Ofcom Discussion

RCTV I agree with you that there needs to be a drastic overhaul of the way ofcom regulates the channel. By that I mean, for them to judge them less hashly. They can no longer peddle the word widespread offence when we all know that this is clearly not the case.

I am also not expecting to see anything in the way of hardcore being broadcast. But what I do expect to see is something that resembles the word erotic. From what I viewed last night, it was all so formulatic and pre rehearsed from the word go. The babe channels have got the so-called ofcom approved positions now down to a fine are but at what cost.

Apart from the odd fleeting moment's from RLC. Girl on girl action and decent 2 for 1 are at a premium. I mean the very fact that ofcom recently warned Studio66 and found them in breach of one of their so-called rules because wait for it. 2 women were rubbing each other's thighs at 3 in the bastard morning whilst wearing very revealing outfits. Well correct me if I'm wrong but exactly what was wrong with that.

Now fair enough if it was something along the lines of the infamous 2 girls 1 cup video but it wasn't. All we want to see is some spontaneity back in the shows without any fear of redemption and dare I say maybe some mild pussy uncensored without the need for the camera operator to suddenly panic and hence ruin the show.

I cap the shows from time to time as you all know but it's getting increasingly more difficult to post anything really good when the model on screen is only going to do about 4 positions which will then be repeated throughout the rest of her stint.

Now with regards to questioning ofcom I have only ever recieved one responce and that was with regards to the pin encrption put on the Playboy channels. I phoned Playboy up myself and they told me that it was now mandatory because of Ofcom new rules. I sent Ofcom an e-mail asking for clarification on this one and I was informed that this wasn't the case.

They informed me that Playboy TV had obviously decided to do it themselves which was most likely down to commercial reasons. I cancelled my subscription the following day because of this and the pin encrption still exists on their channels to the present day and that was almost 3 years ago now.

Apart from that one any other e-mail I have sent Ofcom has been ignored. I signed eccles petition last year but that appears to have come to nothing. Ofcom are still not listening. They make the rules based on bogus survery's which have never ever taken place. In short they are not fit to act as TV regulator. I wouldn't even let Ofcom run a pie shop nevermind anything else.

(20-02-2013 16:43 )shankey! Wrote:  rctv may i ask what made you decide to become a member on this forum ?

is that really relevant?

Scottishbloke you will get a response, just need more time to write a proper response to that.

(20-02-2013 16:53 )Scottishbloke Wrote:  RCTV I agree with you that there needs to be a drastic overhaul of the way ofcom regulates the channel. By that I mean, for them to judge them less hashly. They can no longer peddle the word widespread offence when we all know that this is clearly not the case.

They have got harsher there's no denying that, but I think this is also a two way street, in that channels are also very obviously ignoring what ofcom are saying, so there is a need for some harshness, don't agree with all of however. From a quick look there seems to be more mimetic symbols (is a geographical term, but it's good to describe some on screen graphics) than there has been in a few years, which the babe channels are by no way the worst at doing it.

(20-02-2013 16:53 )Scottishbloke Wrote:  I am also not expecting to see anything in the way of hardcore being broadcast. But what I do expect to see is something that resembles the word erotic. From what I viewed last night, it was all so formulatic and pre rehearsed from the word go. The babe channels have got the so-called ofcom approved positions now down to a fine are but at what cost.

There is rehearsed and there is rehearsed, if rehearsed is done properly it looks natural, however most girls can't. You can have erotic, whilst following ofcom's rule. you can do erotic non-nude.

(20-02-2013 16:53 )Scottishbloke Wrote:  Apart from the odd fleeting moment's from RLC. Girl on girl action and decent 2 for 1 are at a premium. I mean the very fact that ofcom recently warned Studio66 and found them in breach of one of their so-called rules because wait for it. 2 women were rubbing each other's thighs at 3 in the bastard morning whilst wearing very revealing outfits. Well correct me if I'm wrong but exactly what was wrong with that.

Now fair enough if it was something along the lines of the infamous 2 girls 1 cup video but it wasn't. All we want to see is some spontaneity back in the shows without any fear of redemption and dare I say maybe some mild pussy uncensored without the need for the camera operator to suddenly panic and hence ruin the show.

Agree with you, it is well after the watershed. I think camera operators are often given the 3rd degree by channel management, when it is actually the girls and producers, yes that may sound harsh, but if it is something that is obviously flouting the rules, then the girls should be told and warned, and have something like 3 strike. Not for the petty stuff, that they notice themselves or some of the petty stuff ofcom use.

(20-02-2013 16:53 )Scottishbloke Wrote:  I cap the shows from time to time as you all know but it's getting increasingly more difficult to post anything really good when the model on screen is only going to do about 4 positions which will then be repeated throughout the rest of her stint.

If the girls think there are more than 4 positions which can be erotic, and be a good show.

(20-02-2013 16:53 )Scottishbloke Wrote:  Now with regards to questioning ofcom I have only ever recieved one responce and that was with regards to the pin encrption put on the Playboy channels. I phoned Playboy up myself and they told me that it was now mandatory because of Ofcom new rules. I sent Ofcom an e-mail asking for clarification on this one and I was informed that this wasn't the case.

They informed me that Playboy TV had obviously decided to do it themselves which was most likely down to commercial reasons. I cancelled my subscription the following day because of this and the pin encrption still exists on their channels to the present day and that was almost 3 years ago now.

Playboy TV have always tried to protect themselves, however think saying that to you was wrong and they were out to make ofcom look bad. Encryption will happen, it's just a case of when.

(20-02-2013 16:53 )Scottishbloke Wrote:  Apart from that one any other e-mail I have sent Ofcom has been ignored. I signed eccles petition last year but that appears to have come to nothing. Ofcom are still not listening. They make the rules based on bogus survery's which have never ever taken place. In short they are not fit to act as TV regulator. I wouldn't even let Ofcom run a pie shop nevermind anything else.

The survey's which take place, do actually happen, just they seem to use there Representative group of people, which if I remember rightly is about 100 people, not sure though.

I've not looked at Eccles survey, but will, and then comment fully, but tbh if they were looking at the bigger picture, most people on here have one very specific view and would be seen as a very small group of people.

I think individuals in ofcom are good, just not as a group of people, having to make decisions.

Ok RCTV I'd like to pick you you up on your last point when you said this. "I think individuals in ofcom are good, just not as a group of people, having to make decisions"

Doesn't this then bring us back to the initial discussion that it's the captain of the ship that decides the direction. So it appears to me that as a group then Ofcom are hopeless. If you ask me they are probably being forced into following the policy's set out by ED Richards (PS - Shame you never got the top job at the BBC - Better luck next time - From all of us on the forum)

RCTV you also said this "I don't believe they have a negative agenda, more they don't necessarily understand why things are liked, if you look at the current contents board, none have babe channels experience, and there are no co-opted's/advisors, i believe could be wrong, involved in the babe channels"

So we are supposed to have a board that is neutral and also one that has a basic understanding of all the channels. It appear's to me that this government appointed qango is nothing but a pack of joker's who are not even qualified, nevermind hold an opinion but make massive decisions too. Ofcom are that bad you could infact script a comedy sitcom which would give Yes Prime Minister a run for it's money

Lastly you said this. "The day proper people who know the industry could overhaul ofcom will be a good day"

A bit of a strange of comment to be coming out with, did you not previously have experience in this line of work when you were on the ofcom committee as an advisor based on this statement you made last night. You could have put it to good use.

"I was freelance, so worked for several, used to do a fair bit for cellcast and bangbabes"

So there you have it. Ofcom is a complete and utter shambles.

BTW - I couldn't be bothered to used the quotation tool as it would have taken me too much time so I opted for the good old fashioned copy and paste function instead

(20-02-2013 17:01 )RCTV Wrote:  

(20-02-2013 16:43 )shankey! Wrote:  rctv may i ask what made you decide to become a member on this forum ?

is that really relevant?

Scottishbloke you will get a response, just need more time to write a proper response to that.

maybe not but i do find it odd that after 4 years on this forum you decide to tell us about working for ofcom now , especially with the debate about them which has been going on since probably the forum started

(20-02-2013 00:34 )RCTV Wrote:  you are failing to look at the seriousness of those, could be something that isn't serious compared to babe channels, and how many of those complaints are for the same thing. I haven't looked at the bulletin that Mr Mystery says however.

When it comes to seriousness Ofcom are far from consistent.

One broadcaster repeatedly breached election rules by giving one controversial candidate unbalanced publicity, but time and again they have received nothing more than a mild telling off.

Money equals power. Manpower equals power. A maverick candidate potentially subverting the democratic process to gain a high degree of control over a £1.2 billion budget and 6,000 staff is a serious matter.

A channel showed a foreign talent show at kids tea time during school holidays where a man bit the head off a snake then skinned it with his teeth. The show was repeated the next day. They got a telling off, no more. A year or so later they showed a similar contest where a man bit the head off a live chicken.

This sort of imagery could seriously traumatise children, unlike a flash of fanny. Despite this they got no more than a "breach" finding.

Other channels transmit "strong" swearwords during kids time, blame it on operator error or the wrong tape and the case is Resolved, basically meaning the broadcasters excuses are accepted and they are let off.

Other channels have broadcast religious hate messages and gay hate messages that could be seen as endorsing religious killing or gay bashing. Relatively minor telling off, no fine.

The vast majority of complaints are dismissed after the briefest review of the complaint, despite the fact that offence in the viewers eye is genuine offence and exactly what Ofcom is required to minimise by law.

By contrast the vast majority of complaints against babe channels proceed to full investigation. It is only in the past year that this has dropped below 90%.

Rules are then applied with pedantry even where the complaint is relatively minor - skimpy clothing on an adult channel at 9pm instead of 10pm? Oh come on. A day time model dressing as a nurse? A tiny advert so small nipples cannot be seen for mobile phone clips that can only be received by adult registered phones?

There has never been a single instance of a complaint against an Adult channel being Resolved even when staff have been suspended, retrained or even sacked and procedures have been changed.

There is institutional leniency towards the BBC, and to a lesser extent towards ITV, Four, Five and Sky, tolerance of other channels with plenty of second chances, but intolerance and harsh application of rules against babe channels.

BTW Scottishbloke, if the Playboy encryption you mention is what I think, Playboy "voluntarily" introduced it some years ago when they were being investigated for their free to air content. At the time they told Ofcom they were planning to do it anyway to strengthen their sales package. Just a coincidence then.

Scottishbloke first of all lazy bastard for not using quote, saying that I am about to do same.

I wouldn't say it's an odd comment at all. As remember I was co-opted so they could only take my advice or ignore it. There are people with production experience, but a lot of them are academic, and not active in the industry. I've been working in the production industry since 1997, in Amdram and then 1999 when I finished GCSEs in professional theatre and got some running work from BBC.

shankey, if you actually realised I've only just come back on the forum and now have no association with any channel or proposed channel, which I did before.

(20-02-2013 23:33 )eccles Wrote:  BTW Scottishbloke, if the Playboy encryption you mention is what I think, Playboy "voluntarily" introduced it some years ago when they were being investigated for their free to air content. At the time they told Ofcom they were planning to do it anyway to strengthen their sales package. Just a coincidence then.

Eccles, agree money equals power, and it has become worse.

I would happily tell you what I think of Playboy and encryption, they did purely because they were in shit, and that was the easy route out, and it wasn't to boast their sales package at all.

While I might not always agree with what RCTV says I welcome the questions she raises. If we cant answer those challenges here we are unlikely to convince a skeptical or hostile audience like the Tory party, Daily Mail, Guardian or Parliamentary Media and Culture Committee.

Trying to make a positive contribution to a bright new organisation with no track record does not mean being responsible for every decision they made then, or in the years afterwards.

Also bear in mind that committee proceedings are only the tip of the iceberg. A lot goes on before anything gets to a committee, some documented much of it not (phone calls, conversations, opinions) and committees only get selected information.

BTW studies of organisations show that people tend to recruit employees that are like themselves, so it should hardly be surprising if Ofcom recruits censors who have a certain moral outlook.

Sadly the Content Committee seem to have a level of experience in drama where I would not shortlist them for the job. One runs an animation company. A couple are ex journlists (OK, possible credible interity, but no experience of challenging drama), ex civil servants and business executives. There isnt a Grade, Attenborough, Russell, McDermid or La Plante among them. It is doubtful if they would be given a job directing or writing XFactor, Ripper Street, Eastenders, Casualty or Waterloo Road with their grittty depictions of tough social issues. A bunch of vicars would have more credibility dealing with moral issues.

A few years ago one of the leading lights was an active Methodist whose broadcasting experience included being a Director of Broadcasting at a regional company (OK, senior, but not directing cutting edge drama and how often was their creative content complained about?), work on Radio Cumbria (other RC illumini include Richard Hammond) who saw nothing wrong with sitting on an appeal committee into her own decision.

Eccles look at the number of academics of members associated with universities, a large amount and there is one that has got a strong youth focus.