+- 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: Ofcom Discussion (/showthread.php?tid=14756)
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394
RE: Ofcom stuff - Winston Wolfe - 10-08-2010 16:45
(09-08-2010 22:56 )eccles Wrote: Winston,
Thoughtful and informed as ever. My question was rhetorical.
I was responding to the first part of your post about "conflict of interests", not the rhetorical question, eccles.
RE: Ofcom stuff - Scottishbloke - 10-08-2010 16:50
Does anybody seriously think that ofcom will still be around in 10 years time, I don't. Its obvious to see that public opinion wants them out as the majority rarely get shocked these days on what the tv has to offer and as more and more sky channels appear, not to mention the onset of the internet tv taking over there is no way ofcom can regulate that amount its impossible. All the government can advise is that its the legal responsibilty of the guardian to regulate the viewing habits of what their children view. Debates such as this will no longer be relevent on the forum within the next few years so whilst I can still say it fuck you ofcom you fucking bastard rats may you fucking rot as it won't be long before you are consigned to history.
RE: Ofcom stuff - eccles - 12-08-2010 23:30
To give another example of debatable legality, take this example: You run a football club and the taxman suspects you have been taking cash payments for player transfers etc. You have 28 days to produce financial records.
If your bank statements show pay going in, but no withdrawls, no spending at the supermarket, petrol pump, off-licence, Christmas, etc that's a clear indicator that you are getting bungs.
You come up clear on that one, but the taxman asks for proof that you paid for that 52" plasma TV. And that 10 year old car you use as a runaround, where's the receipt?
You find those, only for the taxman to ask you to proove payment for every DVD and CD in your house. Again, you have 28 days to comply.
It's legal, but is it fair? Is it realistic? Could the man on the clapham omnibus comply?
Bangbabes was in a similar position when Ofcom asked for over 24 hours of recordings. They were granted an extension, but it was still not enough time. Bangbabes did not refuse to supply the recordings, they had not deleted them, they just weren't able to work that fast.
For at least 4 occasions Ofcom asked for 5 1/2 hours recordings each night. Imagine having to copy out over 24 hours of home video for your gran's birthday. Putting together recordings held in different places. Finding the recordings don't quite fit on the DVD+R that you have already copied some stuff to, so you have to go back and burn the whole disk again with a different selection. It might take a bit of time. You don't get it all ready in time for gran's birthday and get accused of being a lazy slacker who doesn't care, when in actual fact you have been working late every night for the past month trying.
That's the position Bang were put in, and they were fined for non production of recordings.
1) Was it abuse of process not to allow more time?
2) Was it inconsistent to fine them - other channels have completely failed to provide recordings for alleged serious breaches of advertising rules (nb. profit motive) but not been fined?
RE: Ofcom stuff - IanG - 13-08-2010 14:48
eccles, well that's as may be but, OFCOM's breach of the law is crystal clear to me.
The intent of Parliament in the Comms Act clearly says that OFCOM are to 'adequately protect the public from offensive and harmful material'. That means BOTH types of material NOT, one and/or the other as OFCOM have CHOSEN to read it.
OFCOM have taken it upon themselves to completely ignore what the law says on the subject. Indeed, their Rule 2.3 says "offensive material must be justified by the context". That is offensive material can be broadcast in direct violation of the law IF the licensee believes it is justified by the context. However, as with BangBabes, OFCOM may decide days, weeks or months later that the material, if complained about by just one or two people, was NOT 'justified by the context' and is thus in breach of their Code.
The law doesn't ask whether the material is in breach of the Code according to OFCOM's opinions or not. It says the public, including the under eighteens, are to be adequately protected from such material at all times NOT, exposed to it and the channel fined months after the fact.
By ALLOWING their licensees to broadcast this type of 'pseudo-justified' offensive material, OFCOM have clearly broken the law while drawing up their pathetic excuse for a 'Standards Code'.
Moreover, since when have one or two people or, indeed, the seven members of the OFCOM Content Board, been able to DICTATE/know/represent the 'generally accepted standards of taste and decency' of British TV viewers?
As tastes vary widely, the ONLY way to guarantee adequate protection from material folks personally do not want to see is to inform them of the TYPE of material a channel or programme contains. This is best achieved through clear LABELLING in the channel or programme name; audio warnings; on-screen symbols; and the ability to lock, block or delete channels people PERSONALLY do not want themselves or their vulnerable children etc. to watch.
To this end I suggest programmes/channels carry a U/M/A/X suffix letter in brackets after the programme name and an always on-screen symbol at all times, thusly:
U - Green Symbol = Universal family programmes (equiv. to BBFC 'U' to 'PG' material depending on time of day)
M - Amber symbol = Mature teen programmes (equiv. to BBFC '12' to '15' material depending on time of day)
A - Red symbol = Adult programmes (equiv to BBFC '18' rated material)
X - Blue symbol = BBFC R18 or general 'X-rated' legally available sexually arousing porn.
NO LEGALLY AVAILABLE MATERIAL IN THE UK IS HARMFUL - that's already been decided by the Courts and the law - its NOT in OFCOM's remit to dictate such standards to the rest of the UK populace.
What 'is' offensive is ONLY ever in the eye of the beholder - again it is NOT in OFCOM's remit to dictate such 'standards of taste and decency' to the UK populace.
OFCOM are clearly acting against the law, reason and rationale. They have done NOTHING to apply generally accepted standards to provide adequate protection to members of the public of any age as required by the Comms Act. Indeed, BANNING legal material is NOT a 'generally accepted standard' or method, and is in itself ILLEGAL according to the ECHR Case Law and the HRA 1998 - both of which OFCOM are required to obey BY LAW.
OFCOM are acting in clear breach of the law and as such they are criminals extorting money with menaces in direct violation of the law. And they can sue me for libelous slander any fucking time they please because, I KNOW I'M RIGHT and OFCOM WOULDN'T STAND A CHANCE IN COURT because I KNOW MY RIGHTS.
Any concerns over the VRA and availability of R18-type material are utterly bogus. You can only legally sell firearms and ammunition to licensed persons over 18 in a licensed gun shop. You can only legally sell alcohol to persons over 18 in licensed premises. You can only legally sell tobacco products to persons over 18 in licensed premises. You can only legally supply drugs to persons over 18 in licensed premises. Similarly, you can only legally sell R18 DVDs to persons over 18 in licensed premises. R18 is certainly no more harmful than guns, bullets, pills, booze or cigs - indeed, ALL evidence PROVES R18 is HARMLESS compared to all of these other legally available licensed materials/substances. And I've seen no ban whatsoever on the use of guns and ammo in TV programmes despite the fact nutters keep blowing innocent people away on our streets with alarming and devastating regularity.
OFCOM ARE AN ILLEGAL BUNCH OF BULLSHITTERS AND THEY'RE IN FOR ONE SERIOUS BOLLOCKING - mark my words!
RE: Ofcom stuff - eccles - 13-08-2010 23:36
IanG, thanks for clarifying that, I have wondered what you would consider adequate protection, misunderstood your comments to mean that the law calls for absolute protection, and the only way I could see of ensuring that would be pre-vetting every broadcast and banning live material (the BBC has been found in breech enough times). Or banning all broadcasting.
So, an on-screen warning or classification symbol at all times.
That would work, though the TV and film buffs would argue that it impairs picture quality. There was enough anti-logo sentiment when TV channels first started displaying ident logos top left.
Also viewers would start campaiging to have the logos removed late at night "It's 2am, why should my picture have even more screen clutter just in case some chav kid's mum has left him alone while she goes dogging?"
Actually, the law has two relevant, but slightly different provisions:
"Section 319 ... (2)... The standards objectives are— .
(a) that persons under the age of eighteen are protected;"
~ the phrase is "protected" but it does not say against what. This is just bog standard child protection against what society feels is appropriate for kids. No mention of standards, taste, decency, offensive or harmful material.
Further on, another section says
"Section 319 ... (2) ... The standards objectives are— .
(f) that generally accepted standards are applied to the contents of television and radio services so as to provide adequate protection for members of the public from the inclusion in such services of offensive and harmful material;"
This second set of criteria are "generally accepted standards" in the context of "offensive and harmful material", meaning that other generally accepted standards do not apply, for example employment law, expectations for fair gambling systems, impartiality in news. Equally the only criteria in relation to "offensive and harmful material" is "generally accepted standards" ~ Ofcom have no powers under the Act to go beyond GAS and say that for other reasons they believe material may be "offensive and harmful". (Though the other sections might apply such as incitement to crime or subliminal advertising).
To cut a long story short, Section 319(2)f can be summarised as Ofcom shall set "generally accepted standards ... to provide adequate protection ... from offensive and harmful material"
"adequate" not "absolute".
That allows for occasional slip-ups.
Section 319(2)f refers to "offensive AND harmful" material, and that seems to mean that neither condition on it's own is sufficient, instead BOTH must apply at the same time. But that narrow interpretation would lead to some bizarre results, and not being a lawyer I am not sure if that interpretation would be supported by the courts.
Is Ofcom acting illegally?
If their actions go beyond what is "adequate" then yes.
Protecting the public from accidentally seeing titty shows at 9:10pm on FTA channels? Might be legal.
Protecting the public from R18 FTA content ? Might be legal.
Protecting the public from a quick fanny flash at 1am ? Goes beyond adequate, so not legal.
Protection against clearly signposted cert-18 strength FTA material designed for sexual arousal late at night ? No, that goes beyond "adequate" protection. Newagents have a top-shelf system that does not prevent tall 14 year olds reaching mags, but clearly marks them as different and keeps them out of toddlers hands. That is "adequate". Putting Mayfair an Men Only in a locked back room requiring proof of age and pre-registration goes way beyond "adequate" as does banning Hustler, Cheri and Whitehouse totally.
Protecting the public from R18 material on encrypted channels at 2am? Goes beyond "adequate protection", not legal.
RE: Ofcom stuff - IanG - 16-08-2010 01:43
eccles, if on-screen symbols upset some viewers then that's easily solved. The watershed has always been the mainstay of providing adequate protection to the under eighteens - this coupled with on-screen symbols ONLY for 'adult sex material' fulfills the adequate warning-protection requirement and, of course, no film buffs get upset with screen clutter for more mainstream entertainment.
Throughout the EU, most broadcasters use age-related symbols, audio warnings and/or, as in the Netherlands, they use content warning symbols (similar to PEGI game content symbols). THIS IS THE GENERALLY ACCEPTED STANDARD means of providing viewer protection from 'offensive and harmful material'. In fact, assessing content, describing it and adding age-suitable labelling has been in use since the early 1900s when films first started being shown to audiences in cinemas.
PIN is NON-STANDARD as it only applies to specific types of reception equipment. Mandatory PIN is utterly NON-STANDARD and, indeed, is quite clearly an unnecessary interference and inconvenience to those adults in households that contain no under eighteens (i.e. in 70% of homes).
There's more info on EU programme labelling here
http://ec.europa.eu/avpolicy/docs/library/studies/finalised/studpdf/rating_finalrep2.pdf
RE: Ofcom stuff - Scottishbloke - 16-08-2010 21:34
This is pure and simple, throughout all the months and numorous posts regarding ofcom and censorship in this country as well as the new government website there has been a number of really good suggestions but deep down when you look at the facts and politics of the subject in the cold light of day all this forum has ever done is state our opinions which sadly never get noticed by either the government or ofcom. The only thing that will change anything is time and also a liberal open minded head at the top of ofcom. Every post must be congratulated however for the sheer effort and thought process that goes into this but unfortunately to no avail. Ofcom are ignorant, not in touch with 21st Britain and certainly don't take any notice of anybodys view other than their own narrow minded vision and certainly to my knowledge don't even read this forum. This may sound pessimistic but I do see light at the end of tunnel its just a question of time really.
RE: Ofcom stuff - oooxooo - 17-08-2010 01:32
re ofcom stuff in their present form i for one will be glad if all the channels are shut down as it will save me the trouble of looking from time to time to see if anything has changed. truth is i believe the members of this forum played into the hands of ofcom and all the channels who all like this arrangement of total censorship think about it the channels are run by porn merchants who have something a little stronger to sell you. if everyone had voted with their feet and not given these yanks any money they in turn would have fought tooth and nail to save their nice little earners. more often than not girls wear two pairs of pants or as is now common swimwear camera pointing away or tits only its all a heap of crap. as for girls in swim wear go to any park or the coast and you will see more hear dirty talk from them and its free
RE: Ofcom stuff - pewack1976 - 17-08-2010 12:27
(17-08-2010 01:32 )oooxooo Wrote: re ofcom stuff in their present form i for one will be glad if all the channels are shut down as it will save me the trouble of looking from time to time to see if anything has changed. truth is i believe the members of this forum played into the hands of ofcom and all the channels who all like this arrangement of total censorship think about it the channels are run by porn merchants who have something a little stronger to sell you. if everyone had voted with their feet and not given these yanks any money they in turn would have fought tooth and nail to save their nice little earners. more often than not girls wear two pairs of pants or as is now common swimwear camera pointing away or tits only its all a heap of crap. as for girls in swim wear go to any park or the coast and you will see more hear dirty talk from them and its free
calm down dude,not suprised you have no rep lol .. only joking
no matter what any of us think,its alway going to be restricted
i like the day show fun when the girls are just being er ? lol
very flirtacious ,i have my faves but so does everyonoe else
ive had some great days watching the shows so im really greatful for that
RE: Ofcom stuff - Scottishbloke - 17-08-2010 21:38
If I was running ofcom my primary goal would be to serve the public with the upmost of respect and not involve myself with what content was being aired. My main goals would be focused on customer service and value for money such as fast broadband speed for everybody,also is the bbc right to justify a fee when for example as far as football is concerned the scottish people have been short changed, it piss's me off paying for a licence fee when ie none of the scottish world cup qualifying games were shown on the bbc instead it was all focused on England. Heres another for you STV the scottish equivalent to ITV is showing the Liverpool game live on Thursday instead of the Dundee United game live which just so happens to be my team which I have a ticket for anyway but thats beside the point as it seems that Scottish football at the moment is only catering for 2 teams at the moment Rangers and Celtic which just for the record I hope get fucked in europe as I personally hate the old firm and the bigotry it all stands for. This is real issues not fucking monitoring babe channels, fuck all that shit ofcom should start focusing on the real issues which I have stated amongst others. That should be the goal for ofcom. Nothing else, nothing more. Serve the public or fuck off!