Ofcom Discussion

(20-02-2013 23:45 )RCTV Wrote:  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.

well it looks as if you are going to be quite busy answering questions now your back regarding your former employers, probably for about the next 4 years !

(20-02-2013 01:27 )Scottishbloke Wrote:  Ofcom have also stated publicly that they can even launch an investigation into any of the channels having recieved no complaints whatsoever.

What's wrong with that? Surely if the broadcasting code has been broken Ofcom would be failing in their duties if they did nothing about it on the feeble grounds that no complaint had been received.

(21-02-2013 07:16 )shankey! Wrote:  well it looks as if you are going to be quite busy answering questions now your back regarding your former employers, probably for about the next 4 years !

Maybe, will wait and see if people moan about the right chair, rather than Ed Richards, as he doesn't sit on the contents committee.

The problem with ofcom and the selected committee panel is that they are being tasked with a big responsibilty aswell as earning a hell of a lot of money with a very handsome wage and it really doesn't sit well when it appears to me that any Tom, Dick or Harry can gain a seat on the board with no experience whatsoever as eccles pointed out in an earlier post.

It's undemocratic, they were never voted in on the first place. Also there has always been a certain mystery surrounding the individuals that make up the panel. We don't know there policies, we don't know exactly what make's them qualified and also they never ever come out in public and face the general public such as Question Time for a good old fashioned grilling.

RCTV has had more of a grilling on this forum than any of the present or past members have had in the entire history of the organisation. There is a secrecy about Ofcom. It's not like Prime Ministers Question Time where all camera's are present. No Ofcom do their business firmly behind closed doors. Closed to all the general public.

When RCTV stated that a drastic overhaul is needed at Ofcom then by that I'd say that firstly it has to been seen as a credible organisation. A panel should consist in my opinion of strong members all of whom have very strong and different personalties.

What about allowing somebody from the Adult Industry onto the panel so as to give the board a better understanding of the subject matter. Somebody who would be able to both appease the panel and the viewing public such as ourselves. Somebody who would be willing to make a compromise without the need for the current censorship.

Somebody who could come on this forum, read our views, take them onboard aswell as consult all the channels. A sort of individual who could tame Ofcom and not the channel's and somehow charm them into being less harsh as far as the current rules go. Is this what you meant when you said RCTV that Ofcom was in dire need of a drastic overhaul

On a final note. Just out of curosity. What years were you active on the Ofcom board RCTV. You have given us some clue that you were a member at the start of 2007 when Babestar TV had it's licence revoked but could you be more specific. Also were you working for Ofcom at the time of your registration on this forum. This to me could be very intriguing as to your motives.

Just been checking out what sort of People are on NICAM's board, this is what it say's on their website
.
"NICAM's board consists of representatives of both public and commercial broadcasters, film distributors and cinema operators, distributors, videotheques and retailers . The independent chair of the board is Mrs Tineke Lodders Elfferich . Nicam is supported in it's performance of it's duties by a advisory committee , the members of this advisory committee are experts in the area of media, youth education and welfare, representatives of parenting organisations and other social organisations as well as the company's participating in NICAM" .

So these are the type of people that told Ofcom were to get off when Ofcom were complaining to them about BS, which got Ofcom absolutely nowhere

(21-02-2013 16:49 )Scottishbloke Wrote:  Somebody who could come on this forum, read our views, take them onboard aswell as consult all the channels. A sort of individual who could tame Ofcom and not the channel's and somehow charm them into being less harsh as far as the current rules go. Is this what you meant when you said RCTV that Ofcom was in dire need of a drastic overhaul

On a final note. Just out of curosity. What years were you active on the Ofcom board RCTV. You have given us some clue that you were a member at the start of 2007 when Babestar TV had it's licence revoked but could you be more specific. Also were you working for Ofcom at the time of your registration on this forum. This to me could be very intriguing as to your motives.

yes that was or go back to have sector rep's co-opted on to contents, I was babe channels/news, and because of the state of how we would only have to attend meetings we were needed, we were never listed anywhere as we weren't elected/ex-officio/nominated members, so not permanent members.

I was 04-08 so when Hooper, Graf and Gardam where Chairmans (in that order, Gardam being the current one who took up the post 1st Jan 2008)

Well I appreciate your answer's there RCTV but I'm still baffled somewhat with regards to the dates in which you were actively involved with Ofcom. What we all want to know on this forum is. What exactly was your role involving everything in the Adult Sector of the SKY EPG.

You have already given your accounts of what happened in the doomed fate of Babestar TV back at the start of 2007 so I thank you for your honesty on that front. But you were an advisor. Did you read my previous post aswell as My Mystery and would you not agree with me that the present committee is not qualified in which to such make big decisions.

Nicam which Mr Mystery has stated has got a far more credible team in place. Shouldn't Ofcom be following suit from it's European counterparts. Although I don't agree with the politics of Ofcom I can kind of understand the need for a TV and media regulator but their role surely should only be to lightly moderate the content on TV and nothing more which has to be seen as fair and impartial across the whole board instead of the blatant prejudices and discrimination which we have had to tolerate from this pack of joker's for year's.

I've never bought into this teleshopping channels rules that the Babe Channels currently have to adhere to. I mean if there is indeed a Teleshopping QVC Channel out there with topless women on it then I'd like to know. Put's a whole different meaning when trying to sell a product when the hostess is very aesthetically pleasing on the eye to look at. Naked News which used to broadcast on Sumo TV springs to mind here

In the Neitherlands Nicam regulates them as Entertainment Channels. So why this red tape that we in the UK still have to put up with then.

Fact - The Babe Channels are not Teleshopping Channels, never have been and never will be

In essence they are all televised sexline Channel's with hidious rules put upon them which is making their job to do as they say they do on the tin as near impossible. I've yet to hear or read about a fine that was justified.

PS - Let's all hope that another scandal hit's the BBC so that our dear friend ED might just get the job this time

I was there to give more information to them on how the channels worked in terms of production techniques used and what the differences between the channels were, as well as being on of the advisors that ofcom could send out if the company agreed to have someone go out an improve the channel in terms of stopping things happening. However I always ended up doing news, with very few adult channels. I wasn't however expected to know licence, as that was provided in the notes they were provided. I also had to attempt to give reasons as to why things happened, and produce ideas in which this could be prevented in the future.

Ofcom should, but in it's current state won't, I can't see it happening anytime soon, be very good, but doubt it will happen.

I think they only come under teleshopping, is that it comes up during longer breaks for most channels. Agree they aren't teleshopping channels, and they are adult channels.

I would personally like to see a list of a general rules, and then specific rules attached to a licence class. so have a adult broadcasting licence, news broadcasting licence, general broadcasting licence etc etc.

I honestly don't think Ed is the biggest problem at all. There's a bigger one. Gardam. The chair of contents is far worse than the chair of ofcom.

Ok so following on from your last post. I went ahead and did some research into the man in question. Tim Gardam - Based on that profile picture he looks like the kind of man who enjoy's nothing more than sticking the boot into the channels. Make your own mind up on this one.



Interesting to note that his contract comes to and end on the 31st December of this year

I'm never normally quite so blunt, or even rude, but something is very wrong with this RCTV woman/fella.

There's no fkn way a Government Agency will send out an employee (or whatever he/she said he/she was) to advise an adult channel on how they can/should improve in terms of not letting things happen that shouldn't etc. To advise said Government Agency on how these adult channels work and their techniques etc. It's just ludicrous.

If there was any shred of truth in this, over the years, we wouldn't have had all manner of investigations/breaches/fines/tightening of rules/guidelines, ambiguity of such, changes of this, that etc etc etc.

Far too may inconsistencies and wafer thin "arguments" in RCTV's posts for me to believe there's any credibility in what's being said in them.

It's my opinion that she/he is full of sh*t. Anybody can think what they like of this, it's my opinion.