Ofcom Discussion

(27-02-2013 18:44 )RCTV Wrote:  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.

For fks sake!

I said previously that i don't know what to make of you/this RCTV member and this latest post is another example of why. Another inconsistent post of his/hers where it begs questions of the following nature.. "which side of the fence are you (actually) on?", "what are you actual points/reasoning for posting". I'm f*cked if i know and this is the major frustration when i read the majority of your posts in this thread. And also why i came to my own conclusion i stated some pages back*.

It's fkn obvious what Ofcom need to/should do in terms of "doing their jobs" properly re the adult channels.

This is not the point.

The point being made (negatively) against Ofcom is that they are clearly biased and are doing everything they possibly can to get rid of all the babe channels, hiding behind riciculous guidelines/rules, such open ambiguity and using the "harm to children" excuse ("cooking the books" so to speak with regard to supposed public consultations to justify that stance) to continue doing so. They do not want them on our TV's.

It's comical to read your suggestions that they may tolerate them and in turn leading (some) members on here to believe, that through your own (supposed) work with them, they are "open" to suggestions as to how this could happen. Comical, ludicrous.

* It's still my opinion that you're full of sh*t and posting on here for f*ck knows what reason.

If ofcom didn't want adult tv broadcasting, they'd of revoked all the licences years ago.

You really have nothing that prove ofcom don't want them on our tv's.

your views are pretty ill-informed on ofcom.

How the fk can Ofcom (legally) just revoke licences just like that? They can’t. Hence all the lengths and rigmarole (i referred to above, and previously) that they have been going through over the years to “disguise” this is their intention. And it’s all working. Slowly, but working nonetheless.

My “views” are in no way ill-informed - any intelligent person reading between the lines of all Ofcom publicly posted media in relation to the babe channels, taken against anything else re other channels/mediums could work this out. You are either one, or all, of being blinkered, stupid, stubborn or just posting for the sake of causing ructions – or, as someone has previously suggested, for an attention need.

Aside from any legitimate Ofcom employee stating they don't want them on TV, it’s evident in all their bulletins, rules, guidelines etc etc fkn etc. And in all that has been discussed/exposed in many Ofcom related threads, including this one.

This is far more “proof” than anything you have ever posted to “prove” to the contrary.

But more importantly, my “views”, posts, have credibility – yours, without any reasoning (which i’ve yet to see) don’t.

No wonder you/certain members feel RCTV is being “picked on” – you bring it all upon yourself.

I’ve wasted far too much energy on an idiot like you and fk me! I’ve now wasted even more (note to self - i will try to do so no more and have nothing more to do with you).

Now I mentioned this in a previous post but what is fact is that Ofcom although we all hate the organisation with a passion did indeed grant all the babe channels a licence in order for them to be able to broadcast.

What has annoyed us then is if they have allowed the channels the right to broadcast then why have they put so many ludicrus rules and regulations in place which are completely unrealistic in which ofcom know are near impossible not to break.

One conclusion from me springs to mind because as we all know Ofcom are a corrupt bunch of bastards and it is a fact that they don't like the adult channels, nevermind understand them. So here it goes.

Ofcom grant the likes of RLC and Studio66 a licence and then every so often when the money is drying up in the coffers they then go. "Do you know what let's ransack that particular channel" In essence it's a bit like a sophicated way of committing a robbery.

Now I have an interesting question for you here RCTV what with your insider knowledge on all things ofcom. So I think we'd all like to know on this forum what Ofcom actually does with all the money they've stolen from the babe channels throughout the year's. Doe it go back into the public sector or as we all suspect or does it merely go into the back pockets in order to boost this pack of joker's bank balance

PS - It wouldn't surprise me in the least if this bunch of corrupt bastards spent all the money on prostitutes and cocaine whilst they laugh all the way to the bank with yet another daylight robbery under their belt.

(27-02-2013 20:41 )schmoo Wrote:  How the fk can Ofcom (legally) just revoke licences just like that? They can’t. Hence all the lengths and rigmarole (i referred to above, and previously) that they have been going through over the years to “disguise” this is their intention. And it’s all working. Slowly, but working nonetheless.

My “views” are in no way ill-informed - any intelligent person reading between the lines of all Ofcom publicly posted media in relation to the babe channels, taken against anything else re other channels/mediums could work this out. You are either one, or all, of being blinkered, stupid, stubborn or just posting for the sake of causing ructions – or, as someone has previously suggested, for an attention need.

Aside from any legitimate Ofcom employee stating they don't want them on TV, it’s evident in all their bulletins, rules, guidelines etc etc fkn etc. And in all that has been discussed/exposed in many Ofcom related threads, including this one.

This is far more “proof” than anything you have ever posted to “prove” to the contrary.

But more importantly, my “views”, posts, have credibility – yours, without any reasoning (which i’ve yet to see) don’t.

No wonder you/certain members feel RCTV is being “picked on” – you bring it all upon yourself.

I’ve wasted far too much energy on an idiot like you and fk me! I’ve now wasted even more (note to self - i will try to do so no more and have nothing more to do with you).

look at scottishblokes response.

Would also say that ofcom get a lot of licences, well compared to the number they actually grant broadcasting. They also deal with international channels who wish to broadcast in the UK, in terms of allowing them to run under their rules. They grant all channels apart from BBC I think.

I WORKED for ofcom I haven't worked for ofcom for about 5 years.

Ofcom had/have to supply licences where the application conforms to the rules/regulations set down (where there are no grey areas). There is no legal reason why they couldn't/shouldn't - they cannot pick and choose.

But what they can do, and evidently have been doing over the years (more rigorously last few years), is to impose such an unworkable working environment, that it's the pressure on them so much, they hope the channels will give in and fk off themselves - being even more pressured to do so by imposing (exorbitant) fines for example. Here, there are masses amounts of grey areas where Ofcom can manouevre to suit their own agendas.

A good analogy is that of an employer/company wanting to get rid of an employee - making their working environment untenable etc. The employer acts in a way that is within the law, but in way that is completely morally unfair.

(27-02-2013 20:46 )Scottishbloke Wrote:  So I think we'd all like to know on this forum what Ofcom actually does with all the money they've stolen from the babe channels throughout the year's. Doe it go back into the public sector or as we all suspect or does it merely go into the back pockets in order to boost this pack of joker's bank balance

PS - It wouldn't surprise me in the least if this bunch of corrupt bastards spent all the money on prostitutes and medicine whilst they laugh all the way to the bank with yet another daylight robbery under their belt.

Sanctions/Fines are not paid to Ofcom, they are made payable to "HM Treasury".

(27-02-2013 20:59 )schmoo Wrote:  Ofcom had/have to supply licences where the application conforms to the rules/regulations set down (where there are no grey areas). There is no legal reason why they couldn't/shouldn't - they cannot pick and choose.

But what they can do, and evidently have been doing over the years (more rigorously last few years), is to impose such an unworkable working environment, that it's the pressure on them so much, they hope the channels will give in and fk off themselves - being even more pressured to do so by imposing (exorbitant) fines for example. Here, there are masses amounts of grey areas where Ofcom can manouevre to suit their own agendas.

A good analogy is that of an employer/company wanting to get rid of an employee - making their working environment untenable etc. The employer acts in a way that is within the law, but in way that is completely morally unfair.

they need to show there is a need for a new channel. It's not as simple it fits these rules therefore it's a channel that's needed. there would then be thousands of channels.

I'm not sure on the current things, but know that you had to state exactly what you channel was going to do and what sector it was going to broadcast in, show that there was a need for this channel and that you, and that you didn't have anything stopping you being able to broadcast, ofcom also look at funds so that they don't approve channels that financially won't work.

Some do get through and don't survive long after airing or don't air anything, but that's expected.


I would say for working practices, that some are extreme, but you have to work around them, and they are workable, and if producers have imagination they can still make programmes good quality. Wouldn't say they are unworkable, they just need a different approach from the channels. I don't agree with some of them, but can see why they are there and wouldn't say they are unworkable.

(27-02-2013 20:46 )Scottishbloke Wrote:  What has annoyed us then is if they have allowed the channels the right to broadcast then why have they put so many ludicrus rules and regulations in place which are completely unrealistic in which ofcom know are near impossible not to break.

Good point raised by several people. Why would Ofcom issue licences if they wanted to ban babe channels?

Because they have to.

It is the reason sex shops got licences in the 1980s despite the Thatcher Government being completely against them. Even then legal advice was that a blanket ban on sex shops would be wide open to challenge under the European Convention on Human Rights. Paradoxically sex shop licencing was introduced so the number of sex shops in an area could be kept low, high licencing fees and restrictive rules. A blanket ban would be against the free speech provisions, tight control would not be.

Agree Eccles, but they also have the power to say no to channels, and there a fair amount of babe channels if you compare it to other sectors, so there must be some support, even if it's small, and/or the babe channels are able to show variety in the channels.

They can say no to channels if there are too many similar channels.