Is Ofcom Fit For Purpose

(29-03-2010 23:41 )H-H Wrote:  Here is what the Sanctions Committee said: “Ofcom also advised that not all under eighteens stop viewing at 21:00 and informed the Licensee that Rules 1.2 and 1.3 of the Code may continue to apply in programmes broadcast after this time, particularly with respect to material so close to the watershed.” And – “The Committee recognised that unencrypted channels in this section of the EPG had a certain amount of extra latitude to show more sexual material. However, this latitude was restricted, and certainly did not extend to content which due to a combination of imagery and language could be regarded as ‘adult-sex’ material. This restriction was principally because of the requirement to protect under 18s.”

Restrictive as this may sound, this is the Sanctions Committee – the final arbiter – clearly saying two things on record – material CAN be stronger (within limits) if it is not close to watershed, and – officially allowing channels in the Adult section “extra latitude to show more sexual material”.

You've just taken those 2 statements out of it though. It then clearly says that the latitude is restricted and certainly wouldn't include material that could be regarded as "adult-sex".

That quite obviously gives them the get out clause of branding anything they want as "adult sex" material if they so wish and therefore that statement doesn't really say anything at all.

The majority of the recent Ofcom cases against the channels seem to have revolved around what exactly could be considered "adult sex" material and it has become quite apparent that what Ofcom consider to be "adult sex" isn't necessarily what a lot of other people would consider to be the same.

(30-03-2010 09:49 )MARCCE Wrote:  You've just taken those 2 statements out of it though. It then clearly says that the latitude is restricted and certainly wouldn't include material that could be regarded as "adult-sex".

That quite obviously gives them the get out clause of branding anything they want as "adult sex" material if they so wish and therefore that statement doesn't really say anything at all.

The majority of the recent Ofcom cases against the channels seem to have revolved around what exactly could be considered "adult sex" material and it has become quite apparent that what Ofcom consider to be "adult sex" isn't necessarily what a lot of other people would consider to be the same.

I did include the restriction on "adult-sex", and yes, that's certainly an important restriction, but it knocks a huge hole in arguments about viewer expectations. Here is Ofcom's own Sanctions Committee going on the record to say that the 900s can be naughter than, say, BBC1 or Bravo. They are saying that Time and Channel contribute to Context. Within limits.

(30-03-2010 20:44 )H-H Wrote:  I did include the restriction on "adult-sex", and yes, that's certainly an important restriction, but it knocks a huge hole in arguments about viewer expectations. Here is Ofcom's own Sanctions Committee going on the record to say that the 900s can be naughter than, say, BBC1 or Bravo. They are saying that Time and Channel contribute to Context. Within limits.

Well yes, but with it being from 2007, I think they will feel those aspects have been taken into account in allowing the channels to continue to operate at all. At that time there was a very real campaign to get them off the screens altogether.

And whilst in effect they are saying that, I presume they view the fact that you can see topless girls on the channels engaged in a certain amount of sexual positions up to 7 hours a night, as being far more explicit than the BBC, or any other channel, on a consistent basis.

And the fact is it's still them that are deciding what those limits are.

On that note, I notice a series of Naked Office has started this week on Virgin. A similar series to one on BBC 2 back last year where members of the public confront life issues, or in this case work issues, by building up to doing something naked, or in the case of this series going to work naked, on the final day.

The first episode of Naked Office had an office temp wandering around with his cock in full view and when it came to the office workers doing it, one of the women was shown full frontal.

So, seeing as you most certainly wouldn't be able to see that on the fta adult shows, it would appear that Ofcom would still consider the material broadcast by the babechannels as more explicit than that shown on the more mainstream channels, even though the mainstream channels are able to show parts of the anatomy that the 900's can't.

(31-03-2010 12:56 )MARCCE Wrote:  

(30-03-2010 20:44 )H-H Wrote:  I did include the restriction on "adult-sex", and yes, that's certainly an important restriction, but it knocks a huge hole in arguments about viewer expectations. Here is Ofcom's own Sanctions Committee going on the record to say that the 900s can be naughter than, say, BBC1 or Bravo. They are saying that Time and Channel contribute to Context. Within limits.

Well yes, but with it being from 2007, I think they will feel those aspects have been taken into account in allowing the channels to continue to operate at all. At that time there was a very real campaign to get them off the screens altogether.

And whilst in effect they are saying that, I presume they view the fact that you can see topless girls on the channels engaged in a certain amount of sexual positions up to 7 hours a night, as being far more explicit than the BBC, or any other channel, on a consistent basis.

And the fact is it's still them that are deciding what those limits are.

On that note, I notice a series of Naked Office has started this week on Virgin. A similar series to one on BBC 2 back last year where members of the public confront life issues, or in this case work issues, by building up to doing something naked, or in the case of this series going to work naked, on the final day.

The first episode of Naked Office had an office temp wandering around with his cock in full view and when it came to the office workers doing it, one of the women was shown full frontal.

So, seeing as you most certainly wouldn't be able to see that on the fta adult shows, it would appear that Ofcom would still consider the material broadcast by the babechannels as more explicit than that shown on the more mainstream channels, even though the mainstream channels are able to show parts of the anatomy that the 900's can't.

This is the whole crux of Ofcon's position. What they are resricting is the amount of sexual arousal we are allowed to have whilst watching tv. Naked Office etc won't get you aroused for too long but full-frontal "babes" on an interactive channel will. The big no-no is, of course, full R18. Now that will get us all hugely excited so Ofcon can't allow it. It's just too arousing. I think they fear the UK turning into some mass Roman orgy or a scene from Dante's Inferno.

I don't think that we should get too carried away with the view that Ofcom is the Great Satan. I just believe that 'adult sex' (as we're now terming it!) causes them problems that they've yet to resolve.

I would suspect that most people would agree that strong sexual content is inappropriate during the day. Where our dispute lies is what is acceptable post watershed (and I don't think you should show PG rated stuff at 8.59pm and R-18 at 9.01pm either! - the channels self imposing a post-10.00pm watershead seems a sensible approach).

Where I do disagree with Ofcom is that they overreact to complaints submitted by maybe only one person. I still think that there should be some sort of threashold number of complaints before Ofcom are required to investigate.

Perhaps the answer is for the babe channels to sit down with Ofcom to talk through a sensible compromise, although the sceptic in me actually wonders if the channels themselves really want to provide stronger content, or are happy to tip-toe the line as so defined by the regular.

(02-04-2010 10:56 )Sootbag1 Wrote:  I don't think that we should get too carried away with the view that Ofcom is the Great Satan. I just believe that 'adult sex' (as we're now terming it!) causes them problems that they've yet to resolve.

I would suspect that most people would agree that strong sexual content is inappropriate during the day. Where our dispute lies is what is acceptable post watershed (and I don't think you should show PG rated stuff at 8.59pm and R-18 at 9.01pm either! - the channels self imposing a post-10.00pm watershead seems a sensible approach).

Where I do disagree with Ofcom is that they overreact to complaints submitted by maybe only one person. I still think that there should be some sort of threashold number of complaints before Ofcom are required to investigate.

Perhaps the answer is for the babe channels to sit down with Ofcom to talk through a sensible compromise, although the sceptic in me actually wonders if the channels themselves really want to provide stronger content, or are happy to tip-toe the line as so defined by the regular.

I think your last comment sums up the real world situation, although it saddens me to believe it.

The babe channel operators generally behave in a cowardly and foolish manner, rolling over for Ofcom time and time again, stabbing each other in the back and operating with a complete lack of coherent strategy. However, I've come to the conclusion that they do this because it suits them, not because they're necessarily foolish and cowardly.

As has been proven on here, you can drive a coach and horses through Ofcom's rulings and justifications, yet there is a consistent lack of counter-argument from the channels.

Therefore the prospect of any real change is remote because the channels themselves don't want it, no matter what they may say on forums like this.

(02-04-2010 10:56 )Sootbag1 Wrote:  Perhaps the answer is for the babe channels to sit down with Ofcom to talk through a sensible compromise, although the sceptic in me actually wonders if the channels themselves really want to provide stronger content, or are happy to tip-toe the line as so defined by the regular.

The babe channels are in constant dialogue with Ofcom, not least when they have to respond to the complaints against them.

As far as Ofcom are concerned, and don't forget they were actively looking to find ways of getting rid of these channels altogether not so long ago, the current situation is a sensible compromise.

The answer is no longer with the channels unfortunately and is with the actual viewer making their voices heard. Unfortunately, the majority of viewers of the channels are just as inclined as you perceive the channels to be, to just accept what Ofcom say.

It takes 2 sides to compromise, as BA and Rail strikes show. Trouble is Ofcom are inconsistent. For long spells they seem to turn a blind eye, and even seem to pull their punches in the occasional Breech ruling, then suddenly, Wham! they fine a channel or threaten to close it down, because of something that happened months ago. And other broadcasts after the one found in breech, but before the ruling, are cited as examples of "repeat behaviour".

When you have two extreme opposite points of view, it's very unlikely that a compromise will happen... Even when there is common ground, people can be very bullheaded about compromising.

Unfortunately, money is usually the factor that changes things around...

(02-04-2010 12:42 )MARCCE Wrote:  SNIP

The answer is no longer with the channels unfortunately and is with the actual viewer making their voices heard.

SNIP

It IS in the hands of the broadcasters; they are the ones with the money to take Ofcon to court, but, thus far, they have chosen not to do so. Presumably, they are making enough money from their current, tame shows, to not make them bother.

Have you ever tried contacting Ofcon to complain about censorship? I have, and many others have too, from what I can see; it's a complete and utter waste of time (classic contradiction in terms - “it’s entirely up to the broadcaster to decide what they wish to broadcast, so long as they comply with our” censorship “code”; they are not in the least bit interested in censorship, except, that is, in imposing as much of it as they can get away with, and when the broadcasters do nothing about it, they have free reign.