(03-10-2010 14:08 )Dan Volatile Wrote:  

(03-10-2010 02:39 )bobek Wrote:  Cameron won't touch Ofcom. Take a look at the Directorships held / previously held by the board members. How many of those (mostly Blue Chip) companies are contributors to the Conservative party i wonder ?

The current Chief Executive of Ofcom is Ed Richards who formerly worked as an "advisor" to both Tony Blair and Gordon Brown.

Quango board members are appointed by ministers so after thirteen years of Labour government many of these quangocrats will be Labour Party lickspittles and fellow travellers.

(03-10-2010 16:16 )Mister_Gee Wrote:  Ready for the spanner boys? What if the girls do not want to perform to this level?

(03-10-2010 18:43 )Scottishbloke Wrote:  I've said it before that ofcom's job and only job should be to make sure that the customer is treated fairly, for example when sky pulled one their channels off the virgin media epg a couple of years ago ofcom quite rightly go involved and demanded that sky 1 be put back into the virgin media epg as they deemed that the customers were being treated unfairly over financial disputes over the 2 companies, that was fair enough, however as far as censorship go's ofcom has on a number of occasions violated this. A sex line channel should justify its context by doing exactly what it says and not being censored. All box's these days have the capability of blocking any channels that the Parent/Guardian doesn't want their youngsters to see. If I worked for ofcom thats how I would deal with these complaints I would give clear and concise instructions over the phone on how to implement these procedures and also explain to the complainer that under a democratic state all channels and subjects on tv must be tolerated and catered for. If these changes were in place I would imagine that the number of complaints to ofcom would quickly dry up.

(03-10-2010 21:24 )eccles Wrote:  

(03-10-2010 18:43 )Scottishbloke Wrote:  I've said it before that ofcom's job and only job should be to make sure that the customer is treated fairly, for example when sky pulled one their channels off the virgin media epg a couple of years ago ofcom quite rightly go involved and demanded that sky 1 be put back into the virgin media epg as they deemed that the customers were being treated unfairly over financial disputes over the 2 companies, that was fair enough, however as far as censorship go's ofcom has on a number of occasions violated this. A sex line channel should justify its context by doing exactly what it says and not being censored. All box's these days have the capability of blocking any channels that the Parent/Guardian doesn't want their youngsters to see. If I worked for ofcom thats how I would deal with these complaints I would give clear and concise instructions over the phone on how to implement these procedures and also explain to the complainer that under a democratic state all channels and subjects on tv must be tolerated and catered for. If these changes were in place I would imagine that the number of complaints to ofcom would quickly dry up.

No way should the same organisation set the rules, investigate, prosecute, pass sentence and hear appeals, but thats exactly what Ofcom does. Its like Parliament, the Police, Judge, Jury and Appeal Court rolled into one.

Remove Ofcoms right to decide on breech cases.

Remove Ofcoms right to determine penalties.

Remove Ofcoms right to hear appeals.

Just leave them with policy formation and investigation ("Police" but not "Judge & Jury"). Also reform their internal procudures to remove the bias.

Finally raise the threshold for complaints.

Until the above procedures are clearly separated under different management Ofcom isnot compliant with the Human Rights Act.

(11-01-2011 13:52 )nailpouchofmine Wrote:  Do you really believe we in Britain have any Human Rights.

That is not what our politicians think,

We, according to them are just underdogs for them to use as they wish.