+- 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 Replacement (/showthread.php?tid=20580)
RE: Ofcom Replacement - Jay39 - 27-05-2010 09:32
(26-05-2010 09:33 )Jay39 Wrote:(26-05-2010 05:50 )arron88 Wrote: If Ofcom has 'got to go' or 'change'.. Any thoughts on these?
What exactly are you going to replace it with? You might solve one problem but create two more. Is that worth it?
Wouldn't replacing Ofcom damage a delicate eco-system that was just unfortunate in its implementation due to the ideologies of the last gov?
What is the maximum fine any broadcaster could be given? Would there be any fines?
Would you be happy if Ofcom is split into two parts? Licensing and Content.
Where do you intend people write their complaints if there is 'no ofcom'? (for the record I've only ever complained once and it wasn't a babe channel)
How are you going to reduce complaints and verify they are genuine? There are regulators that state a 14 day cut off for complaints and also some that state the name of complainant for everybody to see.
How do you tell people to complain directly to a broadcaster first instead of a regulator? Should all broadcasters clearly publish a specific address for complaints?
Is it okay that the Culture Dept. hand out broadcast licences?
Replace with a smaller body than the current £142 million they cost the tax payer at the moment, you may have a genuine question, but for a forum that wants the body to be removed and at some point we may see in the near future you are opening a can of worms. Both the Conservatives and Liberals want to remove quangos and I agree as the majority are a wast of money and when you are paying some clown £434,000 a year to run ofcom you seriously need to look at some of the shite that Labour set up, the PM doesnt earn that! There was nothing wrong with the ITC before them, and you ask who do you complain to, well either the body that replaces them or the Minister who has Media under his/her wing. I have emailed the current minister asking for justification to the cost of Ofcom and wait for his reply which once received I will let the forum know of his response.
This was the poor form of a response I received this morning:
Thank you for your email of 19 May, about Ofcom. I have been asked to reply.
Ofcom is independent of government. You may wish to raise your concerns with Ofcom directly.
Yours sincerely
Gemma Hersh
Gemma Hersh |( 020 7211 6308
Public Engagement and Recognition Unit (PERU)
Department for Culture, Media and Sport |2-4 Cockspur Street |London |SW1Y 5DH
I have now responded as below:
Dear Miss Hersh
Thank you for your response. However, I will now email the Deputy PM direct, including a copy of the below response, as you seem to be passing responsibility to say the least. I am under the impression that 1 of the 3 main factors of the new coalition is responsibility!
My question was how can the government justify the cost of Ofcom with an annual cost of £142m to the tax payer, therefore funded by the government and responsible to the government. I will therefore ask Mr Clegg to justify such a cost.
I will let the forum know if I get a valid response as you can email Clegg direct via the Lib Dem website which I've done with a copy of the above.
RE: Ofcom Replacement - eccles - 27-05-2010 22:56
(27-05-2010 07:09 )kasone Wrote: Does anyone know what european countries use for television control if there is any at all, because we might want to look at what they are doing and incorporate it into this country, or if it is left down to the broadcaster with what they pay on licences and how they control how it goes out to the public.Topless French gameshows sponsored by Air France used to be the highlight of my Sunday mornings, but to be honest I am not comfortable with blatantly sexual material on daytime or early evening general TV channels when impressionable and nieve youngsters are around. Late evening is different.
Why i am asking this because on a french channel i have seen, they show movies and series about lunchtime and frequently there is some form of nudity, maybe topless posing or even full naked, it is an unencrypted channel.
Quote:Its not just Ofcom that needs to be changed but our entire view on sex on tv, encryted channels show be allowed to show hardcore films, the films should also be allowed to be bought via mail order and not just from licenced sex shops. If someone under the age buys these channels or purchases hardcore material then it should be the parents that be fined for letting them get hold of this material, this is my personal view on the subject of Tv control, some may disagree with my view and there will be some that agree, we shouldnt be living in the Dark ages, not nannied into what we can watch or cant watch, we as a society are multicultural now and have evolved past this prude and somewhat outdated philosophy, It is down to the average person what they can and cant watch, we are mature enough to decide.Yes, Yes, Yes, any politician who doesn't have a sex drive is not fit to represent the public, and history has shown that plenty are shagging their secretaries or dogging on Clapham Common, but none of the so-sos has the backbone to stand up to the few frigid housewives in their selection committees and say "Sex is a normal human interest. Frustration is dangerous.". Imagine just how brave MPs must have been in post-war 1960s to legalise homosexuality. This country has a serious repression problem, as does the USA, unlike supposedly religious Catholic countries like France, Italy, Spain...
Who would you rather be in league with in terms of lifestyle - Poland and Saudi Arabia or France and Italy? [/rant]
Oh, main point, Abolish, Replace or Reform Ofcom?
Here's a deliberately provocative point. What compulsory statutory body regulates newspapers and magazines? Books? Records? Paintings? Theatre? The Internet?
RE: Ofcom Replacement - kasone - 28-05-2010 06:34
(27-05-2010 22:56 )eccles Wrote:(27-05-2010 07:09 )kasone Wrote: Does anyone know what european countries use for television control if there is any at all, because we might want to look at what they are doing and incorporate it into this country, or if it is left down to the broadcaster with what they pay on licences and how they control how it goes out to the public.Topless French gameshows sponsored by Air France used to be the highlight of my Sunday mornings, but to be honest I am not comfortable with blatantly sexual material on daytime or early evening general TV channels when impressionable and nieve youngsters are around. Late evening is different.
Why i am asking this because on a french channel i have seen, they show movies and series about lunchtime and frequently there is some form of nudity, maybe topless posing or even full naked, it is an unencrypted channel.
Quote:Its not just Ofcom that needs to be changed but our entire view on sex on tv, encryted channels show be allowed to show hardcore films, the films should also be allowed to be bought via mail order and not just from licenced sex shops. If someone under the age buys these channels or purchases hardcore material then it should be the parents that be fined for letting them get hold of this material, this is my personal view on the subject of Tv control, some may disagree with my view and there will be some that agree, we shouldnt be living in the Dark ages, not nannied into what we can watch or cant watch, we as a society are multicultural now and have evolved past this prude and somewhat outdated philosophy, It is down to the average person what they can and cant watch, we are mature enough to decide.Yes, Yes, Yes, any politician who doesn't have a sex drive is not fit to represent the public, and history has shown that plenty are shagging their secretaries or dogging on Clapham Common, but none of the so-sos has the backbone to stand up to the few frigid housewives in their selection committees and say "Sex is a normal human interest. Frustration is dangerous.". Imagine just how brave MPs must have been in post-war 1960s to legalise homosexuality. This country has a serious repression problem, as does the USA, unlike supposedly religious Catholic countries like France, Italy, Spain...
Who would you rather be in league with in terms of lifestyle - Poland and Saudi Arabia or France and Italy? [/rant]
Oh, main point, Abolish, Replace or Reform Ofcom?
Here's a deliberately provocative point. What compulsory statutory body regulates newspapers and magazines? Books? Records? Paintings? Theatre? The Internet?
The point i was trying to make is what control over such nudity do these european countries have, I wasnt asking for the watershed times to be changed or asking for nudity or topless to be show at all times, keep the watershed time and allow more to be shown on tv.
As for the other point about papers, magazines ect, most are considered Art and not subject to a governing body, the internet is entirely different as no one country holds the rights to it, each country has its own laws with what you can and cant look at, this applies to the internet as well, in america each state has its own laws with regards to the internet, each country will moniter certain websites for information being downloaded in its country and if illegal material then they will prosecute you.
Also if a underage child wanted to get their hands on pornographic material it isnt hard to get, i remember as a kid i could get hold of it from friends at school, and they got it from older brothers, and it probably still can be gotten hold of at school, they can also get it from the internet now, for us to say lets control what we watch on TV and thinking that a child might be able to get your pin number and watch the material well there are lots of ways they can watch it without having it on TV as well.
RE: Ofcom Replacement - eccles - 28-05-2010 23:17
Quote:Abolish, Replace or Reform Ofcom?
Here's a deliberately provocative point. What compulsory statutory body regulates newspapers and magazines? Books? Records? Paintings? Theatre? The Internet?
Quote:As for the other point about papers, magazines ect, most are considered Art and not subject to a governing body, the internet is entirely different as no one country holds the rights to it, each country has its own laws with what you can and cant look at, this applies to the internet as well, in america each state has its own laws with regards to the internet, each country will moniter certain websites for information being downloaded in its country and if illegal material then they will prosecute you.
Initially my comment about absence of regulation was not meant seriously, but perhaps it is a point that needs a serious answer before anyone decides what form a future Ofcom should take.
The Daily Express as Art? Or the Daily Mail? Or those awful womens magazines with pictures of Katie Price and Peter Andre on the covers? In some countries the Press is subject to strict regulation, and that used to be the case in the UK. Likewise Theatre.
If there had been 20 or 30 TV channels from the 1920s current levels of regulation would never have happened. They stem from bandwidth scarcity.
The internet IS regulated, just very lightly. For now. Some extreme porn site ARE blocked by every licenced ISP and do not appear on search engines. And every UK ISP has to be licenced. So all internet traffic goes through ISPs that are licenced and regulated by the Govenment. Doesn't matter that there is some dody site in Thailand if you cannot access it. Don't assume that unregulated access will last forever.
RE: Ofcom Replacement - HenryF - 28-05-2010 23:43
(28-05-2010 23:17 )eccles Wrote:Quote:Abolish, Replace or Reform Ofcom?
Here's a deliberately provocative point. What compulsory statutory body regulates newspapers and magazines? Books? Records? Paintings? Theatre? The Internet?
Quote:As for the other point about papers, magazines ect, most are considered Art and not subject to a governing body, the internet is entirely different as no one country holds the rights to it, each country has its own laws with what you can and cant look at, this applies to the internet as well, in america each state has its own laws with regards to the internet, each country will moniter certain websites for information being downloaded in its country and if illegal material then they will prosecute you.
Initially my comment about absence of regulation was not meant seriously, but perhaps it is a point that needs a serious answer before anyone decides what form a future Ofcom should take.
The Daily Express as Art? Or the Daily Mail? Or those awful womens magazines with pictures of Katie Price and Peter Andre on the covers? In some countries the Press is subject to strict regulation, and that used to be the case in the UK. Likewise Theatre.
If there had been 20 or 30 TV channels from the 1920s current levels of regulation would never have happened. They stem from bandwidth scarcity.
The internet IS regulated, just very lightly. For now. Some extreme porn site ARE blocked by every licenced ISP and do not appear on search engines. And every UK ISP has to be licenced. So all internet traffic goes through ISPs that are licenced and regulated by the Govenment. Doesn't matter that there is some dody site in Thailand if you cannot access it. Don't assume that unregulated access will last forever.
I nearly pissed my pants laughing yesterday while listening to the cricket on the radio. Apparently there shall be no referral system during this series because Ofcom would not allow sponsorship of any of the technology used. As neither the ECB, the main broadcaster or the ICC was willing to stump up the cash. Ofcom wins again. You just couldn't make it up. Kafka-esque.
RE: Ofcom Replacement - kasone - 29-05-2010 06:47
Will sum up very quickly with how I want things to progress in this country, in regards to any and all material, porn or not, Let us as adults be adults, let us choose what we want to watch, stop treating us all like children, we can make up own minds if we want to watch certain material, those who do not wish to watch this material, DO NOT PURCHASE IT, then you cant get offended by it. You dont need to change the watershed times, keep it at 10pm till 5am every night, im not asking for this to be changed so it is shown at all hours during the day, night time the kids should be asleep, so they cant watch it.
Thats how I would like to see things change, it might not happen but heres hoping.
RE: Ofcom Replacement - lucent-x - 29-05-2010 09:51
(29-05-2010 06:47 )kasone Wrote: Will sum up very quickly with how I want things to progress in this country, in regards to any and all material, porn or not, Let us as adults be adults, let us choose what we want to watch, stop treating us all like children, we can make up own minds if we want to watch certain material, those who do not wish to watch this material, DO NOT PURCHASE IT, then you cant get offended by it. You dont need to change the watershed times, keep it at 10pm till 5am every night, im not asking for this to be changed so it is shown at all hours during the day, night time the kids should be asleep, so they cant watch it.
The communications industry does need a body for regulation, I don't object to Ofcom's existence so much as it's attitude, power and funding. Any kind of legal porn broadcast encrypted, and at any time of day, is fine by me - there is no more, and infact less, 'danger' to children than having a road outside their house. I'm less sure about the strength of content that should be available on unencrypted FTA channels, I still maintain that FTA channels which carry adult content need a warning splash screen that requires acceptance of a disclaimer before you can access the broadcast - surely that can't be beyond the realms of current broadcasting technology to implement? People cannot complain if they have continued and clicked 'ok' after being given a content warning. Don't like, don't watch, don't complain.
Thing is though, we're not really dealing with a child protection issue, the more you hear from those against any kind of 'sexualised' content (their version of 'sexualised' mind you) available in society, the more you understand that they aren't concerned about the danger to kids at all, it's still the old British attitude that sex is bad and wrong. And pretty much all the women that object to that content - which includes lame-ass things like Lad's mags and Beauty contests etc - scream the usual equality nonsense, and how it degrades and exploits women. Porn is an enormous multi-billion dollar industry, and the overwelming number of consumers are men, paying good money to watch other people have sex - so who exactly are the ones being exploited?
I've always wanted to ask one of those women who object to this stuff if they themselves have decided not to have sex, as it's obviously so filthy and degrading to them. I already know the answer will involve "...yes but sex in a loving relationship...". Oh fuck off.
Cameron promised to treat Adults like Adults and Kids like Kids, and to limit the state power over us. Let's hope this has some substance and wasn't just bullshit. Ofcom needs downgrading, either still as Ofcom or a new body, I don't care which so long as it happens.
RE: Ofcom Replacement - gunflash10 - 29-05-2010 10:42
Well said lucent-x a very informative and valued post on this subject.It will be interesting to see if cameron does indeed keep his promise to treat adults like adults and if this will involve a reduction in the powers of ofcom or indeed its eventual replacement by a fairer body with some degree of non-blinkered attitude towards the babechannels.
I particularly like your point about the women who champion the attitude that porn degrades women involved in it. It is the choice of the women to appear in porn and associated employment such as lapdancing clubs etc and why should some do gooder woman be able to dictate what is right and wrong regarding this it should always be the choice of those who enter the porn industry to do so.
I cant understand why harder material is not allowed and id like to cite holland as a country where porn is freely available and yet they have one of the lowest crime and teenage pregnancy rates in all of europe it certainly does not seem to have corrupted the moral fabric of dutch society as a whole,i myself have been to amsterdam on a couple of occassions and its a great city and one in which i felt very safe.The people are also very friendly.
Do these moral guardians think that harder material will corrupt and deprave all who view a seemingly silly attitude with no substance of evidence to back it up and i can never understand why the complaints of so very very few are always allowed to be used as an excuse to hammer the babechannels when a little misdemeanour occurs and as i always say why are they watching to be offended in the first place it does make me very angry at times.
So lets hope that under the current coalition that the stance on the babechannels will alter significantly and that the consumer will finally get what they want in terms of content.It will finally give us some hope that democracy does eventually bring change and i for one and im sure i speak for a great many others hope that change will come very soon.
RE: Ofcom Replacement - eccles - 31-05-2010 00:43
One problem is that the anti-porn brigade does not speak with one voice, and they have about 20 different arguments against porn. Solve one argument and someone will pop up with a differrent one.
Make it totally absolutely kiddie-proof, and someone will still complain that it is exploitative, or offensive, or immoral, or breaks-up marriages, or creates unrealistic expectations.
That's always going to be the case unless there is the political will to change things. Gay sex was not legalised in the 1960s because the entire population wanted it, but becuase there was a feeling that keep it illegal was pointless and vindictive.
My current wishful thinking is that Clegeron will realise that employing hundreds of people at Ofcom to censor legal strength porn just because it is on TV is stupid, pointless, expensive and an infringment of liberties.
Also it does not help women. There are couples out there who would gladly watch live explicit couple friendly porn, but one of whom gets turned off by concentration on the female bod, and the other is just unsatisfied, so the don't bond.
It does not help women who are not that interested in sex to have husbands who are severely sexually frustrated and constantly pestering them for sex (or worse, have an affair/leave). Plenty of couples go through that patch. But hang on, surely the man can go and buy some, er, reading material. Secretly a lot of wives know that's what's going on. But where to leave it? Not the bedroom, because the wife is in there. So it has to be hidden somewhere that the kids also have access to. Not good. Wouldn't it be better to have an explicit TV channel that only comes on when the kids are in bed, rather than stuff lying around the house.
So here's the thought. In a free and fair democratic society the broadcasting regulator should not have power to ban material that is legal in another medium from TV, at least on encrypted channels. If a film is legal in the cinema or on a DVD, a play is legal in the theatre, a game is legal on the PS3 then it should be legal on TV.
End of, no huge attitude sueveys every 5 years. No Content Committee having 2 day meetings in hotels around the UK every month. No army of watchers writing obsessively detailed notes about thongs.
RE: Ofcom Replacement - Scottishbloke - 31-05-2010 16:20
Well said eccles and after all it is now 2010 and the uk has to evolve and stop employing kiljoys such as ofcom, China for example has it far worse than Britain with ridiculas levels of censership so at least we can be thankful we're not living there. All said and done democracy has to be properly exercised in this country and its an infringment on our basic human rights not to be shown proper adult material when most other european countries can.