Is Ofcom Fit For Purpose

(08-03-2010 01:44 )Deb x Wrote:  

(07-03-2010 16:41 )IanG Wrote:  

Ofcom: Research into the Effectiveness of PIN Protection Systems in the UK (2005) Wrote:70% of the children blah blah research blah

Interesting how, in those four statements, the subjects are children, children, (11-15 year-old) children, then males.

It's almost like they're wanting people to infer that teenage boys (under 16, significantly) are watching *particular* 'subscription channels'

They've picked statistics which suit their case, and been vague about definitions - in the first three statements a good proportion of the respondents could be easily be girls, but by tacking on the final statistic, they've focused the reader toward boys; also, as discussed, they've not stated what they mean by 'premium subscription channels'

Given the current media obsession with disaffected male youth (knife crime, potential joblessness etc.) it's a powerful and seductive tactic. Sneaky.

Almost as if? You are being generous Deb x.

Fact is most of the Ofcom "research" I have seen would be sent back to be redone in places I frequent. The above dodgy statistics being a good example. It's Daily Mail statistics - define a term one way, loosely associate with figures for a different definition and let the reader jump to a wholly unsubstantiated conclusion. Quality publications like the FT, Telegraph, Guardian or Times would not resort to such tactics, even if itching to make the same point. Let alone serious professional publications.

The researchers must have had sufficient data to distinguish between the different age and gender groups, but often this type of research only presents Summary-Lite figures instead of 10s of pages of data tables. To see serious research look at some of the stuff the Office of National Statistics (ONS) publish.

A classic example of poor figures - if a bit old - was the 2005 public attitudes survey into sex and bad language, that many people feel Ofcom misrepresented. The authors freely admitted that they had surveyed disproportionate numbers of women, Asians and Carribeans, partly because of where they chose to conduct their surveys. (I'd want my money back if I sponsored that survey). Reading the report gives the impression that a large number of middle-aged women from conservative religious backgrounds were included. But nowhere do they give enough ammunition for complaint by saying how many were female AND Asian/Carribean, let alone the Age/Gender breakdown.

It's deceit by omission and association.

There might be grounds for a formal complaint to the ONS, and a complaint to the Auditor about waste of public money.

Ofcom Broadcast Bulletin 153

Where to start.

Sigh, yet again Ofcom distract me from the serious business of pointing out inconsistencies and incompetence, by being inconsistent and targetting channels they do not like instead of being fair and impartial.

Here are observations on Retention of Recordings

On Tuesday 17 November Ofcom asked Fast TV to supply recent recordings. On Saturday 21st the TV channel asked for more time, claiming that by a strange co-incidence it had been broken into on Saturday 14th, and asked for more time to provide recordings. It is not clear what providing more time was supposed to achieve.

Perhaps the broadcaster hoped the bulky recordings might turn up, behind the kettle or underneath the sofa. Perhaps equipment had been damaged and they hoped to repair it by then. Perhaps they even hoped the recordings might be found dumped in a public toilet somewhere, with only the £10 notes stored in the same file missing.

It is also unclear if Fast TV was off-air as a result of the break-in, when this was reported to the Police, and if Police details were provided to Ofcom.

This is the second time Harmony TV, the licence holder, has been found in breech by failing to provide recordings. What tough action does Ofcom propose against this repeat offender?

The breech will be "held on record" and "Ofcom may consider further regulatory action ... if this problem recurs."

They must be terrified.

In the same Bulletin Ofcom devotes pages 17 to 25 to a recordings problem by BangBabes. Over a period of 25 days (31 Oct to 24 Nov 2009) a complainant recorded 5 clips "each lasting a few minutes" of shows starting at unspecified times after 10pm or midnight.

Now there is a very clear legal principle stating that fishing expeditions are banned under English, Scots and Irish law. That is when the authorities suspect an offence might have been committed but do not have details and go "fishing" for evidence by trawling through masses of detail until they find what might be an isolated slip.

Usually Ofcom tell broadcasters when an alledged offence occurred and ask them to provide the tapes, eg "approximately 22:30 to 22:35 on Wednesday". Simply saying "some time between 10pm and 5:30am on 15 November but we don't know more specifically, provide the lot" isn't good enough.

When BangBabes complained that they were being asked to supply over 24 hours of footage, Ofcom "helpfully" suggested that BangBabes staff could sit through all 24+ hours footage and tell Ofcom when the alledged offences occurred.

It's as if a traffic warden accused you of parking too long on a yellow line, but said they didn't note the time, and would you mind awfully watching the CCTV and telling them when you committed the (alledged) offence so they could write a ticket, please.

Fishing expeditions are not permitted under UK law.

Strangely there is no suggestion that Ofcom went back to the complainant and asked if they were more likely to be watching at 10pm or 05:30am. You'd think they might be able to narrow it down.

Or perhaps the complaint's PVR might put a time code on. After all, they knew exactly which dates they were referring to.

Ofcom wrote to BangBabes on 30 November, between 0 and 6 days after recieving the complaint, and a full 30 days after Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells was so shocked by the first show that he or she stayed up a least 4 more nights over the next month, recorded and dated them. (But forgot to note the times, or indeed the channel numbers).

Due to this and other breeches Ofcom is considering statutory sanctions (fines or being closed down).

Quote:Ofcom wrote to BangBabes on 30 November, between 0 and 6 days after recieving the complaint, and a full 30 days after Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells was so shocked by the first show that he or she stayed up a least 4 more nights over the next month, recorded and dated them. (But forgot to note the times, or indeed the channel numbers).

This person must either be a self-abusing glutton or, on someone's payroll. Then again, s/he might have "heard it through the grape vine"... Is that fishing or just fishy?

@Ofcom, we don't believe you, you are unbelievable.



@Deb x, we don't know which subscription channels that data refers to EXCEPT BARB don't appear to have any figures for any adult services ('the' 900s) at all. So, we can infer logically none of those figures relate to under 18 boys or girls watching adult channels - unless BARB are including that data in the stats. but not publishing it. Why would they do that?

What if there were no under 18s watching adult services at all? In this instance you might have to conclude that PIN codes do work or, that parents really do know what they're kids are watching or, that kids don't want to watch or, that no one living with anyone under 18 in the home actually subscribes to adult subscription channels.

I think we need the real data on the real adult channels to make any sound judgement. Trouble is, BARB want to charge anywhere between £500-£10,000 for the datasets - although academics can apparently get a 90% discount and a maximum cap on the cost. Are any people reading this students doing media studies/applied math or Profs./lecturers able to get this info and process it? It would be great to know the truth...wouldn't it?

@Ofcom, we really don't believe you, really, we don't.

Oh and of course, the data we have got pertains to those under 18s watching 'premium subscription channels' allowed to have "an eight pm watershed not nine". And by ten o'clock of course they've done their 'gradual easing toward more adult themes' and can show hardporn artcore because the BBFC say its justified by not being in the context of artporn hardcore.

You're a bit of a joke too, BBFC.

Ofcom should fuck off, we don't need them, this country is supposed to be a democracy and I do think it's coming, I do think we will see full on pussy shows this year, it's now 4 years since the decline in babestar tv and just like it was back in 2006, now I think in 2010 it's time to challenge the authorites that be again but this time with a positive outcome, ofcom should first and foremost be forced and ordered to pay back each and every single fine they have handed out to the channels over the years on the grounds of a breach in human rights, porn is legal in this country, the 900 plus channels are pin protected and all the shows also air after the 9pm watershed. These channels are there for a reason, they are sexline channels pure and simple just like sky sports for sports, movies for movies. The time is right now to take a stand and tell them in no uncertain terms to kindly fuck off and mind there own business and further more ofcom should be hammered with a fine from the high court or ordered to back off as of now.

Well said Scottishbloke, what about what we want to watch and see. Is not our right to choose what we see and not judged by some 5-6yr old survey filled out by some people who are not in touch with society.

Well I'm not being daft, but has anyone bothered to sit and watch the freeview advertisement on Sky 902 at the moment? It's clearly showing full frontal shots in some clips, but the babe channels can't.

Plus did anyone see Sky News this morning, and their paper review? It seems the BBC have had to fire a Chef for saying the F word under his breath, (Not even out loud) because Ofcom complained about it.

Needless to say the paper reviewer, said Ofcom was a joke and a pointless Quango, and a total waste of tax payers money.

Well I don't think he's going to get any argument from this forum.

Its all food for thought. Did SKY news get in trouble for showing 5,000 naked people in front of The Sydney Opera House at breakfast time the other morning. Are the BBC and all the other channels going to have to beep out the swear words when they show the likes of Full Metal Jacket and so on.

(09-03-2010 20:31 )Scottishbloke Wrote:  Ofcom should fuck off, we don't need them, this country is supposed to be a democracy and I do think it's coming, I do think we will see full on pussy shows this year,

Can't see it myself. As you say it's been 3 or 4 years since Babestar finished. Sexstation also were showing full nudity at that time as well. Going back even further, I can remember Night Calls on Playboy TV UK which was quite explicit and that's near enough 10 years ago.

Basically, it's all been watered down to a ridiculous degree these days and far from any loosening up, things have gradually become tighter and tighter.

The thing is, whilst forums like this and also Stantheman's site are excellent sounding boards they're not really getting to the people that matter. In essence, they're pretty much acting as places where people can vent their frustrations. There needs to be a way of getting to Ofcom and looking for answers to the perfectly valid points raised on an almost daily basis on sites like these.

Curious show on Sky Arts 1 this evening. 8:30-9:00pm (before the watershed) ~ "Nudes: Anthony Gormley One & Others". But that's OK because nudity is editorially justified in a show about nudes.[/u]

Another idea could be that Sky tv could have a phone number you could phone up to have the 900 channels permantly removed from your box so that could possibly put an end to ofcom interfering that way we might just be able to see a full on pussy show.