Ofcom Discussion

(19-02-2011 23:49 )Scottishbloke Wrote:  Cheer's nailpouchofmine I've been searching around now for months on how to get round this problem. It's a great flat I have but obviously I was gutted when I found out the only satellite dish I seen was the one for everyone. This just might work a treat for me.

You are welcome,I know what it is like as my brotherinlaw cannot even get sky because of where he has moved to,and at the moment he has to be on bt which is garbage.
Good luck if you take this on and keep us informed if it works ok.

(10-02-2011 22:34 )eric_yt Wrote:  here is a link to a downloadable Windows Live doc Reforming Ofcom
To use it click the folder icon above the word Comments then click the Word icon to open the doc.

Had a quick scan through this, and some facts leap out. There is no connection between the number of complaints the public make and the number that Ofcom investigate - if there was a graph of the two would show roughly a stringht line at 45 degrees, instead of this -


Uploaded with ImageShack.us

and no connection between complaints and being found guilty like this -
[img][/img]

(18-02-2011 16:11 )IanG Wrote:  Indeed, Scottishbloke, OFCOM have produced no evidence whatsoever to show R18-type material is harmful and thus warrants an outright ban. And, moreover, sensitive members of the public can be adequately protected from any other supposed 'offence' they may feel by proper labelling of programmes, audio anouncements and on-screen symbols. What exactly is the point of "the adult section of the EPG" if not to warn the public of the content of the channels therein?

OFCOM are simply enforcing their own brand of religiously misguided bigotry. They insult the rights and intelligence of every adult in this land that enjoys porn in a responsible way. Indeed, they insult the rights and intelligence of every under 18 in this land that's already been exposed to porn at home or on the Internet and suffered no harm or offence as a result.

OFCOM are simply perpetuating the irrational and typically 'British' phobias with regard to sexual expression and sexual entertainment. There is not one shred of evidence to show pornography is a danger to anyone and, moreover, the only way to desensitise those who hold irrational hates and/or fears is to expose them to the thing they fear and/or find offensive and let them understand that it is they who are wrong about it.

It has been said many times that Ofc@m carryout research and consultations on topics where they have already decided upon the outcomes they desire.

This has lead to severe restrictions on the babeshows for the moment.

Well the bully of the playground has now run into the big boys who have also reached this conclusion.

Each step in Ofcom’s analysis is deficient, the result of an approach in which Ofcom appears to have started with a view of the end point it wishes to reach and then considered the evidence by reference to the extent to which it is or is not consistent with that end point. As Ofcom itself admits, it has first reached conclusions and then tested those conclusions against the evidence, whereas it should first have looked objectively at all the evidence and then drawn appropriate conclusions.

This approach has led to serious distortions in the way Ofcom has treated evidence. Ofcom has lost sight of the fact that the burden of proof is on Ofcom to demonstrate that its proposed intervention is justified. Instead, Ofcom appears to have acted on the assumption that its intervention is justified unless overwhelming evidence can be adduced to the contrary. Moreover, Ofcom has been highly selective in its treatment of evidence depending on whether it is consistent or inconsistent with the conclusions that Ofcom seeks to draw. Cogent and compelling evidence which is inconsistent with Ofcom’s case, including evidence adduced by Ofcom itself in earlier consultations, has been irrationally dismissed or even ignored.

Where Ofcom has sought to bolster its case by commissioning reports from external consultants, it has misrepresented what those reports actually say.

The result of these deficiencies is that, in each critical step in its analysis, Ofcom reaches views which, in light of the available evidence, are perverse or extreme.

Whilst the above quotes do not come in response to Ofc@m's consultations on nudity/sex or swearing on TV they are the opinion of very well established and respected persons in the media commisioned by Sky in response to Ofc@m's proposal, i believe, to force Sky to ship channels cheaply to other broadcasters.

It is a very large document that i am still reading.

http://corporate.sky.com/documents/pdf/p...estigation

I am also researching another consultation carried out by Ofc@m concerning participation tv from around the time they were looking to remove them from broadcasting.

These people realy know how to spend money on consultants, but if you employ idiots then you have to buy expertise in.

More good news on the ofcom front as they face a significant reduction in its budget for 2011/12.

http://www.melonfarmers.co.uk/ow.htm

(01-04-2011 18:37 )Scottishbloke Wrote:  More good news on the ofcom front as they face a significant reduction in its budget for 2011/12.

http://www.melonfarmers.co.uk/ow.htm

i reckon it is time for a demo outside ofcom offices

(02-04-2011 20:21 )johnm Wrote:  i reckon it is time for a demo outside ofcom offices

looking at the people and flags at that demo i dont think it had much to do with censorship or ofcoms double standards. dont know what they are protesting against but i really dont think it supported our cause. why would muslims protest against ofcoms censorship of adult channels ?

and i also said outside ofcom offices not in a different country, i dont understand why you posted that pic.

(03-04-2011 15:40 )johnm Wrote:  looking at the people and flags at that demo i dont think it had much to do with censorship or ofcoms double standards. dont know what they are protesting against but i really dont think it supported our cause. why would muslims protest against ofcoms censorship of adult channels ?

and i also said outside ofcom offices not in a different country, i dont understand why you posted that pic.

DOH!!!

TW

(03-04-2011 17:12 )Tonywauk Wrote:  

(03-04-2011 15:40 )johnm Wrote:  looking at the people and flags at that demo i dont think it had much to do with censorship or ofcoms double standards. dont know what they are protesting against but i really dont think it supported our cause. why would muslims protest against ofcoms censorship of adult channels ?

and i also said outside ofcom offices not in a different country, i dont understand why you posted that pic.

DOH!!!

TW

what do you mean doh ?

(03-04-2011 17:21 )johnm Wrote:  what do you mean doh ?

I think he means don't take the picture so seriously