Ofcom Discussion - Printable Version +- 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 Discussion - Lotuseater - 20-12-2014 08:16 (20-12-2014 01:45 )eccles Wrote:(17-12-2014 02:13 )Scottishbloke Wrote: Eccles I'm sensing with the tone of your post that your not holding out for much optimism with the appointment of Sharon White. What has Trisha Goddard got to do with this?! I used to fancy her mind, although she's too old now. RE: Ofcom Discussion - eccles - 23-12-2014 02:35 Ofcom has sneaked out consultation on its Draft Annual Plan just in time for the Christmas quiet period when no one will notice. One thing leaps out from a very quick look Quote:Ensure content complies with broadcasting rules by taking a new targeted approach to our enforcement activities for TV broadcasters RE: Ofcom Discussion - gunnar - 23-12-2014 02:45 ^Looks like the channels are still in the firing line then. RE: Ofcom Discussion - SCIROCCO - 23-12-2014 07:17 So let me get this....they are going to look at stuff that people DON'T complain about? Not their job as far as I can see....CBeebie and Disney better watch out.... RE: Ofcom Discussion - Lotuseater - 23-12-2014 07:19 In an era of a runaway national budget deficit, you'd think the Govt would have burned this quango on the bonfire years ago, but no. RE: Ofcom Discussion - ShandyHand - 23-12-2014 21:48 (23-12-2014 02:35 )eccles Wrote: extending monitoring of TV content to detect content which raises issues of potential audience harm, particularly of channels about which we receive few or no complaints; Otherwise known as making up our own 'offences' in order to generate extra revenue through fines. Plus, a little self-justification for their own existence just in case anyone with any clout actually asks exactly why we are paying for this particular branch of the prurience society. Oh, and there's that phrase "potential... harm" again. Wouldn't want to actually have to prove anyone was caused any issue by anything they saw now would you Ofcon? It is becoming more and more obvious, almost by the day, that Ed Richards sold out any independence that Ofcom had after the last election in return for his organisation's continued existence and, no doubt, a growing extension to his gold-plated pension. Thanks, Ed, I'm sure all Dave's ideals were yours eh..? Going on what Eccles has highlighted about his replacement, things certainly do not bode well for the babe channels. (Not exactly household names are they these people that sit in judgement on what everyone in the land can see in his or here home?! Why are broadcasting execs with established careers in the industry never even rumoured for these appointments?!) I find it very hard to see Sharon White as being anything but a box-ticking tokenist puppet of an appointment with an emphasis on revenue. Which is where we came in... I hope she proves me wrong... RE: Ofcom Discussion - RatedR - 24-12-2014 00:19 (23-12-2014 02:35 )eccles Wrote: Ofcom has sneaked out consultation on its Draft Annual Plan just in time for the Christmas quiet period when no one will notice. Potential audience harm should only apply to the intended audience anyway. Anyone tuning in who thinks otherwise has probably made a bad personal decision to watch Adult R18 labelled programming. Anyone underage you can argue has also made a bad personal decision (one that legally lies with the parent or guardian and not the channels) because it's clearly labelled Adult R18, so, whatever the content is, you cannot apply potential harm arguments using underage viewers as an example as it's ALL seen as harmful to under 18's regardless of what is actually shown. (The same would apply to a R18 film with violence, drug use etc. This is why rating and the adult section of the EPG exists, it sets the intended audience before you choose to watch it, and if you or your child are not within that then your right to be offended is void and you can swivel If Ofcom do intend to monitor content they should monitor content in regards to the intended audience - Customers to the adult services advertised - and seeing as it's so clearly defined "televised phone sex advertisements" (right Ofcom?) I nominate Snookered as Ofcom content monitor chief, free to assemble a team of wankers to monitor and scrutinise at will Ah, but in reality Ofcom remain petty and the real enemy is people making money that they would rather have RE: Ofcom Discussion - MARCCE - 14-01-2015 12:39 Seems to me there hasn't been a better time for the channels to start pushing their corner than now. In the wake of the Charlie Hebdo atrocities the "deal with it" attitude to possibly causing offence is as as strong as it's been for some time. With more and more people comfortable with possibly offending a whole religion in order to protect freedom of speech and expression then it shouldn't be too hard a job for the channels to justify offending the odd straggler now and again in order to protect their own freedom of expression should it? I won't hold my breath. RE: Ofcom Discussion - Lotuseater - 14-01-2015 15:25 totally agree MARCE and if the forces of freedom are stronger for the loss of life then they did not die in vain RE: Ofcom Discussion - continental19 - 14-01-2015 20:45 Hey Folkes, Well i'm not sure whats happening with the new person in charge of ofcom, since the departure of Ed Richards? By the looks of the content since the turn of the year it appears things have pretty much stayed the same regarding content. However we're only 2 weeks into the new year so maybe i'm being a little hasty. On a positive note, i'm hoping for things to be turning in our favour, whether the upcoming general election will bear any weight on proceedings is another debate altogether. Lets hope 2015 will be a better year for our babe channels |