Is Ofcom Fit For Purpose

The BBC has just shown a realy easy way to commit suicide using everyday household items (BBC4, Spiral). This is a channel available on any freeview box and attracts a large audience. I dont suppose Ofcom will be taking them to task for imitable techniques.

Interesting article on the BBC about normal levels of porn use by young men and women Men 'worried' about heavy internet porn use

Selected extracts:
"A quarter of men aged 18-24 are worried about the amount of porn they are watching on the internet, new research suggests."
~ so 3/4 are NOT worried.

"One thousand and fifty seven 18-24 year olds were asked to take part in an online survey drawn up with help from Dr Wood and her colleagues at the [Portman] clinic, part of the Tavistock and Portman NHS Trust."
~ thats a good sample size for a survey, unlike, say, the 2009 Ofcom public attitudes survey (169 participants).

"Almost eight out of 10 men said they had looked at porn on the internet compared with just over a third of women."
~ thats about 80% male use and over 33% female use.

"The average man in the study spent more than two hours a week surfing adult sites, compared with less than fifteen minutes for the average woman.

Two-thirds of men and half the women said that looking at porn was fine in moderation"
~ pretty normal then

"But a quarter of all men in the survey said there were worried about the amount of porn they were looking at, while almost as many said they were concerned about the type of images they were viewing."
~ not so good, but hardly a devastating statistic. "Worried" can mean a range of things, from serious worry about compulsive use or behaviour, to mild concern about spending too much time on it.

"Higher numbers of those heavy users said their porn viewing had upset a partner or caused them to miss a meeting at work."
~ words fail me. Do these heavy users watch porn at work?

The responses to "Have you ever looked at porn" were
Free websites - men 75%, women 33%
Pay websites - men 13%, women 4%
TV - men 34%, women 17%
So a third of women have accessed free web porn and a sixth of men have paid for internet porn. These figures represent normal social behaviour - they are higher than figures for political party membership or Church attendance. Actually some of these figures are higher than voter participantion in elections.

Fishing is often cited as the UKs most popular hobby. Harris, the polling organisation, says 8% say it is their favourity hobby. 5% say golf. So its official, internet porn accesss by WOMEN scores higher than than the popularity of golf and fishing.

And a staggering 1/3 of men and 1/6 of women have access TV based porn.

Who are Ofcom kidding when they claim the public do not want porn on TV?

eccles, I wonder how many men and women would say they were worried about the amount of booze they consume or, the time they spend watching TV or, the time they spend playing video games?

Some interesting statistics nevertheless although, I think they simply reflect what we already know. Fewer women access porn than men because, generally speaking, women are less satisfied by the wham bam type of visual stimulation modern porn delivers. As I understand it, women prefer more romantic, sensual erotica - something more emotionally orientated.

Why some men are 'worried' about looking at porn is something I don't really understand. It's never bothered me but, reading between the lines, it sounds as if some of these blokes are worried by what they've discovered about themselves and are concerned about the type of porn/fetishes they're drawn to? Of course, this often gets reported as 'the porn did this to me', whereas the reality is they've simply discovered something about themselves that they've kept burried - like latent homosexuality for instance. It could be quite disturbing for some blokes to discover they like to watch guys fisting each other's arses...esp. if they thought they were straight. To discover you're into spanking or bondage can be just as shocking I suppose - it all depends on 'who' you thought you 'were' and/or what beliefs you were brainwashed with as a kid.

given what channel 4 showed last night on The Sex Education show I would say Ofcom definately isn't fit for purpose!!

OFCOM have well and truly fallen foul of The Daily Mail. Today's paper (Sat. 22 April) lays in to The Southwark Bridge Mafia for it's lack of action against The X factor final despite receiving thousands of complaints about the content of the show which is shown in prime time.
The article reports that Chief Executive Ed Richards is paid £381,700 a year. The Chief Operating Officer, Jill Ainscough receives £261,800: The Head of The Competition Policy Group, Stuart MacIntosh trousers £282,100: Polly Weitzman, Head of The Legal Group received £250, 900 and The Head of Content, International and Regulatory Development - Christopher Woolard - pocketed a nice £214, 100.
The above figures include Pension Contributions, Performance Payments and other Non-Specified Bonuses. So, these five handsomely rewarded individuals grossed £1,390,600 per year between them. In addition to these, another six employees were paid between £150,000 and £165,000.
When one looks down the list of The Senior Management at OFCOM it becomes apparent that many are simply political time servers, put there as a reward for services rendered to their political masters.
Because the upper echelons of OFCOM are filled with people with no more idea of the broadcasting industry than you're average man or woman in the street, none of us should be in the least surprised that the organisation is as ludicrous as it obviously is.
I've come to the conclusion that because the worlds of politics and media are so closely interwoven, those who run OFCOM are probably close friends with those leaders of the broadcasting establishment. So while Bang Babes is closed down and the other Babe Channels hounded relentlessly, ITV, Channel 4, Sky etc are let off scot free when they commit offences against the code that are often far worse than anything the adult channels would get away with.
Sorry that this has turned into a rant, but I get bloody annoyed when some bureaucrat, sitting in an office and only there because they know the right people, tell me, an adult, what I can and can't watch late at night, in my own home.
The Mail - not my favourite paper - accuses OFCOM of preposterous sophistry and questions whether the organisation is worth the £140m it costs to run. It also calls OFCOM the worst kind of bloated regulator.
Maybe, just maybe, that now a mainstream paper like the Mail has decided to go after OFCOM, those of us who have wanted to see the back of these tossers, might just get our wish a little sooner that we thought possible.

(22-04-2011 17:29 )CumbrianTom Wrote:  OFCOM have well and truly fallen foul of The Daily Mail. Today's paper (Sat. 22 April) lays in to The Southwark Bridge Mafia for it's lack of action against The X factor final despite receiving thousands of complaints about the content of the show which is shown in prime time.
The article reports that Chief Executive Ed Richards is paid £381,700 a year. The Chief Operating Officer, Jill Ainscough receives £261,800: The Head of The Competition Policy Group, Stuart MacIntosh trousers £282,100: Polly Weitzman, Head of The Legal Group received £250, 900 and The Head of Content, International and Regulatory Development - Christopher Woolard - pocketed a nice £214, 100.
The above figures include Pension Contributions, Performance Payments and other Non-Specified Bonuses. So, these five handsomely rewarded individuals grossed £1,390,600 per year between them. In addition to these, another six employees were paid between £150,000 and £165,000.
When one looks down the list of The Senior Management at OFCOM it becomes apparent that many are simply political time servers, put there as a reward for services rendered to their political masters.
Because the upper echelons of OFCOM are filled with people with no more idea of the broadcasting industry than you're average man or woman in the street, none of us should be in the least surprised that the organisation is as ludicrous as it obviously is.
I've come to the conclusion that because the worlds of politics and media are so closely interwoven, those who run OFCOM are probably close friends with those leaders of the broadcasting establishment. So while Bang Babes is closed down and the other Babe Channels hounded relentlessly, ITV, Channel 4, Sky etc are let off scot free when they commit offences against the code that are often far worse than anything the adult channels would get away with.
Sorry that this has turned into a rant, but I get bloody annoyed when some bureaucrat, sitting in an office and only there because they know the right people, tell me, an adult, what I can and can't watch late at night, in my own home.
The Mail - not my favourite paper - accuses OFCOM of preposterous sophistry and questions whether the organisation is worth the £140m it costs to run. It also calls OFCOM the worst kind of bloated regulator.
Maybe, just maybe, that now a mainstream paper like the Mail has decided to go after OFCOM, those of us who have wanted to see the back of these tossers, might just get our wish a little sooner that we thought possible.

that hypocrite ed richards doesnt he own one of the biggest chains of sex shops and also the one that put up the money and went to court to get hardcore legalised in this country in 2000 ? yet he dont want it to be shown on tv so as not to affect his sales.

Wouldn't it be fantastic if the Government called time on their cosy little earning's and booted the pricks out of office. I will personally be e-mailing my local MP to bring this subject hopefully up in Parliament. But other idea's spring to mind rather than us ranting and raving on this forum as we do, we start up a petition the Country over and have it handed into 10 Downing Street. With me being Scottish I personally blame you English for ever even having such an establishment as Ofcom in the first place. Believe me when I say this but if the Government was run in Scotland and not England their is no way in hell that Ofcom or anything like it would exist, why you ask, it go's without saying that us Scots are notoriously tight when it comes to money so we just simply wouldn't even think about wasting it on an organisation such as Ofcom.

(22-04-2011 00:48 )IanG Wrote:  ... Why some men are 'worried' about looking at porn is something I don't really understand.

Tried to include fair reprersentative quotes from the write up, rather than being one sided. It makes responses more credible.

The short excert I saw said some men were worried about the amount of time they spent watching porn. But it didnt say why, apart from sometimes men keep looking at "just one more site" to find the one that does the job. I sometimes have a 10 minute browse that turns into an hour, usually when I have to be up early the next day so I suppose I fall into that category, but it doesnt mean I want porn banned. I have just spent a pleasant 20 minutes watching a friendly young woman reminding me of the joys of spring, while also looking at the clock and worrying about the time. If I could turn back time would I avoid that channel? No.

What was interesting was independent impartial figures about typical levels of male and female porn use. It weakens Ofcom arguments about generally accepted standards.

Lunacy

Babechannels hounded to hell

Adrian Chiles allowed on our screens before 9pm without a government heath warning

Sucks!!!!!!!!

At the end of the day, Ofcom are quite simply a bunch of sexist, prejudistic, old fashioned, dictatoring fuckwits that are targeting the babechannels because they're easy targets and will pay the fines, tame down because they simply don't have a backbone. It really fucks me off that, i've got good friends in the armed forces and am ex-armed forces man myself, that have put our lives on the line for what, to have a bunch of fucking twats telling us what we can watch.
Ofcom, FUCK OFF and get a reality check because there is more important things to be watching out for, other than pussy flashing and nipple slips.