Ofcom Broadcast Code Consultation

Scotsman · 10-10-2009 19:02

Surely if the channels all had to be PIN protected, it would mean we could then have stronger material and adult chat on dayshows if they too had to be PIN protected?

seth · 10-10-2009 19:32

(10-10-2009 19:02 )Scotsman Wrote: Surely if the channels all had to be PIN protected, it would mean we could then have stronger material and adult chat on dayshows if they too had to be PIN protected?

It won't happen because Ofcom don't like these channels. And they know viewers are less likely to voice their opinion on the babeshows then they would the Sky channels.

brummie · 10-10-2009 19:42

Just been reading through this report:

"Attitudes towards sexual material on
television
A qualitative research report for
Ofcom prepared by Opinion Leader"

It would seem research is as extensive as 169 people giving their opinion on 9 clips (none of which were from the Babeshows)

"Nine clips were selected by Ofcom to illustrate a range of different types of material of a
sexual nature that have recently been included in a range of programmes broadcast
across different channels and platforms (all of which had been broadcast free-to-view
and some of which had been found in breach of Ofcom’s Code).
The clips were necessarily brief (up to three minutes each in length) and used for
illustration purposes only, as stimulus to discuss in-principle responses to the type of
material shown. The clips were chosen to illustrate three different concepts: daytime/prewatershed
programmes; post-watershed programmes; and, material that had some or
many of the characteristics of ‘adult-sex’ material. The three minute clips did not
necessarily provide a balanced representation of each individual programme, rather a
sample of a particular type of material.
As well as discussing how acceptable each clip was, participants also indicated on a
questionnaire using a scale of 1 to 10 how acceptable they thought it was. Scores were
grouped as follows: 1-4 ‘unacceptable’, 5-7 ‘neutral’ and 8-10 ‘acceptable’.
As noted above under ‘Recruitment and methodology’ quantitative findings should be
treated as indicative only, given the overall sample size (169)."

,

With regard to pin protection I don't expect to see any stronger material,even on the night shows without some form of registration which would inevitably mean a charge and may even open the door for a monthly subscription. I am not sure that the daytime shows would be affected in any way but it seems that Ofcom has decided it wants to get rid of the night shows and is trying everything it can to do this either by restrictions or making it financialy non viable to continue.

DanVox · 11-10-2009 02:10

I don't believe it, I don't check my email for one single day, or the OfCom site, and that's the day they send me an email too and make an announcement.

A bad sign is that almost all the published responses, even where the name is confidential, are from people opposed to adult content. I haven't counted, but there don't seem to be many gaps in the document numbers, which suggests there aren't many unpublished responses, which I'd guess would be from out and out fans of babeshows.

By the way, Vostok1's links dont work for me, and I haven't seen the Participant Show Association response published, so perhaps that is one of the confidential ones.

The vast majority of the responses seem to have cut and pasted wording direct from the website of a religious group. It's easy to spot them, they all quote the AVCS Directive, and clearly haven't got a clue what it is. (50% of content must be EU made, one country can ban content aimed at them from from another, children have to be protected from harmful content).

OK, what is "harmful content" ? It is NOT defined as two consenting adults doing what consenting adult do all over the country in large numbers, in all religions, and have been doing for centuries.

But SAW IV might be harmful to children. Or Lord of the Flies. Or that Channel 4 documentary where a bunch of kids were left alone on a farm. Or the Texas Chainsaw Massacre. Or Audition. Or genuine live cage fighting.

So why Mr OfCom is sex banned, but the strongest horror films are available free on non-subscription channels ? Gambling ? Cage fighting ?

The consultation seemed to suggest greater tolerance for sexual material, particularly after 10:30 and particularly if on babe channels that could be blocked out. The clip people objected to most was from a mid-afternoon chatshow hosted by Alan Titchmarsh. Lets be clear about that - OfCom's own consultation said that the Alan Titchmarsh show was more objectionable than a Playboy show apparently containing real sex, a shagging scene from the BBC series Rome, or a trailer for an encrypted fetish channel, again showing what looked like real sex.

But I'm not holding my breath. OfCom might find a way to interpret the consultation. And the big factor in the past few years has been fear - broadcaster fear that OfCom will suddenly announce that something that happened 5 1/2 months ago has been complained about. They fined Playboy for a show 2 years after it was transmitted.

And they will take "mandatory access control" to mean PIN protection, otherwise the Vicar might accidentially tap the wrong channel number in.

~~vostok 1~~ · 11-10-2009 03:41

(11-10-2009 02:10 )DanVox Wrote: By the way, Vostok1's links dont work for me, and I haven't seen the Participant Show Association response published, so perhaps that is one of the confidential ones.

See if this one works (PTVBA Response on suggested reclassification to "Teleshopping"):
http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/...tv_ass.pdf

If not, paste ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/participation2/responses/ptv_ass.pdf

**admin.** · 11-10-2009 08:15

(09-10-2009 19:09 )MARCCE Wrote: It seems like we're coming towards some kind of end game here and it seems ridiculous to me that the channels could get to that point without seemingly having made any attempt to commission the people they know are on their side into any kind of action.

At least two of the channels have suggested in this forum that people here could make their views known to Ofcom, but it seems that nobody took the suggestions seriously. More recently another of the channels has discussed the matter with me at length, but I had not posted anything here on the subject yet because the last consultation has been missed anyway.

**admin.** · 11-10-2009 08:20

(09-10-2009 21:51 )Digital Dave Wrote: Indeed, they throw tens of thousands at barristers instead

A somewhat naive view from Digital Dave. Even if the babe channels had any significant public support, they would still need to employ barristers to get across their own detailed responses to Ofcom's proposals.

~~firekind~~ · 11-10-2009 09:28

the best thing that could happen is for the channels to be banned on tv. they would just move online and ofcom would have nothing to do with setting rules.

brummie · 11-10-2009 10:33

Don't know if anyone from the production companies of the Babeshows reads these boards but if so a couple of questions:

What precisely does the European directive have to say that affects the late night content of Babeshows and how learly is this set out.
Is the European directive a mandatory document binding on all member states or merely a reccomendation or voluntary document.
Is Ofcom aware of the European broadcasting document and the answers to the above.
Would it be benificial for myself and other members of this board to bang off an e-mail to Ofcom letting them know of our displeasure with its behaviour towards the shows, or would this serve to inflame the situation even more

As Danvox points out in his post ...."The vast majority of the responses seem to have cut and pasted wording direct from the website of a religious group. It's easy to spot them, they all quote the AVCS Directive, and clearly haven't got a clue what it is. (50% of content must be EU made, one country can ban content aimed at them from from another, children have to be protected from harmful content)."

would it be possible for someone to draft here a response for board members to also cut and paste off to Ofcom.

aaron · 11-10-2009 10:36

(11-10-2009 09:28 )firekind Wrote: the best thing that could happen is for the channels to be banned on tv. they would just move online and ofcom would have nothing to do with setting rules.

If they move online they will die quite quickly. Adult Live couldn't make a live online show work and Sex Station online is struggling for callers too.

Threaded Mode \| Linear Mode Ofcom Broadcast Code Consultation
Author	Message