Ofcom - Current Investigations

(12-05-2011 12:24 )beller Wrote:  Wouldn't it be wonderful if all the lazy, ineffectual whingers on these Ofcom threads actually shut up farting in the wind on here and maybe did something useful like lobbying Ofcom and their MPs instead?

As long as only a couple of people actually do something official in the appropriate direction, then you won't be surprised if Ofcom falls over laughing when they read these threads in here.

(13-05-2011 06:03 )beller Wrote:  

(12-05-2011 18:55 )SYBORG666 Wrote:  The reality is, some of us on here have or are trying to get our point a cross to Ofcom but they won't listen to anything that goes against them.
The only way they will pay attention is if everyone on this forum got involved.

Yes - actually lobbying your MP is quite useful. If you can provide a bit of evidence of Ofcom's apparent lack of transparency etc (not difficult), he/she will write on your behalf to Ed Richards (Head of Ofcom). He then gets a minion to reply in detail (pretty insulting to the sitting MP).

So lots of MPs writing to ask him to explain himself annoys Ofcom who have to provide the justifications, and the MPs get annoyed with Ofcom when they get a letter back from only a minion.

This is not considered an important enough subject for the Government to look into as a priority, so it's the kind of thing that gets swept under the carpet. As I've said before - what's official is one thing, what goes on behind the scenes is usually something else.

The amount of people that admit to enjoying adult entertainment is very much in the minority. Even if everyone in the UK, who watches and pays for adult entertainment, did what you said - they would still be considered the minority in a population of over 60 million people.

Like in any industry, if those who own companies and work within the business are not happy with the situation, then it's mainly up to them to voice their issues with the powers that be.

I've been involved in several different projects/ventures, more the TV side during the last couple of years, and I can tell you there are more difficult obstacles to deal with in business than a regulator. The Government, business people, the banks and other financial institutions are usually the ones that make things the most difficult.

OFCOM are an obstacle that needs to be tackled - but it needs to be done with a bit of ingenuity and common sense...

Yes, and?...

Your post seems rather inconsequential.

An MP once told me that if they receive one letter about an issue from a constituent they think nothing much of it. Two or three in a short time span and they are mildly interested. Five and they start thinking there is a lot of public interest and they need to do something.

Fact is MPs are desperate to get reelected. The longer they have been in the job the harder they find it to imagine doing anything else. If they have a majoritry of 20,000 they can relax. 1,000 and they know they are hanging on by a thread and need all the votes and publicity they can get. 5,000 and it depends how well their party is doing and how thick/complacent/paranoid they are.

Right now an awful lot of Conservatives and Lib Dems are bricking it. By the next election 20% of the public sector will have lost their jobs, anyone on benefits will be having a hard time, services will be worse and taxes will have gone up. Their only hope is that by then the economy will have picked up, and at best that will only cancel out a fraction of the bad points. They want your vote. The closer the election gets the more desperate they will get.

Of course blatantly saying there is not enough wank material on TV might not get a supportive response, but an indirect approach might get their support.

Say Ofcom wastes millions - perhaps even tens of millions - regulating channels that almost noone complains about, and the money would be better spent on educational kids TV. (Or Halal Health and Safety videos for Lebians if they are Labour. Thats not offensive is it? Except to Labour).

Say its all very well supporting the Arab Spring, but why do we have a State Morality Police in this country? One that appears to break its own rules, breaks natural justice by having cases decided by investigating officers and has no democratic oversight?

Ofcom is out of control, put your MP in the position where they either have to publically support support undemocratic censorship or support reform.

I don't understand why Sex Station tv can have a full on daytime service, with a british premium rate number, and yet the other daytime shows are regulated by the rules brought in december 2010.

Are they registered in another part of the world?

How do they get round the rules?

Maybe the other channels could work out how its done too?

(30-06-2011 02:43 )eccles Wrote:  Say Ofcom wastes millions - perhaps even tens of millions - regulating channels that almost noone complains about, and the money would be better spent on educational kids TV. (Or Halal Health and Safety videos for Lebians if they are Labour. Thats not offensive is it? Except to Labour).

Ofcom is out of control, put your MP in the position where they either have to publically support support undemocratic censorship or support reform.

And once a General Election campaign begins the Mail, Express and Torygraph will be full of stories about certain MPs planning to legitimise 'porn' on our TV screens and they will forget their commitment overnight. Cynical? Moi?

TW

(12-05-2011 12:24 )beller Wrote:  Wouldn't it be wonderful if all the lazy, ineffectual whingers on these Ofcom threads actually shut up farting in the wind on here and maybe did something useful like lobbying Ofcom and their MPs instead?

As long as only a couple of people actually do something official in the appropriate direction, then you won't be surprised if Ofcom falls over laughing when they read these threads in here.

As I've said before, rather than laughing at many of the posts here, I think they would be calling for the men in white coats to deal with the
posters themselves.

(30-06-2011 19:10 )Galloway Wrote:  I don't understand why Sex Station tv can have a full on daytime service, with a british premium rate number, and yet the other daytime shows are regulated by the rules brought in december 2010.

Are they registered in another part of the world?

How do they get round the rules?

Maybe the other channels could work out how its done too?

I'm confused by this post. Firstly, there is no Sex Station anymore, and what do you mean when you say 'a full on daytime service' ?

(01-07-2011 12:30 )StanTheMan Wrote:  

(30-06-2011 19:10 )Galloway Wrote:  I don't understand why Sex Station tv can have a full on daytime service, with a british premium rate number, and yet the other daytime shows are regulated by the rules brought in december 2010.

Are they registered in another part of the world?

How do they get round the rules?

Maybe the other channels could work out how its done too?

I'm confused by this post. Firstly, there is no Sex Station anymore, and what do you mean when you say 'a full on daytime service' ?

I think he is refering to the SexstationTV webshow which is only shown on the internet.
The other daytime shows he refers to which are broadcast on the internet are the same as those shown on Sky TV at the same time. i.e. they are not internet only.
Thats why different rules apply.

(01-07-2011 08:42 )Tonywauk Wrote:  

(30-06-2011 02:43 )eccles Wrote:  Say Ofcom wastes millions - perhaps even tens of millions - regulating channels that almost noone complains about, and the money would be better spent on educational kids TV. (Or Halal Health and Safety videos for Lebians if they are Labour. Thats not offensive is it? Except to Labour).

Ofcom is out of control, put your MP in the position where they either have to publically support support undemocratic censorship or support reform.

And once a General Election campaign begins the Mail, Express and Torygraph will be full of stories about certain MPs planning to legitimise 'porn' on our TV screens and they will forget their commitment overnight. Cynical? Moi?

TW

Yes, allowing explicit porn on UK TV is a huge vote loser.
We're fucked, guys, unless there is a hero out there.

Confessions of a Window Cleaner was a ground breaking film.

That is our limit, Ofcon have spoken.

(30-06-2011 00:36 )Digital Dave Wrote:  Yes, and?...

Your post seems rather inconsequential.

What the hell is this! Are you kidding me, kid? You on the wind-up?

Inconsequential! Are you seriously that clueless or are you just looking for an argument?

Let me tell you something, I'm someone who's in a position to actively try and do things differently in the industry. I've been covering as many angles as possible with people who are also in a position to do something about it. Just because I don't go on about it here all the time - doesn't mean nothing's happening.

What have you done about it, Dave? What have most of the other "ineffectual whingers", as beller rightly put it, done about the situation? Although I don't think his solution would work, he's right on principle about all talk and no action from most posters here.

For a start, you can probably count on one hand the amount of members in this section who fully understand the situation. I'm one, Gold Plated Pension appears to be another (with maybe 2 or 3 others).

All you get from most people, in this section and elsewhere on the forum, is the same misguided posts about OFCOM and the Film & TV industry in general. As soon as someone tells it as it is, from a true perspective, certain regulars and "cliquey" type members here don't like it for whatever reason.

It amuses me when people ask why most producers and channel reps in this industry don't post on here to explain things (assuming they actually know). Why would they bother, when you get snide, smart-ass responses and all the usual moaning and bitching? It just ends up going round in circles...