Ofcom Discussion

I've mentioned this before, but what really pisses me off is that are freedom of choice is being taken away Ofcom feel they have the right to tell us what we can and cannot watch this is something the ITC left well alone. I mean for goodness sake parents surely no how to be responsible with regards protecting there freeview/Sky adult pin codes from there children?
Oh i see Ofcom don't feel that the majority of parents in the UK are responsible enough for there children, so is Ofcom wanting to regulate parenting now This lame argument that Ofcom are trying to portray is bloody ridicules By hook or by crook Ofcom must be stopped or have its powers taken away, either which way i frankly don't give a shit.
As I've mentioned in my previous post 9pm means 9pm after that time is Adult viewing and its up to the parents to do whats right for there children.

Ofcom Content Committee Minutes 24 (7&8 Feb 2005):

Quote:Draft Broadcasting Code: Under 18s
...
20. The Content Board gave consideration to the first issue - scheduling and content information issues and in particular whether this section of the draft Code should maintain the watershed, and if so what rules should be applied. It was NOTED that some broadcasters felt that the watershed created a tension between the protection of children and the provision of a “commercial” schedule to attract adult viewers. Feedback suggested that some broadcasters feared that the draft Code, as written, would result in multiple watersheds and thus a tightening of the regulation in this area. There had been a huge variance in feedback received from non-broadcaster respondents to the consultation. Some believed the watershed was redundant, with the increase in multi-channel homes; however others felt that the watershed was an effective tool for the protection of children.

Came true didnt it.

(11-07-2012 22:01 )eccles Wrote:  Came true didnt it.

I'm not understanding the contents of the quote, can someone explain it?

(11-07-2012 22:41 )dan g 27 Wrote:  I'm not understanding the contents of the quote, can someone explain it?

It suggests that the draft broadcasting code which was being considered may lead to multiple watersheds being established instead of a single watershed which denotes when more adult broadcasting may begin.

We do now have multiple watersheds. On the main channels, 9pm is the supposed watershed after which stronger content may be broadcast, but on the adult channels, no boobs before 10pm, and adult channels are not supposed to broadcast at all on freeview before midnight. Different content has different watersheds!

And this is exactly what highlight's the hypocrisy of Ofcom's stance with regard to the Adult Channels, total prejudice. It's either all ok or none of it is. This different regulation because it's classed as a teleshopping channel is bullshit and questions the whole integrity of having a regulator in the first place. Talk about moving the goalposts to suit ones self

Thanks to Munch for clarifying that. Heres another then I will stop dredging up ancient history.

Content Committee Minutes 12 (16 Feb 2004)

Quote:15. The Content Board AGREED that it should play a prominent role during Phase 2 of the project in examining different approaches to providing a safe environment for younger
viewers. It was NOTED that this would also be a significant element of the Board’s work on drawing up the new broadcasting codes during summer 2004. Members were concerned that the work on providing a safe environment for children should be firmly evidence-based and should embrace an analysis of how safe other environments (e.g. school and other social settings) were for children. Members were concerned not to enforce an unreal world on children solely in the context of PSB.

Ofcom take some kind of absolutist stance now, assessing "harm" regardless of the wider social context of internet porn, top shelf mags, sexting, hedge porn and DVD swopping. Back in 2004 when Ofcom was finding its feet they thought the (still to be defined) Broadcasting Code should have some connection to reality.

Of course the re-classifcation of the so-called 'Babe' channels so that they fit within the pre-defined limits designated for shopping channels demonstrates a total lack of flexibility, an inability to consider different channels by different criteria and is total nonsense. Mind you the channels modus operandi of using the on-screen visuals as a teaser for the telephone service rather plays into the regulator's hands.

Yes ofcom are a bunch of hyprocrytes and its still the vagina thats causing the trouble..

An 8 year old lad emailed bbc2 ar 8.50pm to ask a question about volcanos on a volcano programme but if that lad had turned to channel 4 he would have been met with penises and operations..Had that lad waited another 15 minutes and switched to channel 5 he would have had an onslaught of strong language.Kids have tvs in their bedrooms ofcom and can see the lot EXCEPT FEMALE GENATALIA..So schoolkids can tune in and the lasses can see real life penises but the lads will only see porn vaginas..

Things i noted this week and BBFC lose control of gamesratings.

http://melonfarmers.wordpress.com/2012/0...july-2012/

ed richards sees his arse,

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/jul...sfeed=true

Keep this stuff coming and lets disrupt ofcom/bbfc as much as possible.

Good link from Fedup to the Guardian article about Ed Richards telling Lord Justice Levenson how to regulate the free press.

This link works for me, the other one freezes, no idea why Guardian

Quote:Ofcom chief Ed Richards has hit out at plans put forward by Lord Black to create a new press regulator, arguing that having serving editors involved in adjudications on complaints would be unworkable.

Richards ... said it was completely indefensible to have people involved in the industry in the same room as those making decisions about complaints...

"We would draw a very strong distinction between advice and the presence on decision-making of people actively involved in the industry being present ... I think that is quite the wrong thing to do and makes effective ... decision-making extremely difficult and to be honest in our context would be unimaginable."
...
Richards, who made an unsuccessful application to take over from Mark Thompson as the next director general of the BBC [], said that the involvement of working editors would not produce an independent and transparent regulator.

"The idea that we could stand up in public and defend decisions made if we had serving broadcasters," he said, before being interrupted by Lord Justice Leveson, who inquired whether he thought editors should also be excluded from a committee setting up a code of practice.

Richards argued that editors could be involved in an advisory capacity but they should not be involved in setting the code.

"I think, yes, I would say in terms of code-setting, in terms of sanctions, in terms of corrections and in terms of policy-making overall, you need to have a bright line to separate between those who are regulating and making decisions and those that are regulated," said Richards.

He added that anything else "immediately undermines the perception, and in all minds, the actuality of your independence".
...
He explained to Leveson that the equivalent body for setting codes for broadcasting is the content board, which consults with serving broadcasters but remains independent of them.

Ed Richards represents Ofcom, an organisation so independent of broadcasters that not a single member of the content committee or the full board has any in depth experience of producing, directing or acting in prime time drama.

Experience is limited to journalism, animation and, in one case, a short period as a junior researcher.

So far as I am aware no broadcaster has ever been involved in workshops to outline Broadcasting Code options or stress test draft provisions.

However the whole concept of independence flies out of the window when it comes to approaching regulation independent of previous Ofcom decisions.

Fines, banning orders, in breach decisions, drafting the Broadcasting Code and deciding on consultation responses are all handled by the same crowd of people who report to the same managers. Some are on temporary contracts where the basis for renewal is not transparent. Initial case filtering and preliminary decisions are taken by junior staff further down the pecking order but they report to the same people.

Its as if the local police were managed by the local magistrate and the local mayor had the power to renew their contracts or not.

A particularly bad example was provided some years ago when the Kennell Club was pursuing a complaint against the BBC. Kath Worrall was a long standing member of the Content Committtee and the Broadcasting Standards Commission before that.

She basically sat as an appeal judge into a decision she had already been involved with.

Kath will of course be remembered for her time as a Radio Cumbria presenter. (Others include Richard Hammond, now a successful television personality, Richard Madely and Blue Peter presenter Helen Skelton). Kath was also Director of Broadcasting at Border Television and Secretary at BBC Scotland. There is no obvious record of actual involvement in television show production, rather than senior management.

Quote:The BBC had accused the regulator of refusing to accept evidence that would overturn its judgment, and took issue with the fact Ofcom’s Kath Worrall, a former dog show judge, oversaw both the initial investigation and a subsequent appeal.
...
They claim Ofcom is undermining its own authority by allowing a single person to oversee the entire process, despite claims it has already been botched.
...
However, Ofcom has vowed to keep Worrall on the case if it decides on a second appeal, despite plans to change the appeals process for future investigations. ...
http://www.broadcastnow.co.uk/news/broad...06.article

(12-07-2012 09:18 )Tonywauk Wrote:  Of course the re-classifcation of the so-called 'Babe' channels so that they fit within the pre-defined limits designated for shopping channels demonstrates a total lack of flexibility, an inability to consider different channels by different criteria and is total nonsense. Mind you the channels modus operandi of using the on-screen visuals as a teaser for the telephone service rather plays into the regulator's hands.

Ofcom are actually required to "innovate" but are reactionary, slow to consider any change to the current broadcasting landscape apart from minor tinkering.

Of course babe channels are totally different from shopping channels where people phone up to buy physical goods, and if Ofcom relaxed the rules the babe channels could get experiment with other forms of funding.

Every attempt to do so is blocked. They are not allowed to have content because they are shopping channels. Phone interaction with onscreen presenters was deemed not real content. Premium rate texts were deemed an excuse for money raising, not participation. Messages cannot be read out on screen because that breaks PPP rules and Ofcom rushes to tell them.

Ofcom claims it is implementing EU rules forcing a separation between "content" and "advertising".

The government (aw, bless) will be conducting an investigation into EU rules that are over zealously implemented, gold plated and blamed on the EU. Lets make sure we have a say.