Ofcom Discussion

~~ledders69~~ · 10-11-2010 02:41

Are ofcom completely living in the past as one of my last posts suggests or are they doing this to annoy us? these censorship rules are getting beyond a bloody joke. Waiting for that day where ofcom have devestation on their faces, as it is there is a lot of jobs going from this needless and impractical quango, when they are fired it will bring a smile to our faces. Babe channels ought not to get these nasty punishments, but ofcom are like 'whatever' and do them regardless. We all are sick and tired of this bloody game ofcom and be straight with us for once please Important

beller · 10-11-2010 10:03

I recently received a long and courteous reply from someone reasonably high up at Ofcom. The phrase "generally accepted standards" was mentioned 5 times as a defence in 2 pages, so it is clearly in the public interest to know what these are and who determines them.

I have therefore offcially requested a copy and details of who is consulted in order to arrive at the "general" nature of these standards.

Much good may it do me, I know. After this it's an FOI request - which I'm sure has been made many times before. We'll see.

The least we can all do, perhaps, is bombard our MPs about Ofcom's lack of willingness to prove its accountability.

eccles · 12-11-2010 01:58

(10-11-2010 10:03 )beller Wrote: I recently received a long and courteous reply from someone reasonably high up at Ofcom. The phrase "generally accepted standards" was mentioned 5 times as a defence in 2 pages, so it is clearly in the public interest to know what these are and who determines them.

I have therefore offcially requested a copy and details of who is consulted in order to arrive at the "general" nature of these standards.

Much good may it do me, I know. After this it's an FOI request - which I'm sure has been made many times before. We'll see.

The least we can all do, perhaps, is bombard our MPs about Ofcom's lack of willingness to prove its accountability.

Beller, Ofcom will refer you to their latest research document "Attitudes to Sexual Material on Television" published 15 June 2009 alongside consultation on updating the Broadcasting Code. The researchers recruited 169 people of mixed ages etc and showed them a small number (9) of 3 minute clips of FTA material (some had previously been found "in breach" and went beyond previously permitted limits).

Page 4 Wrote:Note: the quantitative findings should be treated as indicative only, given the overall sample size (169 participants) and given that the sample was not selected with the aim of reflecting an exact representation of the population as a whole, rather with the aim of providing enough people in all the groups of interest to conduct qualitative discussion groups.

Page 7 Wrote:The context in which any sexual material was shown was extremely important in determining perceived acceptability. Contextual considerations discussed by participants focused on three key issues:Contextual considerations discussed by participants focused on three key issues:
o Were children likely to stumble across sexual content either unintentionally or intentionally?
o Would viewers know what to expect from the programme?
o Did the editorial context justify the content?

Note that 2nd bullet point - Knowing what to expect = context

This means naked flesh is more acceptable in a show called "Naked Slappers Get Their Tits Out" on the EsSEXXX channel in the Adult section of the EPG, than exactly the same image at the same time on a mainstream channel in "Diary Of A Call Girl", "The Sweeney" or "Rome".

Quote:Clip 3 was taken from a serialised historical drama transmitted from 21:00 on BBC Two ["Rome", 9pm, a prestige BBC co-production].
The programme featured a scene showing a female character engaged in sexual intercourse with a man to the point of climax [not shown].
47% of participants thought it was acceptable, a further 28% were neutral and 24% found the clip unacceptable. Contextual factors including time of broadcast, historical context for accuracy and the perceived tasteful presentation of the images of sex and nudity influenced perceived acceptability.

Quote:Clip 7 was taken from a TV sex-drama series transmitted from 23:00 on Playboy One (broadcast without mandatory access restrictions) [Sex House, Playboy One, 11pm]. The full programme featured strong and repeated sex scenes, one of which was viewed in the clip shown to the participants.
This clip featured a male and female actor engaged in what appeared to be real sex acts including oral sex and full intercourse (although no sexual organs i.e. neither a penis nor vagina, were visible).
All participants considered this material to be “porn”. However they were divided on its acceptability. Some (40%) thought it was acceptable for reasons which included that it was on a channel associated with sexual content, so clearly signposted. Others (29%) thought it unacceptable, considering that the material was gratuitous and had insufficient context. Some considered that because it was “pornographic” material it should have been broadcast only with mandatory access restrictions. 21% were neutral.

Quote:Clip 9 was taken from a free-to-view trailer to promote an adult-sex channel (with mandatory access restrictions). The promotional trailer was broadcast at midnight on RedHot 40+. It contained material of a strong sexual nature including images of what appeared to be real sexual activity.
Just under half (43%) of participants thought the clip was acceptable given that it was shown very late at night. A further 21% were neutral. 26% found the material unacceptable, some were concerned about older children (12 years and above) intentionally seeking out this content, even at midnight.

Bear in mind that at the time school children aged 14-16 studying for GCSEs were instructed by their teachers to watch Rome. This had about the same acceptability rating as outright sexual material on Playboy One (genine oral and vaginal sex) and the Red Hot 40+ trailer.

Clips that were less acceptable were The Alan Titchmarsh Show, when sex toys were on display and discussed indaytime TV (ITV1) and a trailer for Spice Extreme (strong fetish content / anal).

As far as time/the watershed went,

Page 11 Wrote:stronger material becoming more acceptable after 22:00 and especially 23:00. At 21:00 participants said they did not expect to see much more than a brief sex scene or brief nudity

- clear guidance there, caution at 9pm, bit racier at 10pm, and stronger stuff from 11pm (within limits).

A sizeable minority of older men and women were concerned about the impact of sexual material on society with depictions of "sex outside marriage, group sex and wife-swapping" (page 25) - by which they meant storylines in Eastenders etc as much as adult channels. So the acceptabilty of a sex scene might depend on WHO as much as WHAT.

Some were concerned that teens might be "encouraged into earlier or more extreme sexual experimentation". So SIMPLE SEX might be more acceptable than COMPLEX SEX (fetish, bondage, group, S&M, anal, lesbianism).

page 26 Wrote:o The standards participants expected the on-demand services (providing programmes and films) and the adult-sex channels (which are subject to mandatory access restrictions) to follow were much less strict. This was largely because they thought that viewers should know what to expect from these channels – which they felt reduced the potential for personal offence;
o Participants also considered that these services/channels could follow less strict standards of content because their audience size was perceived as smaller; and
o However, it was considered that they should still adhere to important conditions regarding how and when they could be accessed

So the survey group was tolerant of stronger sexual material on sex channels.

There were concerns about under 18s accessing shows, and TVs in their bedrooms. There were also concerns about sexualisation from music videos.

Personal offence -

Page 29 Wrote:Additionally, participants said that adults could just switch channels if they came across something they found offensive.

compare that with Ofcoms view in Broadcast Bulletins and Sanctions cases against Bang Babes and Elite, where breaching "Generally Accepted Standards" is the hammer used.

There WERE concerns about viewing sexual material unexpectedly - much more of an issue on Channel 4, Five, Bravo, Living or Virgin 1 than a well signposted sex channel in the Adult part of the EPG.

Page 39 Wrote:Male and female genitals
Participants were split in their perceptions of whether or not it was acceptable to show images of genitals on television without access restrictions (either mandatory or voluntary) in place. An approximately equal proportion of participants said they believed that images of male or female genitals should appear after 21:00 if the context demanded, compared to those who said that such images should not be shown without mandatory access restrictions.

Equally divided on the acceptability of showing cock and fanny!
Admittedly it is not clear whether they are talking about cutting edge drama on the BBC, sex education shows for teenagers on Channel 4, or babe shows.

Page 40 Wrote:Sexual intercourse
... covered a wide range of potential material .... a number of key factors ... which body parts would be visible ... drew the line in different places ... more private body parts (especially breasts, vaginas and penises, but also to some extent buttocks) were seen as less acceptable with the majority of participants saying they did not want or expect to see such material on television without some form of restriction.
... editorial justification ... believed that sexual intercourse should not just be shown as “sex for sex’s sake” [referring to mainstream TV] ... how long the scene lasted ... how tasteful the images were. Participants also felt that programmes showing scenes of sexual intercourse should either be signalled by information or guidance, or it should be reasonably implied from the programme title that stronger sexual material was likely to occur.

"Some form of restriction" does not have to mean encryption, PIN codes and credit card registration. It can just mean limited to channels in the Adult section that can be locked out (thats 1 restriction) late at night (restriction number 2).

There is plenty more, but this should be food for thought. Like all these surveys, it doess not give a clear Green light or a Red light to anything, but it does seem to say that Ofcoms own survey group found sex for sexs sake on a late night sex channel to be equally acceptable as serious drama on the BBC ("Rome").

Some of the clips feature real sex, even if no genitals were shown, yet Broadcast Bulletins hammer any clip that "a reasoable person might think was genuine." Lets be clear about this - Ofcoms own survey found that, say, side on dildo sex or side on oral on a free-to-air adult channel was no more and no less acceptable than material on the BBC, ITV, C4 or Five, yet these days it is not even broadcast live on pay per view channels.

I have never understood why BangBabes, Playboy, Elite, etc do not quote Ofcoms own survey back at them in compliance meetings and say "Look, you are an evidence based regulator, here is your own evidence, we comply with it".

Anal, bondage, group, strong fetish, lesbianism - no.
Nudity - sometimes.
Straight sex - sometimes.
Relationship sex - yes, causal sex - no.

~~ledders69~~ · 12-11-2010 02:19

Ofcom are just so boring, I mean you look at Tammy Taylor last night, bs tried to censor her at every best opportunity last night when she went naked. Same with Paige Tyler, tonight in the shower with Lolly Badcock. These constraints are getting beyond a bloody joke with where they position the camera and what position the girls are allowed to get in. Hope that when Georgie returns that the bs camera staff don't do their best to censor her at every opportunity. She should be treated like Karina, Michelle and Camilla. I despair at the bs producers and despair at them for the ludicrous advertising still of bs extreme. What is so special about it? honestly don't get it. In eccles's post ofcom should have eaten their words but they haven't, ofcom really do disgust me to high hell and back. annoyed

What's next fine elite tv for their recent wrongdoings, how pathetic. annoyed

eccles · 13-11-2010 01:10

Ofcom have fined channels for advertising websites that contain hardcore content. Never fully understood their logic, but its something along the lines that by displaying the web address they are showing kids how to access porn. Be interesting to see if that argument stood up to challenge if only shown after 2am, but thats the situation as it stands.

Krill Liberator · 13-11-2010 01:32

(13-11-2010 01:10 )eccles Wrote: Ofcom have fined channels for advertising websites that contain hardcore content. Never fully understood their logic, but its something along the lines that by displaying the web address they are showing kids how to access porn. Be interesting to see if that argument stood up to challenge if only shown after 2am, but thats the situation as it stands.

Hmmm, that's taking crazy to an all-new extreme. But, hey! If you want draconian done to a silly level, that's the time to switch on the big Ofcom searchlight and see them come running in their capes, wielding their Ban-arangs ™
Personally, I'd love to attend one of these ridiculous Ofcom focus group meetings and just, halfway through of course, go over to one of the officials and borrow their laptop - "Excuse me, do you mind? Just one moment...what if I were thirteen years old and I decided to google, ummm let's see, I know! 'girls get jizzed'... that's language of the kind the teenagers round my way use...OH GOD! Will you look at THAT, for the love of Christ!!!"
Yeah, Ofcom - ensuring the internet never corrupts our youth and ensuring, once and for all that their efforts against the babe channels safeguard all minors from hardcore smut. Or not.
It's time for them to give it a rest... and go howl at the wind instead.

(sorry, this probably should have gone on a different thread. My bad)

jimmyt73 · 13-11-2010 02:53

(12-11-2010 01:58 )eccles Wrote: [quote='beller' pid='662334' dateline='1289383406']
I recently received a long and courteous reply from someone reasonably high up at Ofcom. The phrase "generally accepted standards" was mentioned 5 times as a defence in 2 pages, so it is clearly in the public interest to know what these are and who determines them.

I have therefore offcially requested a copy and details of who is consulted in order to arrive at the "general" nature of these standards.

Much good may it do me, I know. After this it's an FOI request - which I'm sure has been made many times before. We'll see.

The least we can all do, perhaps, is bombard our MPs about Ofcom's lack of willingness to prove its accountability.

Beller, Ofcom will refer you to their latest research document "Attitudes to Sexual Material on Television" published 15 June 2009 alongside consultation on updating the Broadcasting Code. The researchers recruited 169 people of mixed ages etc and showed them a small number (9) of 3 minute clips of FTA material (some had previously been found "in breach" and went beyond previously permitted limits).

Page 4 Wrote:Note: the quantitative findings should be treated as indicative only, given the overall sample size (169 participants) and given that the sample was not selected with the aim of reflecting an exact representation of the population as a whole, rather with the aim of providing enough people in all the groups of interest to conduct qualitative discussion groups.

Page 7 Wrote:The context in which any sexual material was shown was extremely important in determining perceived acceptability. Contextual considerations discussed by participants focused on three key issues:Contextual considerations discussed by participants focused on three key issues:
o Were children likely to stumble across sexual content either unintentionally or intentionally?
o Would viewers know what to expect from the programme?
o Did the editorial context justify the content?

Note that 2nd bullet point - Knowing what to expect = context

This means naked flesh is more acceptable in a show called "Naked Slappers Get Their Tits Out" on the EsSEXXX channel in the Adult section of the EPG, than exactly the same image at the same time on a mainstream channel in "Diary Of A Call Girl", "The Sweeney" or "Rome".

Quote:Clip 3 was taken from a serialised historical drama transmitted from 21:00 on BBC Two ["Rome", 9pm, a prestige BBC co-production].
The programme featured a scene showing a female character engaged in sexual intercourse with a man to the point of climax [not shown].
47% of participants thought it was acceptable, a further 28% were neutral and 24% found the clip unacceptable. Contextual factors including time of broadcast, historical context for accuracy and the perceived tasteful presentation of the images of sex and nudity influenced perceived acceptability.

Quote:Clip 7 was taken from a TV sex-drama series transmitted from 23:00 on Playboy One (broadcast without mandatory access restrictions) [Sex House, Playboy One, 11pm]. The full programme featured strong and repeated sex scenes, one of which was viewed in the clip shown to the participants.
This clip featured a male and female actor engaged in what appeared to be real sex acts including oral sex and full intercourse (although no sexual organs i.e. neither a penis nor vagina, were visible).
All participants considered this material to be “porn”. However they were divided on its acceptability. Some (40%) thought it was acceptable for reasons which included that it was on a channel associated with sexual content, so clearly signposted. Others (29%) thought it unacceptable, considering that the material was gratuitous and had insufficient context. Some considered that because it was “pornographic” material it should have been broadcast only with mandatory access restrictions. 21% were neutral.

Quote:Clip 9 was taken from a free-to-view trailer to promote an adult-sex channel (with mandatory access restrictions). The promotional trailer was broadcast at midnight on RedHot 40+. It contained material of a strong sexual nature including images of what appeared to be real sexual activity.
Just under half (43%) of participants thought the clip was acceptable given that it was shown very late at night. A further 21% were neutral. 26% found the material unacceptable, some were concerned about older children (12 years and above) intentionally seeking out this content, even at midnight.

Bear in mind that at the time school children aged 14-16 studying for GCSEs were instructed by their teachers to watch Rome. This had about the same acceptability rating as outright sexual material on Playboy One (genine oral and vaginal sex) and the Red Hot 40+ trailer.

Clips that were less acceptable were The Alan Titchmarsh Show, when sex toys were on display and discussed indaytime TV (ITV1) and a trailer for Spice Extreme (strong fetish content / anal).

As far as time/the watershed went,

Page 11 Wrote:stronger material becoming more acceptable after 22:00 and especially 23:00. At 21:00 participants said they did not expect to see much more than a brief sex scene or brief nudity

- clear guidance there, caution at 9pm, bit racier at 10pm, and stronger stuff from 11pm (within limits).

A sizeable minority of older men and women were concerned about the impact of sexual material on society with depictions of "sex outside marriage, group sex and wife-swapping" (page 25) - by which they meant storylines in Eastenders etc as much as adult channels. So the acceptabilty of a sex scene might depend on WHO as much as WHAT.

Some were concerned that teens might be "encouraged into earlier or more extreme sexual experimentation". So SIMPLE SEX might be more acceptable than COMPLEX SEX (fetish, bondage, group, S&M, anal, lesbianism).

page 26 Wrote:o The standards participants expected the on-demand services (providing programmes and films) and the adult-sex channels (which are subject to mandatory access restrictions) to follow were much less strict. This was largely because they thought that viewers should know what to expect from these channels – which they felt reduced the potential for personal offence;
o Participants also considered that these services/channels could follow less strict standards of content because their audience size was perceived as smaller; and
o However, it was considered that they should still adhere to important conditions regarding how and when they could be accessed

So the survey group was tolerant of stronger sexual material on sex channels.

There were concerns about under 18s accessing shows, and TVs in their bedrooms. There were also concerns about sexualisation from music videos.

Personal offence -

Page 29 Wrote:Additionally, participants said that adults could just switch channels if they came across something they found offensive.

compare that with Ofcoms view in Broadcast Bulletins and Sanctions cases against Bang Babes and Elite, where breaching "Generally Accepted Standards" is the hammer used.

There WERE concerns about viewing sexual material unexpectedly - much more of an issue on Channel 4, Five, Bravo, Living or Virgin 1 than a well signposted sex channel in the Adult part of the EPG.

Page 39 Wrote:Male and female genitals
Participants were split in their perceptions of whether or not it was acceptable to show images of genitals on television without access restrictions (either mandatory or voluntary) in place. An approximately equal proportion of participants said they believed that images of male or female genitals should appear after 21:00 if the context demanded, compared to those who said that such images should not be shown without mandatory access restrictions.

Equally divided on the acceptability of showing cock and fanny!
Admittedly it is not clear whether they are talking about cutting edge drama on the BBC, sex education shows for teenagers on Channel 4, or babe shows.

Page 40 Wrote:Sexual intercourse
... covered a wide range of potential material .... a number of key factors ... which body parts would be visible ... drew the line in different places ... more private body parts (especially breasts, vaginas and penises, but also to some extent buttocks) were seen as less acceptable with the majority of participants saying they did not want or expect to see such material on television without some form of restriction.
... editorial justification ... believed that sexual intercourse should not just be shown as “sex for sex’s sake” [referring to mainstream TV] ... how long the scene lasted ... how tasteful the images were. Participants also felt that programmes showing scenes of sexual intercourse should either be signalled by information or guidance, or it should be reasonably implied from the programme title that stronger sexual material was likely to occur.

"Some form of restriction" does not have to mean encryption, PIN codes and credit card registration. It can just mean limited to channels in the Adult section that can be locked out (thats 1 restriction) late at night (restriction number 2).

There is plenty more, but this should be food for thought. Like all these surveys, it doess not give a clear Green light or a Red light to anything, but it does seem to say that Ofcoms own survey group found sex for sexs sake on a late night sex channel to be equally acceptable as serious drama on the BBC ("Rome").

Some of the clips feature real sex, even if no genitals were shown, yet Broadcast Bulletins hammer any clip that "a reasoable person might think was genuine." Lets be clear about this - Ofcoms own survey found that, say, side on dildo sex or side on oral on a free-to-air adult channel was no more and no less acceptable than material on the BBC, ITV, C4 or Five, yet these days it is not even broadcast live on pay per view channels.

I have never understood why BangBabes, Playboy, Elite, etc do not quote Ofcoms own survey back at them in compliance meetings and say "Look, you are an evidence based regulator, here is your own evidence, we comply with it".

Anal, bondage, group, strong fetish, lesbianism - no.
Nudity - sometimes.
Straight sex - sometimes.
Relationship sex - yes, causal sex - no.
[/quot

Thanks for the update on the current situation we can only hope that these findings in the survey are acted upon and they start allowing us to make our own decisions about what we feel comfortable watching.
there is nothing to stop those who object to that type of program switching over to something else. Smile

Krill Liberator · 13-11-2010 15:45

Quite so - in fact, Eccles managed to uncover a portion of one of the Ofcom reports which openly acknowledged that very fact - ie; a large proportion of public respondents had suggested that if a viewer finds something to be offensive they can simply switch channels and thus resolve the problem at a stroke.
Common sense is indeed commonplace. There is no room for common sense in the fear-filled, retribution-shy corridors of 'power', where the inhabitants continually try to avoid responsibility for anything and would rather you were boxed up in bubble-wrap so that the world had no ability to offend you, or your fellow countrymen. It's insane and it's our lovely fluffy System. And it's going to change.

~~ledders69~~ · 14-11-2010 01:59

An evidence I've seen of ofcom censorship tonight is the camera moving about on Paiges show, I'm seriously annoyed about it. She's putting on a great show and the prawn head camera staff are trying to use constraints so she stays in one position. Tell you ofcom censorship has got ridiculous tonight to boiling point. We are hacked off as we are the viewers and Paiges show is being ruined by wonky camerawork. What's next censor Tammy on her next night booking, I seriously give up with ofcom. annoyed

~~Scottishbloke~~ · 14-11-2010 03:23

To be honest I'm not sure with regards to Paiges show if its anything to do with ofcom. I would probably say its babestation in general because which has been highlighted before when its Camilla or Jada for example I don't see the babestation camera censor it as much as Georgie or Paige. Ofcom can be too readily used as an excuse for this level of inconsistency shown on this channel, but the sooner ofcom disband the better. Only then will babe channels be held accountable for these levels of inonsistency.

Threaded Mode \| Linear Mode Ofcom Discussion
Author	Message