Ofcom Discussion

The new government, or "coalition" as we are supposed to call them (the theory is that makes it easier to forget who they were) is all about empowerment. Communities can set up schools, hospitals, pubs, post offices, shops, space stations.

Why not a community babe channel?

None of this queuing up for a scarce Sky or Freeview slot, Ofcom licencing or heavy duty regulations, financial and equal opportunities monitoring. No, make it easy to just do it.

Something needs to be done as the channels are all very predictable, same old stagnated routine every night, channels in other european countries such as Germany who show eurotic tv and sexysat tv don't seem to have any censorship issues these days and have set the benchmark, it frustrates the hell out of me as the uk actually has the potential if it were'nt for ofcom to interfere to broadcast the best in europe as we have a shit load more channels than any other country in the world come to think of it and the potential for expanding the shows all across europe could be a possibly but in its current state it offers nothing to potential new customers, no muff then no show thats the bottom line.

from The UK Babe Channels Forum / General / UK Babe Channels / Babe shows 2011

(31-07-2010 19:38 )TheWatcher Wrote:  ... Babestation now starts one hour later at 11pm, and from 1st September it looks like neither it, nor any other babe show will be on Freeview before midnight.

Remind me, how did FunOffCom decide on a midnight watershed? It basically asked itself for a definition of "late". That's find for people who don't go to bed until 2am, but not much good for people who have to start work at 6am on the snowplough.

In particular this discriminates against people in northern lattitudes where the sun goes down much earlier, particularly the Scots.

By setting a late thereshold of midnight Ofcom is discriminating against entire regions of the UK and therefore in breech of the Broadcasting Act.

If they actually go ahead with a midnight watershed, then they had better relax the rules, because less people are going to watch if they don't.

This is my first post on the forums so the regulars will have to allow for that when they read it. (Please!)

First and foremost I agree with the overall sentiment that Ofcom is not fit for purpose, but think that the problem runs a little deeper than Ofcom simply being useless. I work in the legal profession (though not broadcasting law) and have to disagree with the comments that the code regulating the channels is in some way wrong. The problem may be the code, I am not familiar enough with it to critique it, but with interpretation and perception of what it says.

The best way I can explain this is with an anology. A line of cars is stationary and a motorbike is filtering passed them. The road is narrow so occcasionally the biker has to pass onto the wrong side of the road. Ahead of the bike a car suddenly pulls out across the bikes path. The bike cannot avoid the car and there is a crash. Legally neither party has done anything wrong. They are both carrying out a legal act. The courts however, interpret the bike rider's actions as being more blameworthy and they will be held mainly to blame.

How does this translate to bang babes? Simple. The overall aim of the code is to protect the public and what constitutes a threat is interpreted by Ofcom. Bang babes/media will employ solicitors and are not doing anything illegal, what they are doing is creating a perceived 'threat' to the public. Who then are the public? For Ofcom there will almost certainly be three categories:

1. People who watch the show and don't complain
2. People who watch and complain (or simply rat on rivals as some people suggest here)
3. People who do not watch the show, have never heard of it and may find it by accident.

To Ofcom people in group 1 are irrelevant. You watch the shows so your view is biased and 'corrupted'. Group 3 in and off themselves are irrelevant but they are the rationale when somebody (or some organisation) from group 2 makes a complaint. Ofcom interpret the law using what ever guideline they use and if it may be a 'threat' to someone who may watch the channel by accident and then the offender gets the fine.

Some of the previous posts suggest Ofcom need to move the yardstick. The problem with that is one of perception. Many people find big brother offensive but more people didn't so the rule of majority wins. With the babe channels it is the other way around. The whole industry is still seen as sleezy by a lot of people and whilst a lot of people are for liberalisation, there are enough who are not to allow Ofcom to say they are preserving public integrity without the wider public querying it. The jade goody racism on big rother was an example of how when more say no than yes Ofcom change their stance quickly.

In relation to appealing the decision I think it is unlikely for a few reasons. Firstly it is not cheap. Secondly I do not know how many barristers (would not be a solicitor on something like this) work in this field but I would not expect it to be many. Would a top line barrister want to be involved in what would essentially become an 'Is it porn?' debate. Ofcom on the other side can more easily access top line legal advice as they are portraying themselves as 'the good guys'. The final reason is whether they would be able to succeed. I do not work in this field but in most civil law areas a decision can only be appealed if it is

a) wrong in law
b) so perverse as to be dangerous
c) new evidence comes to light.

There cannot really be new evidence and the reaft of previous decisions means it will not be perverse. An error in law is equally unlikely because Ofcom are interpreting a law and their powers. A misinterpretation will almost (1 in a 1000 shot) never be viewed as an error in law. Bang media would have to show that Ofcom have either used power they do not have or exceeded that power. This is very difficult and risky. I would be surprised if the rules in broadcasting law did not follwo the rest of civil law but may well be wrong.

The reality therefore is that not only are band babes stuck but so are the rest of us, because short of a complete legislative re-write (unlikely) or the disbandment of Ofcom (Please!!) then they will continue as they currently do because the perceived majority is on their sides.

Sorry if a bit long winded and as this is a first post please be gentle!

What is the point in ofcom. Last time i checked we are all adults. The best way to not be offended by anything you watch is quite simple. If you don't like the content there is one very easy step to prevent it, it's quite simple press the change channel button on your remote. If you do that the offending programme dissapears. It's an amazing button which a lot of moaners & ofcom should be able to use.

I don't like eastenders but i don't write to ofcom complaining i just turn the channel over & apply my own censorship.

I've had enough of so called do gooders & ofcom controlling everything on the bloody tv. Leave our babe channel girls alone.

Rant over phew

(05-08-2010 20:32 )lan1701 Wrote:  This is my first post on the forums so the regulars will have to allow for that when they read it. (Please!)

First and foremost I agree with the overall sentiment that Ofcom is not fit for purpose, but think that the problem runs a little deeper than Ofcom simply being useless. I work in the legal profession (though not broadcasting law) and have to disagree with the comments that the code regulating the channels is in some way wrong. The problem may be the code, I am not familiar enough with it to critique it, but with interpretation and perception of what it says.

The best way I can explain this is with an anology. A line of cars is stationary and a motorbike is filtering passed them. The road is narrow so occcasionally the biker has to pass onto the wrong side of the road. Ahead of the bike a car suddenly pulls out across the bikes path. The bike cannot avoid the car and there is a crash. Legally neither party has done anything wrong. They are both carrying out a legal act. The courts however, interpret the bike rider's actions as being more blameworthy and they will be held mainly to blame.

How does this translate to bang babes? Simple. The overall aim of the code is to protect the public and what constitutes a threat is interpreted by Ofcom. Bang babes/media will employ solicitors and are not doing anything illegal, what they are doing is creating a perceived 'threat' to the public. Who then are the public? For Ofcom there will almost certainly be three categories:

1. People who watch the show and don't complain
2. People who watch and complain (or simply rat on rivals as some people suggest here)
3. People who do not watch the show, have never heard of it and may find it by accident.

To Ofcom people in group 1 are irrelevant. You watch the shows so your view is biased and 'corrupted'. Group 3 in and off themselves are irrelevant but they are the rationale when somebody (or some organisation) from group 2 makes a complaint. Ofcom interpret the law using what ever guideline they use and if it may be a 'threat' to someone who may watch the channel by accident and then the offender gets the fine.

Some of the previous posts suggest Ofcom need to move the yardstick. The problem with that is one of perception. Many people find big brother offensive but more people didn't so the rule of majority wins. With the babe channels it is the other way around. The whole industry is still seen as sleezy by a lot of people and whilst a lot of people are for liberalisation, there are enough who are not to allow Ofcom to say they are preserving public integrity without the wider public querying it. The jade goody racism on big rother was an example of how when more say no than yes Ofcom change their stance quickly.

In relation to appealing the decision I think it is unlikely for a few reasons. Firstly it is not cheap. Secondly I do not know how many barristers (would not be a solicitor on something like this) work in this field but I would not expect it to be many. Would a top line barrister want to be involved in what would essentially become an 'Is it porn?' debate. Ofcom on the other side can more easily access top line legal advice as they are portraying themselves as 'the good guys'. The final reason is whether they would be able to succeed. I do not work in this field but in most civil law areas a decision can only be appealed if it is

a) wrong in law
b) so perverse as to be dangerous
c) new evidence comes to light.

There cannot really be new evidence and the reaft of previous decisions means it will not be perverse. An error in law is equally unlikely because Ofcom are interpreting a law and their powers. A misinterpretation will almost (1 in a 1000 shot) never be viewed as an error in law. Bang media would have to show that Ofcom have either used power they do not have or exceeded that power. This is very difficult and risky. I would be surprised if the rules in broadcasting law did not follwo the rest of civil law but may well be wrong.

The reality therefore is that not only are band babes stuck but so are the rest of us, because short of a complete legislative re-write (unlikely) or the disbandment of Ofcom (Please!!) then they will continue as they currently do because the perceived majority is on their sides.

Sorry if a bit long winded and as this is a first post please be gentle!

Briiliant post answers everything thanks.
The real answer is pin numbers just like TVxxporn.They dont have to charge for it but still wont do it because they are all too greedy.Its far eaasier to abide by Ofcums rules as they are still coining it in because us mugs keep phoning in.

(05-08-2010 20:32 )lan1701 Wrote:  An error in law is equally unlikely because Ofcom are interpreting a law and their powers. A misinterpretation will almost (1 in a 1000 shot) never be viewed as an error in law. Bang media would have to show that Ofcom have either used power they do not have or exceeded that power. This is very difficult and risky. I would be surprised if the rules in broadcasting law did not follwo the rest of civil law but may well be wrong.

The reality therefore is that not only are band babes stuck but so are the rest of us, because short of a complete legislative re-write (unlikely) or the disbandment of Ofcom (Please!!) then they will continue as they currently do because the perceived majority is on their sides.

Sorry if a bit long winded and as this is a first post please be gentle!

The fact that R18 material is legally available to buy in sex shops, but prohibited on TV, proves that OFCOM think they are above the law. Just one of many examples...

(06-08-2010 17:19 )slippy99 Wrote:  The real answer is pin numbers just like TVxxporn.They dont have to charge for it but still wont do it because they are all too greedy.Its far eaasier to abide by Ofcums rules as they are still coining it in because us mugs keep phoning in.

It was OFCOM that decided this kind of material can only be broadcast on TV via adult pay-per-view.

Ian1701, welcome and thanks for the well argued and thought provoking post.

As you say, Ofcom have now been going so long that the "pervese decision" argument might be difficult to win. Not sure I agree, but I can see where you are coming from.

But there are many points where it is arguable that Ofcom are not acting legally. Hmm, where to start?

Take the motor cycle example. Suppose there is no accident, simply a motor cyclist doing something potentially dangerous. Now suppose a stream of motor cyclists do roughly the same thing in roughly the same area. And they all work for courier companies.

But time and time again the police only happen to catch bikers from one company. They warn then, eventually they fine them.

Saying other bikers do it is not a defence.

Saying no accident occured is a defence (or mitigation) but carries little weight and they get fined anyway.

If the law consistently penalises one party might you suspect something astray in the application of the law? Might the police suspect they were being tipped off by a rival for commercial gain, a strategy that works because different companies have different shift times (or know when to play safe). If you were Mr plod might you be a bit peeved at being used as a competitors tool?

Then there's public consultation over public attitudes. The original survey group was heavily biassed towards Asian women and Afro-Carribean women, both groups known for mild to extreme religious conservatism. Rather than reject the Report and refuse to pay for it, Ofcom accepted it and even went further.

Can anyone tell me how a natural body part like a vagina is considered R18??? I thought a naked female body was 18 material, which is why they have the warning on the screen, and why the women remind us of the time. R18 is suppose to be hardcore, but to me, a naked body is NOT hardcore. I felt bad watching Charlie on Elite last night, as she was hopping around with her hand covering herself, like she was hiding something illegal or dangerous! Sad.

I'm OK with the 12:00 am watershed, as long as we can see what we want from now on, and the later time would still give Offcom some control, which they seem to thrive on. I know it's a late time to see nudity, but rules would need to relax because of it, which is good for me. If they do go ahead with the 12am watershed, and the rules don't relax, then I will urge everyone to stop calling and even watching, to a certain extent, because Offcom will be screwing us! Moving the watershed up by two hours, must ensure us that the rules will be relaxed once it hits 12am, or else the channels will suffer greatly! Offcom can't have it both ways.