Ofcom Discussion

Key points of the government's green paper on the BBC:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-33556009

Not strictly babeshow/Ofcom related but follows on from Sharon White's recent acceptance, in principle, to regulating the BBC...

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/pol...28769.html

...Also someone of a paranoid bent might ask: What might be amongst the things the Government would likely request from Murdoch in return for doing him these kinds of new favours?

Ofcom have got it wrong all this time

The reason watching porn might make you a better person :

http://i100.independent.co.uk/article/th...bJXSs8cZ8g

I was a bit busy last month and forgot to post this:

Ofcom are taking ATVOD's work in-house. The take-over is in January:

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/oc...fcom-atvod

http://www.digitaltveurope.net/443191/of...rom-atvod/

So that's one less quango at least!

The main motive is pretty obviously budgetary IMO. For "effective" read "cost-effective" primarily. This looks like a Sharon White initiative to me given her background and obvious cost-saving remit at Ofcom.

More insidiously, Melonfarmers are claiming that the decision may have been influenced by ATVOD recent loss in the courts:

http://mistressrealsdiary.blogspot.co.uk...73f8aeb275

...and that they are angling for controls over more of the 'net. Evidenced with articles such as this one, that is hard to argue with:

http://consumers.ofcom.org.uk/news/digit...ital-nous/

Ofcom are taking on two new board members in December as they look to cover this extra ground:

http://media.ofcom.org.uk/news/2015/cont...ointments/

May aswel add my opinion
I got sky back after about eighteen months today and after noticing a few channels short,I was enjoying the nice ladies on the channels but I've also only just realised that most of the daytime threads have gone,I remember their was a host of different shows,lad lounge party people channel 960 paradiso boudoir red light the pad elite TV legends chat lounge early bird office babe and well off all them shows came back I'd be extremely happy,the world should be a happier place and these shows were brilliant,no adverts and lots of entertainment and laughs,awe inspiring moments and more,I'm hoping 2016 can see the ressurection of said shows as its unique and mostly different every time,all I say is I hope this is going to be the end like the quiz shows ended,I enjoyed them babes aswel lol,almost as sexy but I really love the day show babes shows a lot and I'm really happy getting my sky back so I say let's just have a little bit of enjoyment in an other world were its not very often its sad to say

Two in at Ofcom (above), one out:

http://news.sky.com/story/1598573/hill-q...-channel-4

Stephen Hill was 17 months into a supposed 4 year term on their board! (OT but interestingly obvious political manoeuvrings behind this re. the top job at Channel4. Ofcom wanted their previous man to continue in the role but ministers vetoed that as they are keen to flog of the channel. So Ofcom are installing their presumably more conciliatory new man, Hill, in the job instead.)

Perhaps more to point, Ofcom are changing the way they assess fines for content breaches:

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/de...from-ofcom

They are targeting the big boys more heavily. Fines will now "take into account [a firm's] total turnover." The crucial passages start with an Ofcom spokesperson stating that this is about, "enabling us impose higher penalties where appropriate and proportionate to do so.”

Then: "The changes follow a consultation which took contributions from 14 interested organisations, half of which were from companies which Ofcom regulates. Four organisations supported the proposals while the rest did not." (That's fairness for you isn't it! Consult and then ignore the fact that 71% disagree with you!)

"Ofcom’s penalty structure varies between contraventions, with some upper limits set at a maximum of 10% of a firm’s turnover and others a set sum. The regulator does not offer a list of fines for different breaches of its rules as it says this would undermine its desire to ensure companies comply."

This is state sponsored spin at it's best. All about raising the total of revenue for the government while claiming to be about fairness!*

But the main point as far as this board is concerned is: Will these changes encourage the babe channels to chance their arm a little with the regulator? They certainly now have more idea of what their fines for transgresion might be than they had in the past... Ofcom's corporate mindset would certain seem to be on plenty of higher things than the babeshows atm too when you look at their column inches.

I hope someone at the channels is reading carefully with their lawyers.

* This has probably been on here many times before but I think this is an opportune moment to remind ourselves where these millions of pounds go: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/w...fined_by_o

To quote: "These balances are made available at the end of each working day to the National Loans Fund to help minimise the overall cost of Government borrowing."

Ofcom may not benefit from these monies directly; but it certainly does no harm to your career to swell the coffers of the people that put you in the job in the first place.

Why do politicians and watchdog groups blame all the.world's problems on porn and adult entertainment?

With politicians, they are probably using it as a smoke screen to get peoples attention, whilst they quietly slip through a policy they do not want too much notice taken of.

Bunch of hypocrites telling us what we can or can not do. Just like the rest of us, if you class any sexual act as adult entertainment, or depending on what you choose to do to spice things up, which may involve elements they consider to be porn, then they themselves and any children they may have, would never have been conceived in the first place.

(20-12-2015 12:02 )rpj316 Wrote:  Why do politicians and watchdog groups blame all the.world's problems on porn and adult entertainment?

Because it's this decade's easy scapegoat that enables politicians to win votes with a certain Daily Mail-reading type. (Like rock 'n' roll, the hippie movement, punk, video 'nasties', football-goers, video gamers, and gangster rap before it; all have been blamed for all manner of society's weaknesses with so little genuine supporting evidence.)

Railing against these these things allows these bureaucrats to be seen to be apparently doing something about a problem when in actual fact they are doing bugger all and are totally ineffectual at addressing the real root causes of the country's ills. Root causes that their policies have often instigated in the first place, but are in actuality much more difficult and expensive to address effectively.

In other word's, it's good vote-winning smokescreen that covers there own asses and which actions against cost virtually nothing to implement - a politicians dream. (And, in this case, probably a wet one too! )

All this despite, as andy points out, the hypocrisy involved; stemming from a religious guilt of anything related to sex that's not 'missionary with the lights off' for purposes of procreation.

The generation with power is also never totally happy with society's changes as it makes their position feel vulnerable.

Looking back at the end of post 35666 I feel I was a little overly optimistic! Thinking about it, there were more likely collective shrugs at the channels over that Ofcom statement.

All the info we have says that the channels are perfectly content with the content rules they are working under atm - presumably because the rules enable to generate extra revenue by offering such content elsewhere. Why would they look to change things as long as that continues?

I find it hard sometimes not to revert to a viewer mindset on that one!

Anyway, new news... Ofcom have now outlined how they intend to proceed with controlling VOD:

http://www.digitaltveurope.net/476962/of...egulation/

Broadly, they are looking to bring it more in line with the way TV-content is controlled and are proposing to make the licensing free to service providers for the first time.

I also found this piece, about a £20,000 fine Ofcom imposed on NTV (or rather it's owners ITCE), particularly interesting:

http://www.media247.co.uk/bizasia/ofcom-...v-20k-2015

White and co are apparently still clearing Ed Richards' old cases!

The regulator had apparently been watching this 'newboy' to the UK from the beginning. (After two previous attempts to launch in the UK, on "30 April 2012: A new consortium took control of NTV in the UK and resumed broadcasting on Sky channel 852." It has since moved to 853. [source: wikipedia])

The article goes into much detail about how Ofcom worked the case and can, presumably, be taken as a case-study with pointers for how they work alongside all service providers to ensure compliance and (currently) deal with breaches in general.

Such main points are I think:

• Service providers are expected to ensure that "enough sufficiently qualified or trained people to compliance, and that they have sufficient seniority to ensure the licensed service complies 'in all respects' with the Code." You wouldn't think that would include cameramen then.
• In this case, Ofcom looked at NTV footage "between April 2013 and September 2014, [and found] 20 breaches of the Code, relating to material broadcast on NTV during the period May 2012 to June 2014, were recorded. Of the 20 breaches recorded, 15 involved Section Nine of the Code, two involved Sections Five and three involved Section Six."* That's 18 months working on this (obviously on and off), concerning footage covering a 13 month period, with the material dating back nearly a year at first but just 3 months behind by the end. (That makes the babe channel's occasional 8 weeks caps rule look a bit silly doesn't it?!)
• Ofcom particularly don't like breaches that come after they have had a 'word' and presumably the firm have had a chance to change their ways. In this case this seems to involved a formal notification of an "investigation". ("Significantly, in Ofcom’s view, five of these breaches recorded against ITCE related to programming broadcast on NTV after Ofcom had notified the Licensee on 14 April 2014 of its investigation into ITCE’s compliance with Condition 17(2).") This (presumed) document came exactly a year into the process above and only after....
• "Ofcom ... engaged previously and extensively with the Licensee over a number of months to secure improvements in its compliance arrangements (including having a meeting with ITCE on 20 January 2014)." This, presumably, more 'friendly' face-to-face 'put these things right' meeting took place some 9 months into the process and 3 months were given before formal investigation began.
• In making their judgement Ofcom took the following factors into consideration: "representations the Licensee had made in its application for the licence; the Licensee’s compliance record; Ofcom’s attempts to secure improvements in ITCE’s compliance arrangements; and. the absence of sufficient evidence of adequate improvements."
• They sum up: "The contravention took place during an 18 month period between April 2013 and September 2014. Ofcom considered that the breach of Licence Condition 17(2) was serious, reckless and repeated and therefore warranted the imposition of a statutory sanction."
  

These breaches are now over a year old but, as part of their sanction, Ofcom are "undertaking a period of monitoring of the Licensee’s broadcast output to assess whether the content of the service is compliant with the Code. If there are further compliance failings after the imposition of this statutory sanction... [and] Licensee has failed to respond adequately to other regulatory action, we may have cause to reconsider whether revocation of the licence would be appropriate."

All in all (even considering that Ofcom were obviously giving this newboy some leeway) this is now hardly the one small slip and we'll fine you heavily process it is sometimes painted to be is it? Do I think that Ofcom would treat the babe channels with as much consideration? I don't know but as a viewer you have to ask yourself who it benefits to have Ofcom's processes painted in such black and white terms?

Make a demon out of the regulator's content levels and processes and certain people escape the blame for much poor programming.


* Section 9 is "Commercial References in TV Programming", 5 concerns impartiality and accuracy and 6 is on "Elections and Referendums".