Ofcom Discussion

(26-02-2013 07:02 )shankey! Wrote:  

for gods sake can we move on, how long is it now this subject has been discussed ? i myself couldnt care less about who has or who is working where ever ,but i am interested in the creditable posts made about the thread title

The only post that will give this thread any credibility is a transcript of an actual conversation someone has had with Ofcom regarding their frustrations and answers from Ofcom.

The same 3 or 4 people repeating their view over and over again without doing anything about it is getting laughable

Hi,everyone,I am new to this place but have been reading posts for quite some time,it does seem that the topic has drifted off a little lately and as it is supposedly a discussion about Ofcom and their underhanded ways,I wish it could continue as such.
I have spent many happy hours looking through the different threads and am qite shocked as to what is happening just of late.
I only hope this little hick-up can be resolved so that the good posters can get back on track

First off a warm welcome to the forum gtheboy. Now with regards to RCTV I enjoyed questioning her but to me it's a 2 way system. I'll alway's pose a question for which there should be an answer to. A debate is healthy but that's as far as it should go in my opinion. If I felt that her answers were weak or lucid then I'd ask her or anybody for that matter for further clarification. No way should it be getting downright nasty or personal.

I must admit too I'm somewhat sceptical on whether she has worked for ofcom or not but I'm not going to go in charging like a bull about it either because she might very well be telling the truth here and if so you have to admire and applaud her for her honesty here. we all have different ideas on how ofcom might be run but we're all just speculating on the politics too if I'm being perfectly honest about it.

Now with regards to Ofcom I'll give them some credit. Small though it may be but nonetheless I think this is worth a mention. A lot of other countries would never ever be given in a month of Sunday's a licence to run a televised babe channel. So at least Ofcom has allowed the channels the right here in the UK. All be it in a very watered down and censored fashion but they are still here gracing our screens.

Now Babestation has been going now for 10+ years but still not enough to convince Ofcom that the babe channels are a normal part of British society, they still have to be rules in place. Absurb ones. It's all about acceptance and it's going to probably take a few year's yet before Ofcom stop with the heavy handed approach but I'm sure we'll see a very different type of show in the future which won't be quite as censored as the ones that currently grace our screens.

On 22 Feb Ofcom published a £30,000 sanction against a broadcaster called Al-Alamia TV relating to a competition broadcast in October 2011. The licence was held by Biditis Limited.

The breach decision was published in Broadcast Bulletin 209 on 9 July 2012, so it has taken Ofcom 7 months to decide to impose a fine. They took until 26 Nov to reach a Preliminary View.

Four episodes of Miss Arab London 2011 were found in breach. Sponsors were not identified as such, there were competition irregularities and there was no independent verification of phone voting.

Biditis is a small broadcaster with just 10 staff and only 2 at the time. Errors were made counting phone votes and in the timing of invitations for phone votes. The wrong candidate was put through to the next stage. Four businesses were visited by contestants in segments that Ofcom decided were promotional. Two other businesses were similarly promoted, but with no sponsorship arrangements.

Judges decided the winner. There were prizes for two runners up, "Talent" and "Popularity" based on phone votes.

Bitilis accepted that the breach warranted a fine, but felt that felt it should not be disproportionate. They had not intentionally broken the rules. The Licensee submitted that the actual or potential harm to viewers was “very minimal”. 82 votes were cast for the contestant that lost out. International callers were not charged for votes as the number was not active. Four contestants withdrew but premium rate votes could still be cast for them, however noone actually did.

The Licensee stated that it made a minimal financial gain as a result of the breaches. It made £75.11 as a result of the miscalculation of votes for contestant 14. 950 votes were received from UK viewers at £1.50. Total SMS revenue was £1,425 and the broadcaster recrived £844.23 after deductions. Sponsorship revenue went direct to the production company. This was a first offence.

Ofcom felt that viewers might have been charged for votes after phone lines closed and that these would not have been recorded. Ofcom also felt that international callers might have been charged - operators systems vary.

It is clear that mistakes were made, but £30,000 seems high in relation to the number of votes, audience and harm caused.

Eccles, pretty sure other channels have done far worse and been fined less and they are bigger companies. Something strikes me as odd in terms of how long it's taken, and that there could of been a lot of debate in what to do, I think £30k is way to high, £5k at tops, if you compare it to money gained from it. or at least the money they gained from it.

(25-02-2013 23:25 )Addison Wrote:  Regardless of whether or not RCTV once worked for Ofcom, the interrogation of her/him was starting get unpleasantly pack-like. Three or four forum members at a time, circling round insisting on explanations isn't particularly good form.

Agreed Addison.

I have stayed clear of this 'RCTV matter' until now (and you know how passionate I am about OFCON!).

I don't care a hoot if RCTV has worked for any of these organisations. If RCTV has anything of 'value' to add to 'our cause' let RCTV freely speak. We can take it or leave it right?

I have to object to any single member being 'attacked' on this forum. We should be setting a good example in stating our aims. Not bullying or 'ganging up on others'.

I'm not taking any sides here...

Now, can we re-focus this thread please?

Thanks

Shylok

What matters to me is the truth and the validity of posts made in this thread concerning various Ofcom things, you just can't have any Tom Dick or Harry claiming to work for Ofcom or has worked for Ofcom coming on here and making totally incorrect and misleading posts and claiming what they say is correct because they have insider knowledge when in fact they have nothing of the sort, this is no use to anyone and this thread then looser's all credibility (if it ever had any) .
It doesn't really matter if members say they are male or female, but it matters to me if they are genuine members of Ofcom or not, so when i see posts that are totally incorrect and misleading concerning Ofcom and the babe channel regulations etc made by members claiming to have worked for Ofcom and have insider knowledge then i will highlight these posts and ask questions about the validity of these posts and the validity of whether the person making these claims actually works for Ofcom or not and has genuine insider knowledge of how Ofcom works, anyone pretending to be from Ofcom and getting involved in Ofcom discussions and answering questions based around their experiences of working for Ofcom when they haven't is totally wrong in my book, people may actually believe what these Ofcom impersonators say and jump to the wrong conclusions about various Ofcom topics based on the understanding that the posts are made by a actual Ofcom member/former member .
.
I couldn't care less about other people views on here, but for me it does matter if the posts i read giving out info and details about Ofcom are correct and truthful or not, and if they are made by actual Ofcom personnel/ex Ofcom personnel, or if they are just made by someone living on fantasy island, that's just the way am, i can't take any posts seriously made by someone claiming to be a Ofcom employee or former employee until i actually know they are who they say they are .
The Truth always matters to me, imo people coming on here and telling a total pack of lies to validate their arguments/discussions concerning Ofcom doesn't help one bit as far as i'm concerned and adds nothing to this thread . (whoever does it)

(27-02-2013 17:48 )mr mystery Wrote:  What matters to me is the truth and the validity of posts made in this thread concerning various Ofcom things, you just can't have any Tom Dick or Harry claiming to work for Ofcom or has worked for Ofcom coming on here and making totally incorrect and misleading posts and claiming what they say is correct because they have insider knowledge when in fact they have nothing of the sort, this is no use to anyone and this thread then looser's all credibility (if it ever had any) .
It doesn't really matter if members say they are male or female, but it matters to me if they are genuine members of Ofcom or not, so when i see posts that are totally incorrect and misleading concerning Ofcom and the babe channel regulations etc made by members claiming to have worked for Ofcom and have insider knowledge then i will highlight these posts and ask questions about the validity of these posts and the validity of whether the person making these claims actually works for Ofcom or not and has genuine insider knowledge of how Ofcom works, anyone pretending to be from Ofcom and getting involved in Ofcom discussions and answering questions based around their experiences of working for Ofcom when they haven't is totally wrong in my book, people may actually believe what these Ofcom impersonators say and jump to the wrong conclusions about various Ofcom topics based on the understanding that the posts are made by a actual Ofcom member/former member .
.
I couldn't care less about other people views on here, but for me it does matter if the posts i read giving out info and details about Ofcom are correct and truthful or not, and if they are made by actual Ofcom personnel/ex Ofcom personnel, or if they are just made by someone living on fantasy island, that's just the way am, i can't take any posts seriously made by someone claiming to be a Ofcom employee or former employee until i actually know they are who they say they are .
The Truth always matters to me, imo people coming on here and telling a total pack of lies is to validate their arguments/discussions concerning Ofcom doesn't help one bit as far as i'm concerned and adds nothing to this thread . (whoever does it)

Hi mr mystery

I understand, appreciate and indeed support your sentiments. However, this whole matter is all about about 'tone and degree'. I'm all for challenging arguments and of course robust debate but I fear some here may have crossed the line. Some of the posts were getting nasty (that's why I got out of my box).

If I was RCTV, I'd be feeling pretty much like shit and to an extent 'attacked'. I'm sure that's not your (and most others) intentions.

I ask that we keep a civil, structured and intelligent approach to our arguments. Collectively we are a very strong group (that's our main strength). Maybe RCTV could (repeat could) be one of our 'informed' allies. If RCTV is seeking a platform to spread untruths then RCTV will be rumbled - but there are ways of doing things right...? If RCTV is BS'ing us its short term 'fame' right? If there not its the first time we've had 'inside OFCON info' right?

What we must avoid is personal attacks at any costs. That will drive (potentially useful) members away and will weaken our 'power base'.

Less infighting and more OFCON fighting is what I'm hoping for...

Thanks

Shylok

Yes I 100% agree with your sentiments there Shylok. One thing I've always liked about this thread as opposed to the numourous others that currently circulate around the board is that overall we've all managed to keep this one civil and on a very healthy debating level.

Like I said on my previous post I ofcourse took it upon myself to also query the validity of RCTV's post's. But we really don't have any evidence which way or the other whether or not the facts she has provided us is to be 100% accurate.

So I'm going to take it from the stance of let's give her the benifit of the doubt until proven otherwise. This to me is of prime importance in the greater need of our cause. Why piss somebody off if they do indeed have inside knowedge on the workings of Ofcom. I mean like I said we've all been speculating for as long as I can remember what the real politics and intentions of what goes on behind closed door's at Ofcom really involve's.

We need to fight the miserable censor's as one and as one that is united to the cause. I will politely ask RCTV for further clarification, and if she can be of any help in our ultimate goal then it's more than welcome as far as I'm concerned

On a final note. I've been subject to forum bullies myself so I don't like to see it going on. As they say, keep the peace. I mean it's a family show as to say which is who Ofcom reckon is the primary audience based on their far fetched fantasist conclusions

Scottishbloke, families are main viewing audience for TV in general, although that is changing.

If ofcom did some geodemographic analysis of the UK and looked at what age ranges watched what sectors of television.

Sector classifications for research that have been proven as good are (which I would like to see)
General Entertainment
Lifestyle and Culture
Movies
Music
Sport
News and Documentaries
Religious
Children
Shopping
Adult
International
Gaming and Dating

Think they'd get a different view and a more informed view to allow them to do their job properly.

Ofcom need to go to the channels and see they're complaints and what they'd expect as appropriate reactions to complaints that have been.

Also they need to go out to viewers and see what they think, obviously adult TV lovers have quite strong views.