+- The UK Babe Channels Forum (https://www.babeshows.co.uk)
+-- Forum: Channels (/forumdisplay.php?fid=8)
+--- Forum: UK Babe Channels (/forumdisplay.php?fid=9)
+---- Forum: Broadcasting Regulations (/forumdisplay.php?fid=138)
+---- Thread: Is Ofcom Fit For Purpose (/showthread.php?tid=17796)
RE: Is Ofcom Fit For Purpose - vila - 20-04-2010 00:47
Ofcom's fortnightly Bulletins are littered with evidence that it isn't fit for purpose. The rules are interpreted and re-interterpreted in whatever way is expedient in order justify censuring channels for alleged offences.
Just one recent example of Ofcom double-talk:
I don't remember the exact incident (and don't have time to look it up), but Ofcom criticised a channel, I think it was BB, for showing a particular activity which had been the subject of a previous 'in breach' verdict. The channel defended itself by pointing out that in the previous case Ofcom had reached this decision because the act was shown before 10pm and that the second incident was long after that time and that there should therefore be no charge to answer.
Ofcom's reply was that just because something is judged unsuitable for broadcast before 10pm doesn't mean it's allowed after 10pm.
Wtf??? What else can it mean? If it didn't mean that, why was the time mentioned?
RE: Is Ofcom Fit For Purpose - H-H - 20-04-2010 00:50
(19-04-2010 10:12 )Jay39 Wrote: ... the only channels that can not have their licence removed by ofcom are BBC, Channel 4 and SC4. BBC can only be removed in a state of emergency by the government, as for Channel 4 and SC4 I'm unsure, I did find that S4C is funded by the government! I noticed a while ago that a few newspapers raised a fuss as to why the government funds S4C when it's viewing figures are pathetic according to BARB.
The Government appoints BBC Governors and Ofcom - yes, Ofcom - appoints Channel 4 directors, so if their licences were revoked the Government or Ofcom would have to set up a replacement public service broadcaster looking pretty much like the old one but with new bosses. Easier just to sack the bosses.
S4C was set up as a deliberate political ploy to keep a handful of Welsh speakers happy. It never was about audience figures.
So there's your answer. Speak funny and threaten independence. Now what was the question?
RE: Is Ofcom Fit For Purpose - Scottishbloke - 05-04-2011 22:13
First and foremost it's my view that Ofcom and censorship altogether should be scrapped but we know that Isn't going to happen in the immediate future but what baffles me is Ofcom are even investigating programs of an Adult nature in the first place. The reason we have the watershed in place is to allow the channels more freedom at night and in this I include all channels and furthermore more exceptions should be allowed especially for the adult channels which easily can be locked out so the watershed should be abolished outright for them with no pin other than the one that switches them on and off as when required and for any other channel outside the adult epg a simple pin protection behind them would be enough. All that Ofcom should be concerned about is that all these measures are in place to protect the minors but on the same hand allow the grown ups to watch what we want to watch with as little interference as possible and any channel that breaches these measures should and only then be open to investigation by those at Ofcom. This is the only way and fair way to readdress the balance. What more could be simpler.
RE: Is Ofcom Fit For Purpose - Gold Plated Pension - 05-04-2011 23:18
It isn't going to happen and the Public Bodies Bill was back in the house yesterday being scrutinised yet again with both sides seeking amendments, reforms etc. The list of bodies (quango's) that were initially listed to be abolished is getter shorter with the latest body, the SIA (Security Industry Authority) being reprieved on the 23rd March, they regulate door supervisors and the security industry generally. So don't expect any great shake up's at Ofc@m now that the initial storm of 'Bonfire of the quango's has died down and peoples minds are on other events around the world and the royal wedding.
One benefit of that day is that all premises with an 'ON' licence for alcohol, pub's, restaurants etc will get extra opening hours to 1am for the event.
The House of Lords have voted in favour of the Licensing Hours Order, which has already been passed in the House of Commons. It now only needs ministerial sign-off to become law which is expected to happen in the next week or so.
The Order gives pubs, restaurants and village halls the automatic right to open until 1am on Saturday 30 April, following the wedding on the Friday, and 1am on Sunday 1 May.
If you have the time or interest it's all contained here.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201011/ldhansrd/text/110404-0001.htm#1104044000885
There's even information on a new communications bill but i doubt it will being seeking any reform of Ofc'm's powers.
If you type in Ofc@m in the search box of http://www.parliament.uk there are many publications to view.
RE: Is Ofcom Fit For Purpose - eccles - 06-04-2011 01:22
Agree (mostly) with ScottishBloke that late night censorship is a complete waste of public money.
Ofcom talks big about "potential to cause offence" but there is a significant lack of proof. Ofcom claims to be an evidence based regulator. What does cause offence is crudity or personal attacks in unexpected places, like Top Gear and Frankie Boyle shows. OK, not totally unexpected, but hundreds of people felt lines had been crossed.
By contrast probably less that 12 people have complained about the entire babe sector - day and night - in the past year, and there are grounds for believing them to be professional complants with an agenda rather than genuinely offended representative members of the public.
However as GPP says a change of focus seems unlikely.
Abolishing the SIA seemed a lunatic step, there are too many psycho bouncers as it is. But I hope they stick to the proposed ban on clampers.
There was supposed to be relaxation in licencing of pub entertainment, abolishing the requirement for expensive licences and full blown health & safety audits for occasional entertainment with 1-2 people. Hope that is still in the plan. It might just result in the return of Friday lunchtime strippers at the local, unless a sex encounter licence is required. Apart from anything else, occasional strippers used to be a lifeline for pubs in financial difficulties. Some Friday drinkers would turn into regulars. So its in societies wider interests.
On the negative side, it seems a little noticed extra licening fee has been slipped in to cover social impact. Early estimates are that it will be about £2000 a year for ost pubs, more for city centre ones.
And many sex shops are seeing local authority licensing fees jump after being frozen for years.
RE: Is Ofcom Fit For Purpose - Ocelot - 06-04-2011 13:26
Although the ofcom rules for the babechannels are sticter that can actually be a blessing indisguise. Now the daytime girls cant flash any underwear, that will actually mean that there should be virtually no complaints for any daytime shows which means ofcom (with there decreasing fund) dont have to do so much work or dedicate time to investigating the daytime. The nighttime shows are now PIN protected so there is also less need to investigate every channel as only adults are likely to now access the channels on sky. The freeview channels dont have a PIn and are obviously a lot tamer than what is sometimes on sky. By creating stricter rules less under 18's will be watching the daytimes (they dont phone in ) which means no stupid mothers complaining. Then at night the shows can be hotter as we have seen recently because no under 18 is going to put in the Pin with there parents nearby. The rules provide enough protection, so ofcom can use its resources on things that people actually complain about mainly on mainstream television.
RE: Is Ofcom Fit For Purpose - Gold Plated Pension - 06-04-2011 17:45
Not aware of any night time babe shows that are PIN protected on S#y, they are all free to air.
It may be a something that Ofc@m want the channels to ultimately commit to but at the moment the economics don't add up.
Agree with you that the regulator should be focussing on mainstream TV as this is where people are genuinely concerned about acceptable standards and the area where the majority of complaints are generated.
RE: Is Ofcom Fit For Purpose - blackjaques - 06-04-2011 19:57
(06-04-2011 13:26 )Ocelot Wrote: Although the ofcom rules for the babechannels are sticter that can actually be a blessing indisguise. Now the daytime girls cant flash any underwear, that will actually mean that there should be virtually no complaints for any daytime shows which means ofcom (with there decreasing fund) dont have to do so much work or dedicate time to investigating the daytime. The nighttime shows are now PIN protected so there is also less need to investigate every channel as only adults are likely to now access the channels on sky. The freeview channels dont have a PIn and are obviously a lot tamer than what is sometimes on sky. By creating stricter rules less under 18's will be watching the daytimes (they dont phone in ) which means no stupid mothers complaining. Then at night the shows can be hotter as we have seen recently because no under 18 is going to put in the Pin with there parents nearby. The rules provide enough protection, so ofcom can use its resources on things that people actually complain about mainly on mainstream television.
But Ofcon WILL fine the encrypted channels if they show full R18. They say that children are watching these channels as well. Total bollox but they get away with it because they have the full backing of this (and previous) government.
Add to the scenario a lily-livered set of broadcasters and what you get is this farcical situation of UK "adult" tv being about the worst in western Europe.
RE: Is Ofcom Fit For Purpose - SYBORG666 - 06-04-2011 23:38
(06-04-2011 17:45 )Gold Plated Pension Wrote: Not aware of any night time babe shows that are PIN protected on S#y, they are all free to air.
It may be a something that Ofc@m want the channels to ultimately commit to but at the moment the economics don't add up.
Agree with you that the regulator should be focussing on mainstream TV as this is where people are genuinely concerned about acceptable standards and the area where the majority of complaints are generated.
If you've got Sky, you can block all 18+ shows or even remove all adult channel completely on your set-top box yourself and if you go to Sky channel 999, they actually show you how to. Ofcom and the babechannels seem to just be choosing to ignore that the security measures are all there in place plus if people are offended by full frontal nudity and foul language, then why the fuck are they even watching the adult channels in the first place. They're not there to give you advice, they ARE meant for arousal.
RE: Is Ofcom Fit For Purpose - eccles - 07-04-2011 00:49
Of course they are there for arousal and Ofcom know that, but in the bizarre Alice In The Looking Glass world that they inhabit, they cant admit that because then they would have to ban every channel overnight. So they pretend that arousal only happens when they go too far, and all the babes are doing is putting an out an attractive, but non arousing, advert for premium rate calls.
Ofcom say the channels have to be in the own special lockable category because they are adult, at the same time that Ofcom say they are not adult because if they were they would be banned.
Next Ofcom cuts the defecit without raising taxes, borrowing or cutting services. Afterwards it sets up a new Lybian Government headed by Saif Gadaffi at the same time as ensuring that no member of the previous regime has a post and sells weapons that will never be used to unstable third world despots. They were going to follow that by showcasing the best of Loius Theroux, but gave up. (Its a Joke Stan).