Ofcom Discussion

(04-03-2013 03:41 )The Silent Majority Wrote:  

(04-03-2013 01:08 )mrmann Wrote:  My response to my child asking about a vagina: "Well, that's just a normal body part that all women have". "Why is she acting like that?" "She's acting like that because she's being funny, and because she wants the attention of a man

What gender is your (presumably hypothetical) child?

We all know how much children mimic what they see on tv when playing amongst themselves, often in public places. If that's your response to a young girls question then you need to take a long hard look in the mirror. There's no reason to suppose a young girl would be any less curious about what was being broadcast on a channel they weren't supposed to be viewing, than a young boy.

The bottom line is, it's the parents responsibility to ensure children don't have access to adult material at an inappropriate age, end of. Trying to argue that it doesn't really matter, that much, is just giving Ofcom the ammunition they need.

What difference would the gender make? It's all relative to a parent, not something you can generalize about.

This is just an example of how I might handle the situation, though not probably not 100%.

What would you tell a little boy or girl?

There's no ammunition for Ofcom, as it's highly unlikely anyway that a child will be up at this hour, know how to use the control and locate these channels.

There is a distinction to be made between harmful and offensive. For the vast majority of the population. It is part of normal human development, most kids are taught the basics at school, and most people experience it in their lives without getting f*cked up in the head.

Many people end up in relationships where they get to see another body fully naked at first hand many times, and continue to be normal people. Contary to what the anti-porn brigade say, they don't demand more and more extreme sex.

As for offence, Ofcom are quite clear that is not grounds for banning any material. Restrict it to after the watershed, have preshow warnings, etc, but dont ban it.

But most people I have met do not experience violence first hand. Some people do and a few get desensitised to it and either expect gory violence as standard in entertainment, or get hooked on the adrenelin rush and want it first hand. Those people end up as violent thugs who pick fights with strangers on Saturday nights.

If anything is harmful it is sexual repression. Lack of sex can turn into anger or frustration, and hiding sexual imagery results in some people getting turned on by what they are allowed to see. It must be better for frustrated men to get turned on and, ahem, achieve happy endings, watching fit attractive young women graphically having sex, than watching bored secretary lookalikes playing coy because they are not allowed to make sexual gestures. Secretaries up and down the country do not want to be the object of sexual fantasies, at least not at work.

(04-03-2013 02:13 )mrmann Wrote:  The babe channels say ADULT on my SKY menu

How is fighting in the sport sense different to violence? It's real contact, with blood and sometimes broken bones, not pretend in movies or shows. People cheer on the blood as well, which is real life violence in a sense. It's not a moderate contact martial arts competition, but full on pounding someone into the ground for sport and fun, and this is allowed, yet a normal body part on clearly labeled channels after midnight is not.

Fine.

Because fighting in a sport sense isn't violence it is sport...

I will try and get a link, but there is something on news atm about NSPCC and porn and figure I remember was something about children acting out porn they see with children their own age or younger. Said that referrals to them when up 70% I think. Could go someway for helping to explain why ofcom do what they do.

(04-03-2013 09:01 )RCTV Wrote:  

(04-03-2013 02:13 )mrmann Wrote:  The babe channels say ADULT on my SKY menu

How is fighting in the sport sense different to violence? It's real contact, with blood and sometimes broken bones, not pretend in movies or shows. People cheer on the blood as well, which is real life violence in a sense. It's not a moderate contact martial arts competition, but full on pounding someone into the ground for sport and fun, and this is allowed, yet a normal body part on clearly labeled channels after midnight is not.

Fine.

Because fighting in a sport sense isn't violence it is sport...

It IS violence, and sport as well. You can't use the "It's a sport excuse", because that's the easy way out, and probably the same excuse Ofcom uses.

What is an adult channel to you? Is it real sex? Is it a sport? Is it causing physical harm to another human? NO. It's a nude woman trying to give a show without having to cover her normal body part every five seconds after midnight.

UFC matches are REAL violence, even if done in a sport way, where people get broken bones, bleed, lose teeth, sometimes consciousness. People cheer on this REAL violence. Many of the matches are shown before midnight.

Kind of sick world we live in.

It seems Sky got censored by Ofcom for a bare knuckle fight on WWE

One of the downsides of being an island race is that everything that happens here is seen in isolation. Mainland Europe has been having explicit pornography on their television screens for years. How has that affected their society?
Seems Ok to me (if there is any evidence to the contrary, I'll gladly bow to that).

Why is it that only UK children need protecting?

Truth is, they don't. It's a stitch up organised by central government (Con-Dem or Labour) and Ofcon are their lackeys.

The latest Broadcasting Bulletin is out today. 4 babe channels have been told off today in for links to a website containing short XXX teaser clips.

Ofcom felt it was not necessary to obtain the broadcasters comments before reaching a Preliminary View. This means the broadcaster had less opportunity to put its views forward to the prosecution at an early stage than someone accused of a speeding ticket. The legal process should not depend on the whim of the prosecutor.

The decision covers the period from 24 Sept to 8 Feb. Ofcom do not say when they received the complaint, however they wrote to the broadcaster on 7 Dec - two and a half months after the first date. Ofcom rules state that normally a complaint should be received within 1 week of the broadcast, suggesting the complaint was received at the end of September, but the broadcaster was not sent the Preliminary View for about 2 months.

Two months is a long time if Ofcom genuinely believe that children are at risk of harm.

To access the XXX material viewers had to select a different tab and were taken to a page with an embedded 50 second clip that played auttomatically. At the bottom of the page there were 17 clips that only played if actively clicked on.

Ofcom revised the website in Dec and Jan (after sending the Provional View) - the website had changed so that clicking on the tab with clips to users to another website with a different URL. Clicking on this took users to a third website. This is important because there used to be a principle that broadcasters were not held liable for content on external websites, let along material 2 websites away.

Ofcom says "it will consider these breaches for the imposition of a statutory sanction" which seems to be code for it will hold a meeting to decide how large a fine to impose.

Interestingly the official Guidance Guidance updated 4 Feb 2013 is so inadequate that it has to link to a convoluted detailed Bulletin
decision published the same day (pages 53-66) - Ofcom cannot even write Guidance that clearly sets out what they consider to be a porn website.

(04-03-2013 09:15 )RCTV Wrote:  I will try and get a link, but there is something on news atm about NSPCC and porn and figure I remember was something about children acting out porn they see with children their own age or younger. Said that referrals to them when up 70% I think. Could go someway for helping to explain why ofcom do what they do.

The report suggested that children sometimes either copied or became obsessed by pornography they had seen. Examples were cited of internet porn on an older siblings computer, or on a mobile phone, or being allowed in a room while parents were watching programmes with sex scenes in.

All of which can be controlled. All of which can be blamed squarely on the parents. And none of which is an issue if adult tv is pin protected and credit card enabled. I am willing to bet if you took 1000 12 year olds who had actually seen porn of some kind in their life, the number who had actually seen it on an encrypted sky channel using their parents pin number would be either 0 or 1.

Encrypted TV just isn't anything like as accessible as internet or phone porn, and yet it is the only one with any kind of serious censorship!!

Todays Broadcast Bulletin also contains a finding against the Sikh Channel. Basically a speaker appeared in front of a poster showing a member of a proscribed terrorist organisation holding a machine gun. The complainant said the speaker "talked effusively" about the (alleged) founder of a proscribed terrorist organisation. An official Canadian investigation found the person in the speaker was "leader of the conspiracy to bomb Air India flights" in which 329 people died. Details of this encounter are dispute, but what is not under dispute is that this is a banned organisation in the UK.

Ofcom decided that "effusive" discussion of a supposed terrorist leader was "offensive". The lecturer was not challenged to "justify his unqualified praise" or place comments in some sort of context. For these and similar reasons Ofcom decided the offence was not justified by context.

The Sikh Channel has been warned the further offences might result in a sanction.

NEXT

Ofcom investigates unqualified praise in December programming for convicted leader of group campaigning for independence from the Roman Empire. J Christ was convicted of religious offences and this, in Ofcoms view, could cause offence to the heirs of the Holy Roman Emperor and citizens of the former Roman Empire.

Ofcom investigates unqualified praise in news report for former Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin who as a resistance member ordered the bombing of the King David Hotel in Jerusalem where 91 people.

Ofcom investigates unqualified praise and extensive coverage of former member of the Nazi Youth on his retirement, saying this could be offensive to people who dislike Germans of that era (despite membership being compulsary and his poor attendance record), people who dislike priests, people in ill health facing early retirement, members of the Ethopian Orthodox Church and members of the Greek Orthodox Church.

Ofcom investigates widespead coverge and unqualified praise across multiple broadcasts for an old fat man with a beard in a red suit who is associated with heavy consumer spending and jollity. Ofcom rules this could be offensive to people on limited budgets (that is everyone apart from the Governor of the Bank of England), people who find holiday periods stressful, fat people with limited mobility and manufacturers of chimney ventillation systems.