Ofcom Discussion

(26-11-2012 08:07 )shankey! Wrote:  i am finding myself getting more and more distanced from the forum of late ,all i see is fancy paragraphs ,practically speeches with words that sound like they come from a scientists note book ...

I can only apologise for SBs posts
OK, some of the boring stuff is probably down to me. Its like trying to punch the wind at the moment, Ofcom arent putting up anything that we can fight against. No surveys, no consultations, no rule changes. Sometimes Im guilty of trying out arguments here to see if they float, or sharing ideas.

I am busy behind the scenes, but it takes soooo much time. Something that should have taken an hour has just taken a week, but I cant submit a complaint until I do it. Apologies for lack of detail, but I dont want to give too much away on a public forum.

What I should be doing is publicising the petition, starting by getting friendly parts of the press onside. For various reasons including family problems that has been delayed. It needs to be done properly or not at all, and properly takes more time than I have had. Its not wasted effort, the signature count is real and on the record.

For what its worth the Dept of Cult Media and Sport are drafting an unpdate to broadcasting and internet law. They quietly consulted with industry last year, if anyone knows a way of getting them to listen to viewers before their ideas are set in stone please shout.

Meanwhile SB will just have to force himself to keep watching on our behalf.

Seems someone complained to Ofcom that a guy on Countdown was showing too much chest hair. Really it is amazing what people will find to be offended by nowadays!

(28-11-2012 13:19 )mikedafc Wrote:  Seems someone complained to Ofcom that a guy on Countdown was showing too much chest hair. Really it is amazing what people will find to be offended by nowadays!

I will be compiling my letter to Ofcom this weekend and will add this in there for you MR MIKEDAFC, if there are any other facts people need to have bought up I will make sure they are covered.
Dont worry Scottishbloke WE WILL WIN THE WAR!

More double standards here folks. Obviously nudity is far more dangerous than inciting violence and hatred towards fellow man

As a bit of a lurker I thought you might like to know about the early policy decision to ban R18. There is some interesting background in the 3rd attachment to this Freedom of Information reply
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/mi...ing-320688
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/12...144545.pdf

The 3rd attachment has 4 sets of Policy Executive (PE) [/size]minutes,covering 21 Feb 2005 (pg1-5),28 Feb (pg7-9),7 March (pg11-16),4 April (pg17-21).

In the 1st set of minutes from 21 Feb 2005 (pg1 section 3) "PE rejected the substantive recommendation that the prohibition on "R18" should be lifted, subject to ...measures to prevent under 18s..." They argued that there was not sufficient evidence that technical measures would protect under 18s.

Frustratingly it is not clear what research or other information the PE had at that stage. Stragely despite having reached a decision "PE agreed that the paper for discussion at the Content Board Meeting 7/8 March should contain either the PE's negative recommendation or no recommendation;"

Content Board (CB) minutes from 7/8 March 2005 say in Section 2:
"the recommendation of the executive [as passed down to them] was:
• That the transmission of “R18” sex material was acceptable under Article 22(1) of the TWF Directive i.e. the transmission of such material might not ‘seriously impair the physical, mental or moral development of minors’; and
• That generally accepted security standards could be applied, so that members of the public would be adequately protected from offensive and harmful material.
It was NOTED that these recommendations followed detailed debate by the executive and had not been reached unanimously."
and
"that the executive had decided not to make a recommendation on the third test whether people under the age of 18 could be protected by means of adequate security mechanisms."

The last highlighted section contradicts what the PE had actually decided, to reject lifting the ban on R18.

CB was unable to reach a clear decision but decided to err on the side of caution and keep the ban on R18.

For what it's worth Tim Suter was present at both PE and CB meetings. Staff members present are not listed. It is standard practice to have at least one liaison person.
http://www.ofcom.org.uk/static/about/con...tes/25.pdf

Section 5 of PE minutes from 4 April 2005 (the last set, pg19 near the end) might interest you. This was over 2 weeks before reports into PIN protection and the effect of R18 on under 18s were due out. The Policy Executive (PE) had seen "trends" but not the full report. In it the PE decided to recommend that PIN security measures were not sufficient to protect under-18s from R18 material.

They decided BEFORE seeing the full research results.
In fact the minutes show the decision had been taken well before, on 21 Feb.

Also "PE agreed that the team should consider whether Ofcom would want to appeal if the final decision was to be overturned following a legal challenge."

Who knows if they would even have appealed if one of the broadcasters had taken them to court.

(29-11-2012 00:12 )Scottishbloke Wrote:  More double standards here folks. Obviously nudity is far more dangerous than inciting violence and hatred towards fellow man

This sickens me to the very pit of my stomach, it really does. Why the FUCK isn't anyone - namely the government - making them answerable for this??

It both angers and concerns me and I genuinely think the people who work at Ofcom need psychiatric help.

In terms of potential harm a religious broadcast to a religious community during a religious festival seemingly encouraging violence against a group some people detest must be worse than a show where offensive sexual images were broadcast but pixellated and rude words were bleeped out, even if there was 7 hours worth.

Its all very well the broadcaster saying the police did not record an increase in homophobic attacks but these things have a drip drip drip effect and religious gaybashers will latch on to apparent justification from a higher authority.

Ofcom list several factors they say they did not take into account, like small audience size and the audience having a good knowledge of the subject, but it does look as if they have made allowances and softpedalled to avoid upsetting a religious minority. More or less the same factors are supposedly not taken into account for babe channels, but the fines work out 10x larger.

Complaints Latest

Report covers complaints received between: Tuesday 20 November 2012 to Monday 26 November 2012

Coronation Street ITV1 London Monday, 26 November, 2012 17
Get Well Soon CBeebies Wednesday, 14 November, 2012 13
The X Factor ITV1 London Saturday, 24 November, 2012 38
This Morning ITV1 London Friday, 23 November, 2012 15

Please Note
Programmes that attracted fewer than 10 complaints are not recorded on this list.
Inclusion or omission of a programme on this list is not indicative that Ofcom is investigating the broadcast.
http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/enforce...omplaints/

Strangely no tsunami of complaints about masses of naked babe flesh on all those babe channels. No, the public is most offended by the BBC and ITV. Again.

Slightly off topic but does not fit anywhere.

At this time of seasonal celbrations spare a thought for those less fortunate, people who tireless work for the public good in conditions that can be cramped and even bordering on squalid, all for the benefit of the general public.

Quote:'Urine pouring into' MP Ben Bradshaw's office

Labour MP Ben Bradshaw has complained to the Commons authorities that "urine seems to be pouring" into his office.

The offending liquid is trailing down a corner of the area in which one of the former culture secretary's staff works.

The leak is coming from a toilet upstairs, although officials insist there has been no damage.

But a spokesman for Mr Bradshaw told the BBC: "The whole office smells of urine." His staff have put a bucket in place until the problem ends.

Mr Bradshaw, the MP for Exeter, tweeted: "Urine seems to be pouring through the ceiling into my Commons office for the second day running!" http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-20529287

Lets hope he can have a shower at home to get rid of the smell.
You couldnt make it up.

(Briefly Secretary of State for Culture Media and Sport from 5/6/2009 until the election.)

(28-11-2012 13:19 )mikedafc Wrote:  Seems someone complained to Ofcom that a guy on Countdown was showing too much chest hair. Really it is amazing what people will find to be offended by nowadays!

Most likely some old fart who thought he should be wearing a tie!