Ofcom & The UK Adult Industry

There have been calls for the watershed to be made later at weekends, because kids obviously stay up later and essentially that makes sense. OFCOM were very quick in debunking that request by saying they have no plans whatsoever to laten the watershed.

So basically they'rel happy to control the babeshows and adult channels to the point tedium, even though it is rediculously easy for parents to block these channels, but then they throw out a valid argument for a later watershed that may in someway benefit future generations of children.

It would be the thin end of the wedge, so don't complain too loudly. Before long the 9pm watershed would be 11pm on Fridays and Saturdays, and midnight at Christmas, New Year and Bank Holidays.

And what about Thursday when some people start to wind down for the weekend?

And what about different practices amoung different religions - several regard Friday night the way Christians regard Sunday, so should an extra day be treated like the weekend for them? Eid is a popular Muslim holiday and then there is the Greek/Russian Orthodox Easter.

Suddenly half the calendar is blocked out with special days.

No, keep it simple, stick to one watershed.

Besides protecting children can be accomplished better other ways, like keeping adult content in a clearly labelled adult section.

Be interesting to see how many years, how many policy meetings and how many consultations it took Ofcom before they issued the denial though.

I don't think Offcom has a lot of confidence in parents putting locks on these channels, or maybe it's that they just want to control everything. I doubt full frontal nudity alone would hurt many children, and I doubt many children in the UK are even up at this hour anyway. Those who are more likely to be up at this hour at all, are older children or preteens who could handle seeing a naked woman, or who are seeking these channels out on purpose, like I did when I was young. Offcom pretends that all of the little innocent children in England are staying up until midnight every night, with enough of an attention span to flip through all the channels, without a parent monitoring them! Come on!!

I wouldn't even mind the watershed starting at midnight, as long as we could see our favorite women naked for once, though that's still a bit late for many people to want to start watching.

(10-06-2010 21:13 )mrmann Wrote:  I don't think Offcom has a lot of confidence in parents putting locks on these channels, or maybe it's that they just want to control everything. I doubt full frontal nudity alone would hurt many children, and I doubt many children in the UK are even up at this hour anyway. Those who are more likely to be up at this hour at all, are older children or preteens who could handle seeing a naked woman, or who are seeking these channels out on purpose, like I did when I was young. Offcom pretends that all of the little innocent children in England are staying up until midnight every night, with enough of an attention span to flip through all the channels, without a parent monitoring them! Come on!!

I wouldn't even mind the watershed starting at midnight, as long as we could see our favorite women naked for once, though that's still a bit late for many people to want to start watching.

Well said.
The UK must be the only country in the world where its television regulator thinks it's a fucking social worker.
You couldn't make this up if you tried.

(10-06-2010 21:13 )mrmann Wrote:  Offcom pretends that all of the little innocent children in England are staying up until midnight every night, with enough of an attention span to flip through all the channels, without a parent monitoring them! Come on!!

One problem with Offcom research into children's broadcasting habits was that while they said many children claimed to stay up late at night, they did not quantify how often - it's well known that many kids see the New Year in, many tend to stay up late over the Christmas period, and there are many families that have the occasional late night for Grannie's birthday. That doesn't mean the family are sitting around watching Skins, or that kids are routinely up at 11pm.

What is a "child" ? Ofcom rulings often give the impression that hordes of 16 and 17 year old boys are watching naughties on their bedroom TVs instead of doing homework at 10:30pm.

But hang on, Ofcom's own Guidance on Subscription Films and Pay Per View Services states "The “meaning of children” is “people under the age of fifteen. It is therefore unlikely that a recently BBFC 15-rated film could be scheduled during the day." Broadcasting Code Guidance - Section 1 - Protecting Under 18s (rules 1.22-1.26, page 9).

Quote:I wouldn't even mind the watershed starting at midnight, as long as we could see our favorite women naked for once, though that's still a bit late for many people to want to start watching.

You might not mind, but many adults have an early start. Bakers, anyone in transport, doctors, nurses ...

Interesting to see Ofcom's own Scheduling guidance re Rules 1.1 and 1.7 "Viewers and listeners make a distinction between channels which appeal to a wide-ranging audience, including children, and those that attract a smaller, niche audience, unlikely to appeal to children. Although broadcasters of these niche channels still carry a responsibility towards a potential child audience, the majority of homes do not contain children and viewers and listeners have a right to expect a range of subject matter." Guidance Notes Section 1 - Protecting The Under 18s (page 2)

Winston, can I take it that you believe the great god Ofcom has instructed you to "Go forth and be creative"?

I think you're right to name the 'UK Adult Industry' as a particular target of Ofcom's unfathomable hatred. After all, European-based 'adult channels' have no problem whatsoever in delivering R18-type material into British homes (with or without encryption and "mandatory PIN access").

I believe however that Ofcom are guilty of several violations of established UK Law. I think all Legislation can ONLY be enforced ACCORDING to The Law of the Land - that's right isn't it? How else could the Courts declare parts of various Acts unlawful or unenforceable if the Acts themselves defined "The Law"? Ofcom sure as hell aren't The Law. The Comms Act isn't The Law. The Law applies Equally to Everyone. So, when the High Court ruled that "Based on the available evidence, the risk of harm to 'vulnerable people' viewing R18-type material in the home is insignificant", that goes for everyone and every Public Body (including the BBFC and of course our dear Rights abusing Ofcom).

Granted, the High Court didn't use the term 'vulnerable people', they used the word 'children'. So, we can be ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN that Ofcom's claims to be protecting persons under 18 from R18-harm are utterly ILLEGAL under UK Law (that is unless some new proof or evidence of harm is presented before the High Court or perhaps the Supreme Court). The Law of the Land has stated categorically that the evidence of harm to persons under 18 from VIEWING R18-type material that's REQUIRED to significantly restrict the Fundamental Right to Freedom of Expression simply doesn't exist. We must therefore question WHO exactly fall within Ofcom's interpretation of 'vulnerable people' whom they ALONE claim to be protecting from some completely undefined and unspecified 'harm'. You will note that ALL these terms, 'harm', 'vulnerable people' etc. NEED defining BY LAW. They are in themselves open to various forms of interpretation far too wide to constitute a legally enforceable definition of a) the harm being done and b) the people to whom it can be shown to occur. Clearly, we're not talking about children here as any harm they may suffer has been declared insignificant by The Law. So, these other 'vulnerable people' must be over 18, thus they can I think be subject to ethical testing and the actual harm they may or may not suffer can be assessed or judged scientifically. But wait, this has all been done. Adults from all over the world have been shown adult sex material and even 'violent' adult sex material and, the results show no significant change in their personalities or degradation of their pro-social behaviours whatsoever. I suppose this is WHY the BBFC chose to claim they were protecting children from harm and thus WHY the High Court ruling only states R18 is safe for children to inadvertently view in the home (on TV from sources like DVD, video or satellite...).

It is crystal clear to me that Ofcom's claims have no factual foundation at all - they are just HEARSAY. Indeed, The Law of the Land doesn't support their claims in any way shape or form. How Ofcom believe their interpretation of the Comms Act can be lawful and correct when the Law itself has declared their beliefs BOGUS, UNFOUNDED and ILLEGAL simply beggars belief.

So, as REAL HARM isn't the legally recognised issue, we are left with Ofcom's second line of protection - i.e. preventing 'offence'.

To lawfully restrict a Fundamental Human Right like Freedom of Expression, The Law demands incontrovertable PROOF of HARM, and significant harm at that such that it warrants a significant restriction upon said Right. To be lawful, the restriction must be proportionate to the harm which may be caused.

Unfortunately for Ofcom, I know for a FACT that causing 'offence' is actually one legally protected PURPOSE and INTENT of the Right to Freedom of Expression. There is simply no cause or need to protect the Right to say things everyone welcomes. No, the Right to speak your mind, to offend arseholes, to expose fascists and generally wave two fingers at anyone else who wishes to shut you up, can ONLY exist for that very purpose. The Comms Act cannot simply revoke that INALIENABLE RIGHT on Ofcom's say so. Ofcom aren't The Law, Ofcom do not make The Law. The Law isn't even made in Parliament, it is made in Law Courts with first the LEARNED and LAWFUL interpretation of legislation then, that LEGALLY CORRECT and SOUND interpretation of the legislation is applied BY the Courts - i.e. by Qualified Judges guiding Juries of the people as the the LEGAL MEANING of vague words used by idiots in Parliament and passed on to Public Bodies with mindless, puritan, fascistic agendas of their own.

It matters not what Ofcom or anyone else believes. Ofcom CANNOT use their 'feelings', 'suspicions' or 'beliefs' to restrict anyone else's Fundamental Rights. Freedom of Thought, Conscience and Religion forbids such unfounded 'feelings' being used to 'justify' Human Rights abuses and restrictions. This is The Law of this Land as handed down by the Law Courts and Qualified Judges.

The Comms Act may well say Ofcom CAN do whatever they 'believe' is necessary but, unless Ofcom can PROVE to a Court of Law that their reasons for believing something are supported by solid evidence, their beliefs count for nothing but hearsay and as such carry no legal weight whatsoever. This is EXACTLY what happened to the BBFC and WHY we have the "R18 is safe for kids" JUDGEMENT to CALL UPON to SAFEGUARD OUR RIGHTS AS DEFINED BY LAW.

Where I wonder do Ofcom believe they draw their legal authority to act as they do? Much of what they're doing is totally unsupported and even FORBIDDEN BY The Law of this Land. Granted, the Comms Act is part of Statutory Legislation but, that is only a tiny fraction of The Law. The vast majority of The Law of the Land is decided by Juries and the Common Law precedents laid down in our highest Courts - indeed, these take absolute precedence over all and any bullshit Parliament passes onto the Statute. Statutory Legislation alone is NOT The Law (and anyone who says it is is a liar and fraudster). Statutory Legislation is sometimes proclaimed unlawful. It's interpretation by inexpert Public Bodies (e.g. the BBFC) is sometimes declared unlawful. Clearly, Legislation isn't The Law if it can be struck off the Statute or rendered unenforceable by the Law Courts (i.e. by Judges and Juries of the people - ah yes folks, YOU as a Juror get to decide EXACTLY what the Law of this Land SHOULD BE and what it CAN and CANNOT DO - The Law is supposed to reflect OUR Will and Conscience as a Nation of Reasonable, Rational, Right-Minded Democratic People (and let no one tell you different)).

Ofcom ALONE have decided that bog-standard 18-rated 'softcore' "adult sex works", that are available to any 'vulnerable person' over 18 from the likes of Amazon and HMV or, indeed, given away free on the cover of mags and rags from your local newsagent, is so 'dangerous', "harmful and offensive" that it can ONLY be broadcast behind layers of encryption and "mandatory PIN access restrictions". This MIGHT make logical sense IF the material in question actually showed explicit fucking and sucking BUT, it doesn't. It shows strategically placed pot plant all, "adult sex material". The question is, would a REASONABLE PERSON believe such 'softcore', widely (even FREELY) available material require such draconian and 'mandatory' restrictions? I believe NOT as the High Court ruled that "a reasonable person would, based on the available evidence, conclude that, the risk of harm to children from seeing hardcore R18-rated material is insignificant". We MUST therefore conclude that less explicit material is even less of a risk to 'vulnerable people' and thus requires even less of a precautionary restriction. Indeed, we might conclude that IF R18 were placed behind layers of encryption and PIN access controls (as ANY Reasonable Person would likely think it should) then, bog-standard 18-rated "adult sex works" could and SHOULD be broadcast WITHOUT any other restrictions than the well-known, well-understood, watershed (as indeed, they were for many years before Ofcom's irrational bullshit ran riot over the Learned opinions and Legal decisions of OUR highest Courts Of Law).

I conclude that Ofcom can be shown to be acting unreasonably and unlawfully.

In short, the Comms Act does not require Ofcom to prevent under age exposure to "adult sex works". It requires them to prevent any harm or offence resulting from that (inadvertent) exposure. Offence aside (as this isn't legally enforceable anyway!!) the Law doesn't recognise ANY HARM CAN or WILL be caused even IF children or some other unknown 'vulnerable people' SEE this type of material. So, as such risk-less 'harm and offence' that results from inadvertent exposure can EASILY be PREVENTED by clear labelling, time-restrictions and Parental-assigned controls (fitted by law to every piece of televisual equipment sold in the EU) Ofcom SHOULD be promoting the USE of ALL these techniques. We should have age-ratings or content symbols on-screen thoughout the duration of possibly 'harmful or offensive' material - simple. We should have audio announcements when the type of material changes from 'family' viewing to 'mature' viewing and (on certain 'specialist' channels) 'adult sex' viewing. It's all very simple and almost every other country in Europe uses EXCATLY these techniques to fulfill the same remit as Ofcom in allowing Freedom of Expression for ADULTS to be BALANCED against protection of the young and easily offended (are they these other mysterious 'vulnerable people' I wonder?).

I believe the above IS the only Reasonable and Rational and indeed LAWFUL means to achieve ALL of Ofcom's duties and objectives required by the Comms Act in ACCORDANCE with The Law (I'm sure most Courts of the land would agree too). It works everywhere else, so why not in the UK? Do Ofcom really know something no other TV regulator in Europe knows? More to the point, can Ofcom PROVE IT in the Eyes of The Law?

Heres an amusing newspaper report of the naked office which just about sums this horrible program up and it yet again highlights ofcoms stance and double standards when it comes to what you can and cannot see on tv, hence before the watershed on a Saturday at 8pm more to the point. http://www.guardian.co.uk/tv-and-radio/2...burn-naked

(11-06-2010 18:14 )IanG Wrote:  Winston, can I take it that you believe the great god Ofcom has instructed you to "Go forth and be creative"?

I think you're right to name the 'UK Adult Industry' as a particular target of Ofcom's unfathomable hatred. After all, European-based 'adult channels' have no problem whatsoever in delivering R18-type material into British homes (with or without encryption and "mandatory PIN access").

IanG, what do you want me to do about it? Burst into OFCOM headquarters, and demand R18 be allowed on adult pay-per-view?

I don't just look at things from my own point of view... When you're trying to do a deal in any industry, you have to cover as many angles as possible.

The situation isn't that simple... Hence, the thread title "OFCOM & The UK Adult Industry"

Winston, OFCOM ARE FINISHED.

They are probably one of the most evil things I've ever had the misfortune to be OPPRESSED by.

THEY ARE OUR SERVANTS and by all that's Good and Right and True they will pay dearly for their betrayal of our trust.

TREASON!

http://www.babeshows.co.uk/showthread.ph...#pid548075

(07-06-2010 23:56 )arron88 Wrote:  If it had been decided some time ago to allow hardcore we would
today have very few babe channels or none at all. We would have seen hardcore channels as part of basic subscription or only an extra £2/month for a few channels. So Ofcom has actually been good for babe channels - it is just a fluke they exist. Count yourself lucky teleshopping is not banned on TV!

There is however some accountability problem in how we do things 'at arms length'. But I do think hardcore will be on adult TV soon - just because it is overdue.

Showing your ignorance there boy.
These shows bring something to the table that has never been accessable before...direct customer feedback.

There has never before been an oportunity for pornography producers to get a direct handle on exactly what the customers want to experience.

Thats golddust and wont be thrown away lightly.

To Wolfy, I seriously object to your point of view. You assume that if hardcore content were available then all girls would be forced to produce hardcore material. This point of view completely fails to take account of the current situation where we have at least 2 tiers of girls. The ones that only do daytime shows and the ones that do the nighttime shows as well.

If what you're saying is true, all the daytime girls would have been forced to produce nighttime material and we all know that that is simply not the case.

The girls dictate what they will or won't do and if the producers don't like it the girls simply move to another station.

...as it should be.


In short, the whole 'girls being forced to do stuff they don't want to do' argument is completely baseless and something I would expect to hear from the worst scaremungering OfCom officials.