Ofcom Discussion

(17-12-2010 11:32 )beller Wrote:  Just to let you know that, for what it's worth, I have now made an official Freedom of Information Act 2000 request to see what Ofcom's "generally accepted standards" are and who decides on them. They are legally bound to reply by 17th January 2011.

I encourage everyone else here to do the same. It's easy to do via the http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/ website.

I have also written to my MP this morning to ask her to follow up the sudden change in "generally accepted standards" which has been imposed upon the Babe Channels as from today. A sudden change in generally accepted standards sounds like a contradiction in terms to me.

Notice too that this publicly accountable, publicly funded organisation has imposed these changes without any public announcement.

Maybe the Daily Mail apoplectics are the public announcement. They seem to follow each other remarkably closely.

Good luck to you. You might also like to ask them for guidelines that they have sent to channels recently. If they argue that these are covered by commercial sensitivety please say, as no way can the same information sent to every industry operator in the sector be confidential.

And yes, normally they consult for 3 months before announcing a change and hide behind "research" that is clear as mud. Be interesting to know exactly what the status of these new "guidelines" is. There do not appear to be any changes to the Broadcasting Code in the pipeline, and nothing else has any other legal significance that an indication of how things might go.

While on the subject of consultations, these were announced today. Please nobody suggest that Ofcom are being devious and decitful by sneaking these out on the last Friday before Christamas:


Procedures for handling appeals on scope and for imposing sanctions in relation to On-Demand Programme Services

Revising the penalty guidelines

Dispute Resolution Guidelines - Ofcom’s guidelines for the handling of regulatory disputes

The Penalties one says:
"The central objective of imposing a penalty is deterrence. The amount of any penalty must be sufficient to ensure that it will act as an effective incentive to compliance."
and
Factors include ... duration ... gain ... steps to remedy contravention ... history of contravention ... preventative steps ... whether intentional or reckless ... extent to which senior management ought to have known
and most worryingly
"The extent to which the level of penalty is proportionate, taking into account the size and turnover of the regulated body."
~ not proportionate to the offence, but proportionate to turnover.

Imagine if a speeding fine depended on your wages not your speed.
Somehow I doubt that th BBC will be fined 1000x more than, say, Elite, for broadcasting a "Fuck".

And "history of contravention" is bollocks because fines are only resorded to because of a history of contravention. Unless the mean finally getting round to fining the BBC for transmitting Fs during the daytime repeatedly (check it out, they really are the worst offenders, its the music festivals).

The hypocrisy is evident in Ofcom's non-response to the 'Xfactor outrage' (Daily Mail header) dancers in skimpy costumes cavorting suggestively - before the watershed on prime time tv. This incident generated thousands of complaints to Ofcom. I think I am right in saying that babe channel issues are interrogated on the basis of individual complaints -aren't they?

(17-12-2010 11:32 )beller Wrote:  Just to let you know that, for what it's worth, I have now made an official Freedom of Information Act 2000 request to see what Ofcom's "generally accepted standards" are and who decides on them. They are legally bound to reply by 17th January 2011.

I encourage everyone else here to do the same. It's easy to do via the http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/ website.

I have also written to my MP this morning to ask her to follow up the sudden change in "generally accepted standards" which has been imposed upon the Babe Channels as from today. A sudden change in generally accepted standards sounds like a contradiction in terms to me.

Notice too that this publicly accountable, publicly funded organisation has imposed these changes without any public announcement.

Maybe the Daily Mail apoplectics are the public announcement. They seem to follow each other remarkably closely.

If only Robin Esser, executive managing editor of the Daily Mail who recently called for the abolition of Ofcom would keep the momentum going as the Daily Mail does when exposing Health and Safety, immigration, benefit, etc abuses.
On Tuesday they issued a freedom of information request to every local authority requesting copies of all letters, e-mails, minutes of meeting held with or concerning local organisations, schools etc wishing to put on a nativity play or other christian play to celebrate xmas. They also wanted to know if any animals were involved with such performances. Obviously they are checking to see if any LA are imposing small minded restrictions on these organisations, banning the use of live animals due to the risk of Escherichia coli, requesting the use of battery operated candles rather than real flame candles, dumbing down the christian message so as not to upset other religions or getting all involved with such productions to be CRB checked, no photo's etc. The list is endless when small minded bureaucrats get involved.
The Daily Mail needs to be brought on our side, whilst they may not fully support the babe message, we do have a common aim of abolition or reduction of power of this faceless quango.

I think recently there has been a big swing towards the abolition of ofcom and everybody does have their own reasons of course. Pissing Simon Cowell off recently on the content of the X Factor show's wasn't very wise and maybe ofcom have shot themselves in the foot here when more and more people are now beginning to question the existence of ofcom. How dare they preach what's suitable and not suitable content for broadcast. With the X Factor scandal I think it has highlighted that ofcom are just getting a bit too big for their boots and need shot down in not uncertain manner. Ofcom should be abolished and all the powers should be brought back to the government who I would imagine would not want to come down on censorship as much as ofcom do. The watershed which is in place needs to be rewritten and I've said it before channels should have the right to broadcast whatever they want at any time of the hour so long as the pin restriction measures are in place. All freeview box's, Virgin, BT and Sky Box's should all be fitted with this technology and channels should only be fined if they fail to pin protect programmes of an adult nature before 9PM. And I've said it in a previous post what we saw on the X Factor last weekend was nothing different from what we used to see when Baywatch was broadcast at 5PM on a Saturday. We need to exercise common-sense and last weekends X Factor show was nothing more than mild titillation if you can even call it that.

So as others have accepted, it looks as though there was some truth in Laura's tip-off.

This actions needs to affect the Babeshows' daytime revenue. If it doesn't, then they'll be more than happy to go along with anything Ofcom demand. Next for the chop, the nightshows.

The only hope we have of the Babeshows even contemplating challenging this overnight decision is for them to be hit where it hurts - in the pocket. I don't want to see anyone losing their business/jobs, but while their revenue is unaffected, they'll happily settle into a routine of ultra-tame dayshows.

And for what it's worth, I don't buy this watershed crap when it comes to channels that are specifically aimed at adults. If children are accessing these channels at night and seeing total nudity (albeit tastefully done), why the hell does it matter if the dayshows show a bit of knicker and the odd nipple slip??

THIS WILL BE A GIANT STEP BACKWARDS, AND INFRINGE ON THE RIGHTS OF THE INDIVIDUAL TO ACCESS WHAT THEY WANT ON LINE.
The internet was set up as a way of accessing material free from government interference.

A Conservative MP has admitted logging on to internet pornography sites from the Commons after a constituent's complaint about children's access to them.

He asked ministers to look at whether it was "desirable or technically feasible" to take measures which would restrict the access of pornographic material to vulnerable people

Net porn lock for children
The government is to combat the early sexualisation of children by blocking internet pornography unless parents request it.

So it looks like they will be targeting your ISP providers to make this happen. A meeting is taking place next month with all ISP providers to deal with this. Not Ofcom, this is coming from the twats the give them their orders. If China can block what their citizens have access to, I'm sure it will happen here.

This will enable them to have access to all the addresses of the people who enable their computers, if you have children at home you can potentially be targeted as a pedo for allowing it.

Potentially the ISP providers may decide not to carry anything that covers porn. Which puts sites like this one, no more

think the porn companies will fight this or will find ways round this lock if it happens

Ultimately as I have said on numerous occasions over the last year the only way this gets solved is when everyone bites the bullet and pays to pin protect their content then all of this goes away! It is a matter of economics not ne essarily censorship.

(19-12-2010 13:37 )sweetsugar007 Wrote:  Ultimately as I have said on numerous occasions over the last year the only way this gets solved is when everyone bites the bullet and pays to pin protect their content then all of this goes away! It is a matter of economics not ne essarily censorship.

Yeah, but whats also been pointed out is, every sky box and freeview box already has pin protection built in.

If they are allowed to get away with this it will just get worse and worse.If the Mary Whitehouse Brigade start to think they have the power to censor everything we watch we will be in trouble. Women on TV will be buttoned up to the neck and covered down to their ankles. What will they target next if they get their way. Th Olympics? The female athletes wearing their skin tight running gear? The female swimmers in their swim suits? Womens volleyball? Gymnastics? The list could go on and on. It might sound a bit over the top but if I am not mistaken people rang in and complained about the cameramen at tennis matches filming women tennis players from behind when they served the ball because you would get a flash of their knickers and they got their way you dont see too many of those camera angles anymore ( I used to love watching Martina Hingis tucking the spare balls into her knickers). Top of the pops was the same with the cameras getting too close to the audience dancing. Think about it?