Ofcom Discussion

OFCON are living in the Mary Shytehaus era. I work in an office where the majority of staff are female. None seem to be remotely bothered about normal adult on adult porn. My lovely female colleague moved in with boyfriend and found his stash of lesbian porn. She watched it out of curiousity and was amazed at the beauty of the girls, the make up and camera work. It was a Viv Thomas DVD. Instead of arguing with him she complimented him on his taste.
Porn is mainstream. I would rather a teenager watched some sex than take drugs or drink White Lightning on a park bench...

You could easily argue that watching porn and channeling sexual tension 'safely' through masturbation is more socially responsible than getting drunk, having unprotected sex and precipitating an unplanned/unwanted pregnancy.

(02-10-2013 00:12 )eccles Wrote:  

(01-10-2013 18:35 )matt38 Wrote:  Need to know if someone watched that Channel4 programme last night about porn, I saw a few minutes and some school kids about aged 14/15 were discussing what type of porn they had seen if any, some had, some not, my query is, I wonder if someone from Ofcom was watching because it might have opened their eyes to what kids watch, and from what I could tell these kids all seemed normal teenagers.

I saw a small part of this...

Finally managed to sit through the whole documentary without interruptions or company, and all I can say is what a load of unbalanced shite.

I have better things to do, but might just put in a complaint to Ofcom about lack of balance, but to do that I would have to sit through the whole thing again taking notes.

It wasn't just the constant appalled look on the presenters face. Or the awful way he was using his 4 year old kid for human interest. It was the sheer abuse of so called science.

20 porn addicts had brain scans, and what do you know, they showed signs of addiction. So what? It would have been surprising if they did not.

A young man with porn addiction was filmed as he drove his car round, saw an attractive woman and immediately had to pull into a pub, rush into the loo and have a J Arthur. The man freely owned up to masturbating 20 times a day. That's not normal and his lack of control says no more about ordinary people than seeing a gambling addict have a bet they could not afford or an alke with a tin of Special Brew at 9am.

The presenter typed "porn" into Google and was presented with a series of extreme images that he appeared to examine in detail, including (what I hope was) a woman dressed as a school girl being fisted by someone purporting to be her father - he watched that for a while. I dont know about you, but my experience of search results is different, with far fewer extreme links and I don't click on those ones. Instead he seemed to concentrate on the horror stories.

He quoted a survey of young males (14-16?) saying their experience of porn was that it was getting "more extreme", but totally failed to quantify what their starting point was, or whether that meant the internet was getting more extreme or just that their personal experience was getting stronger, possibly because their parents were relaxing adult filters, or the boys themselves were searching differently.

The presenter even seemed shocked at the idea that introducing sex education at a young age helps prevent 80% of teenage pregnancies. (There was no mention that it might also help catch paedos if young kids are taught that sex with them is wrong and can be stopped). While it might be uncomfortable to discuss sex with a 4 year old, that is hardly "robbing him of his childhood". Young kids are far more bothered about other things, like bullying and homework.

In short, an unbalanced piece.

As much as I dislike linking to the Mail, here's an article on a recent Ofcom report into things such as internet use :

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/a...puter.html

The headline is that nearly 60% of parents still don't use filters on their internet service, but as expected, it's typical media statistical twisting, as the actual report states :

Quote:the majority of parents (85%) also provide some kind of mediation to keep their child safe online. Parents of 5-15s use a combination of approaches to mediate their child's internet use, including : having regularly talked (at least monthly) to their children about staying safe online (45%), having rules relating to parental supervision (53%) or using some kind of technical mediation (62%) which includes 43% having installed parental controls.

So, yes, nearly 60% of parents don't have filters installed, but 85% do actually do something to keep their children safe and monitor their net useage!

********

Link to the Ofcom page with the report :

http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/market-...-pubs/?a=0

Direct link to the report :

http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binarie...ct2013.pdf

In todays Broadcast Bulletin Playboy there is a ruling against Playboy for broadcasting the first 5 minutes of ExGirlfriends without encryption. Playboy admit a fuck up.

Amazingly Ofcom accept it.

Oddly Sky gets done again for a misleading promotion on Sky Poker. Sky claimed it would be double jeopardy for Ofcom to take it into account as the Advertising Standards Authority had already done so, and Ofcom published their finding in a recent Broadcast Bulletin. Notwithstanding that Double Jeopardy refers to something different (being tried a second time having been found innocent the first time), I have some sympathy for their point. They are accumulating double punishment (black marks held by two separate authorities) for one offence. Either it is an advert, and regulated by the ASA or it content and regulated by Ofcom, but it cant be both and there were no decency considerations. Having published the ASA finding in a previous Bulletin Ofcom cant even claim they need to have an official finding on their system, as they already have one.

I've been watching the shows now for some years, goalposts are constantly being moved, Babestation is the perfect example of this. They seem to go through a period of handthong activity to it then coming to an abrupt halt without reason. This channel as we all know is not regulated by ofcom as it has a Dutch Licence.

I also see things that were a complete no no say 6 years ago. Over the top pantie rubbing was allowed as was girl on girl contact but full nudity wasn't, now its the other way around.

What I find baffling for example is take that European channel eurotic tv. It has stricter rules during the day than any of the UK based channels does yet the nightshows are a hell of a lot more relaxed.

Eurotic TV used to transmit shows on our satelite back in 2005 but guess who put a stop to it, Ofcom ofcourse

It then makes a minor comeback last year but this time it's them that decides to pull the plug, it wasn't doing all that well. The dayshows were too tame to entice any UK viewers to phone them but unfortunately they were only able to bring us the 1st hour of their nightshow which had to then follow Ofcom rules which really must have pissed off the rest of it's European customers.

Different countries with equally baffling rules when it comes to censorship.

I think what needs to be called into question is the panel that comes up with all of these rules in the first place. It's all handpicked by the government, they wouldn't dare say put a couple of people on the panel who were perhaps once involved within the adult industry as to give the rules a bit more structure to them because it's just a shambles where opinion is being overruled over fact.

Quote:I think what needs to be called into question is the panel that comes up with all of these rules in the first place. It's all handpicked by the government, they wouldn't dare say put a couple of people on the panel who were perhaps once involved within the adult industry as to give the rules a bit more structure to them because it's just a shambles where opinion is being overruled over fact.

Contrast that with newspaper regulation where the papers are fighting the government to have at least one ex editor on the regulation panel. The only Content Committee member I can recall who was involved in popular entertainment of any form was Floella Benjamin.

does look like that channel was taken off by Ofcom

one of the girls joking that playboy and rlc are black screen maybe offcom switched off the wrong channels

(17-10-2013 07:48 )HannahsPet Wrote:  does look like that channel was taken off by Ofcom

What channel? And how long as it been off?

The company that holds the licence of Channels 935, 936, 940, 942 (those showing a black screen and being talked about) is Satellite Entertainment Limited and not the company that was using these channels, SEL is officially listed as "non trading" and currently described as in "Dissolution", it would have been impossible for a non trading company in Dissolution to hold on to a Ofcom TV broadcast licence and for those channels to broadcast on TV for much longer, in fact i'm surprised they haven't gone down before now .