level and nothing more. Let's not get personal. It achieves fuck all other than moving away from the whole point of the subject matter at hand.

RCTV you are a tough nut to crack. I don't agree with a lot of the recent posts you have made but I will commend you for your honesty here even if it's not exactly music to my ear's.

(20-02-2013 00:02 )Scottishbloke Wrote:  For all those at ofcom or have been involved with ofcom in the past. Get a grip. It's only a fucking babe channel. No big deal. Ain't going to cause anybody any harm. Infact they make a lot of people happy away from all the doom and gloom of the ever increasing negative news coverage. Why all the fuss.

Fucking sanctions and fines and final warnings being dished out left right and centre when the majority of the general population don't give a flying fuck about these channels.

Also on a final note. Keep it light. A lot of the recent posts have been moved to the twilight zone without making any reference to them other than let's keep this thread at a debate level and nothing more. Let's not get personal. It achieves fuck all other than moving away from the whole point of the subject matter at hand.

RCTV you are a tough nut to crack. I don't agree with a lot of the recent posts you have made but I will commend you for your honesty here even if it's not exactly music to my ear's.

I'm seeing it as from what I remember of the evidence given at the time, not what is published publicly, it is often a summary and won't go in to detail. ofcom is very complicated, and an organisation I've come to many blows with over the babe channels. If I had my way, reform would of been years ago, but you have to stick to the rules even if you don't like them. Did I agree with all the rulings past, no, but they were in clear breach of the rules, so procedure had to be followed.

Something which annoys me, is the amount of people on here, who don't seem to want to accept different views, especially ones that actually attempt to give you more of an insight in to what's happened and why they've been reached, could actually change your mind.

I can be cracked, just put me in a war zone.

(19-02-2013 23:48 )RCTV Wrote:  

(19-02-2013 23:46 )mr mystery Wrote:  

(19-02-2013 23:30 )RCTV Wrote:  if you look over a long period of time e.g. years it is bigger. months is pointless for analysis.

In the same period of time Ofcom received hundreds of complaints for non babe channel broadcasts .
I've been checking out Ofcom broadcast bulletins for the last few years now and the complaints have been low in numbers .

if you split those in to different sectors, rather than just one sector against all the others.

In the last broadcast bulletin Celebrity big brother got more than 300 complaints, in the same period the night babe channels didn't get any.
In the broadcast bulletin before that, Coronation street got double digit complaints, the 50 fumiest moments got 35 complaints, True stories gypsy blood got 34 complaints, Alan Car show got 30 plus complaints, the list goes on , the night babe channels get very few complaints whatever broadcast bulletin you check out .

Indeed mr mystery.

Which highlights the point I raised in my earlier post - relative investigation/action etc against complaints made is just not happening across the board. Clear bias towards the babe channels.