+- 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 - eccles - 23-05-2015 01:46
There are several problems with the proposals. One is that Ofcom is weak and ineffective. Really. Reading the Broadcast Bulletins week in week out, it is apparent that when a program is broadcast containing content that might be regarded as incitement to commit religion motivated murder, Ofcom has spent months investigating, during which the broadcaster remained on air, and the eventual outcomes were either (I forget which when) being found in breach of the Broadcasting Code (that must terrify a radical) or a fine, the upper limit of which is based on broadcasters paltry income.
Lets suppose you were a fundamentalist Christian intent on using violence to bring about The Rapture. You set up a 24 TV channel looping live demagogy, one sided studio discussions and brought in footage of religious gatherings. The whole thing costs £100 a day to run with unpaid staff. (£1000?). You are allowed to ask for donations to cover your running costs, and do so. You also run regular adverts asking for contributions to dodgy charities in remote countries. The charity money is independent and Ofcom cannot touch it. At most you can be fined 5% of your annual turnover, no matter how extreme the violence you advocate - £100 x 365 x 5% = £1,825. Or £18,250 if we say £1,000 a day for a studio and Sky slot. More than you or I could find without having to turn the heating down, but not much by the standards of an extreme organisation intent on overturning the World order, and advocating murder.
By contrast when faced with similar threats, the Police would spend a few days gathering evidence, launch a 6am raid, confiscate everything, search everything with prejudice, and lock up the principle personnel in Belmarsh pending a full trial. Just one days vulture fees - sorry, legal fees, would exceed any possible Ofcom fine.
SECOND How does anyone "prevent" extremist broadcasts, without pre Censorship? (OK, censorship has to be "pre" to qualify, but you know what I mean.)
Ofcoms track record regarding Tower Hamlets Mayoral elections is lamentable, with weak slaps on the wrist months after the event. This is despite their power to take immediate action and the immediacy of elections.
A complication is that Ofcom only has the resources to check broadcasts by exception, when a complaint is received. There is a small amount of routine monitoring of areas known to cause difficulties, and a small amount of random spot checks. Sky has about 550 channels, and even allowing for HD and +1s, that is 300+ distinct channels, 100-200 times more than they can monitor, even when in English language, during office hours only.
It would not be practical or effective to draw up a list of, say, 6 borderline channels and monitor them round the clock.
Whats to stop extremist content being slipped into a news program? Or a kids one?
Just how many translators in how many languages is Ofcom meant to have sitting around?
Whats to stop extremist content being slipped into a +1 channel in the hope +1s wont be checked?
How would Ofcom deal with live material from other countries? Particularly other European ones like Australia (joke) or one with a more relaxed attitude? What if the priest were an MP elected under a PR system on a minority ticket like the Italian Radicals who famously elected a porn star? Or thinking ahead, what if Turkey, Israel or Chechnya became EU states? As long as we are in the EU there is an open skies agreement and a channel broadcast from another member state cannot be blocked.
The basic problem is getting a light touch civil regulator working on the basis that broadcasters are by and large decent chaps who buy their rounds at the 19th hole, and who want to run regular businesses, to perform intrusive and resource heavy policing of criminal matters by people not running regular profit and loss businesses.
From the Governments perspective the ideal would be licencing of all religious speakers, making it a criminal offence for anyone not so licenced to state a religious opinion or preach, compulsory licencing of all printing presses and publishers, and pre-broadcast vetting of all speeches, plays and sermons. This was tried with mixed results under the Tudors.
What could happen is a wider definition of racial and religious hatred under existing race hate laws, so that material cunningly worded to imply but not actually say things becomes illegal. The definition might be along the lines that a vulnerable person might reasonably be expected (civil court legal threshold) to conclude that it is justified to use violence against another person or group.
That would immediately make sections of the Bible illegal:
John 2.15.17, using a whip on people performing trade in temples - possibly including postcard sellers, sponsor a donkey and anyone promising 10 fold returns on donations:
"And making a whip of cords, he drove them all out of the temple, with the sheep and oxen. And he poured out the coins of the money-changers and overturned their tables. And he told those who sold the pigeons, 'Take these things away; do not make my Father's house a house of trade.'"
Hebrews 12:10 justifies "disciplining" people by unspecified means for their own good:
"For they disciplined us for a short time as it seemed best to them, but he disciplines us for our good, that we may share his holiness."
Luke 17.1.1-2 could encourage drowning paedophiles:
"And he said to his disciples, 'Temptations to sin are sure to come, but woe to the one through whom they come! It would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck and he were cast into the sea than that he should cause one of these little ones to sin.'"
Deuteronomy 21:10-14 could be interpreted as permitting kidnap of women and rape (after one month: "go into her"):
“When you go out to war against your enemies, and the Lord your God gives them into your hand and you take them captive, and you see among the captives a beautiful woman, and you desire to take her to be your wife, and you bring her home to your house, she shall shave her head and pare her nails. And she shall take off the clothes in which she was captured and shall remain in your house and lament her father and her mother a full month. After that you may go in to her and be her husband, and she shall be your wife. But if you no longer delight in her, you shall let her go where she wants. But you shall not sell her for money, nor shall you treat her as a slave, since you have humiliated her."
A nutter might believe James 1:12 justifies torture of believers for their own good:
"Blessed is the man who remains steadfast under trial, for when he has stood the test he will receive the crown of life, which God has promised to those who love him."
Far fetched? Look at the snake handlers in the Southern USofA.
2 Corinthians 10:5 might be read as an imperative to kill intellectuals, or at the very least, burn books:
"We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ"
Exodus 22:16 encourages forced marriage of rape victims with no possibility of divorce:
"If a man seduces a virgin who is not pledged to be married and sleeps with her, he must pay the bride-price, and she shall be his wife."
AND
Deuteronomy 22:28-29
"If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives."
Complete exclusion of anyone who uses a medium - loss of employment, particularly public sector employment, social contacts, banning from all shops:
Leviticus 20:6
"'I will set my face against anyone who turns to mediums and spiritists to prostitute themselves by following them, and I will cut them off from their people."
Jeremiah 27:9-10
"So do not listen to your prophets, your diviners, your interpreters of dreams, your mediums or your sorcerers who tell you, 'You will not serve the king of Babylon.'. They prophesy lies to you that will only serve to remove you far from your lands; I will banish you and you will perish."
Famously there is incitement to kill witches - and that might or might not include mediums, psychics, tarot card readers, and people who write horoscopes:
Exodus 22:18 "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live."
AND
Leviticus 20:27
"'A man or woman who is a medium or spiritist among you must be put to death. You are to stone them; their blood will be on their own heads.'"
There are of course other religions and other religious books that might be affected. Banning those might result in some countries cutting off oil supplies, refusing to buy military equipment from the UK (redundancies, collapse of industry), withdrawing £billions of investments (collapse of property values, redundancies, closure of some nice restaurants and casinos), and the free flow of covert information being cut off, so the newly empowered censor, Ofcom or someone else, might be leaned on to go easy.
What is needed is a clear legally robust definition of content that can lead people into destructive ways - self destructive or destruction of others - whether it is stated outright or indirectly with cunning wording that is commonly understood whatever the dictionary says.
Uncontrolled gambling. Cults. Glue sniffing. Religious extremism. Violent trolling. Brain washing. Isolationism. Regarding other beliefs (political or religious) as so inferior as to be beyond consideration. Extolling drugs. Harmful ones. Or is that controversial?
In extreme cases these are police matters, way out of the league of a broadcasting regulator. Constant surveillance is not the regulators role.
What is needed is for Ofcom to get off its arse and enforce existing rules on impartiality.
What is not needed is free rein to come down like a ton of bricks with arbitrary and inconsistent enforcement of vague rules with no right of appeal simply because one newspaper runs a hate campaign for their own profit.
What is not needed is for views that are non harmful but unpopular with the Government or other powerful pressure groups to be banned by decree, or suppression of open democratic debate. Scottish independence. Communism. Womens rights (or absence). Gay marriage. Ownership of the Ukraine, Crimea and South Ossetia. Criticism of Guantanamo Bay. Or Google. Or Facebook privacy policies. Or criticism of Trade Unions or the Labour Party. And lets not forget unearthing allegations of child rape by public figures so proper investigations actually get carried out. 50 years ago that would have been banned on the grounds that it was unbelievable and would destabilise confidence in public institutions.
RE: Ofcom Discussion - Matsui - 25-05-2015 00:06
(22-05-2015 12:42 )Scottishbloke Wrote: Also lets make no bones about it but the Tories want out of the European Union as a lot of the freedoms that we still have would be lost forever if the red tape in Brussels never prevented it.
If the UK leaves Europe then expect the following measures to take place.
Satellite Jamming - Only Ofcom approved SKY UK, all other signals blocked.
Internet Censorship - On a par with non democratic countries.
Human Rights - Will be severely cut, just like the bad old Pre Europe era.
When it comes to the European Union Referendum forget about all the negative reasons as to staying in and focus on the everyday freedoms that not even the Tories can yet take away from us. Vote Yes to remain a member or you can kiss goodbye to all things that are not approved by the Government
That's one of the main reasons I went form being anti-EU to the point of voting UKIP once, to now wishing to remain with in it. The sad fact is that I trust the EU with my civil liberties far more than I trust my own government, be they red or blue.
RE: Ofcom Discussion - ShandyHand - 25-05-2015 16:21
Javid mostly playing down the row with May here:
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/may/24/theresa-may-ofcom-anti-extremism-plan-protect-free-speech-sajid-javid
But I hope people agree that the crux is in the quote half way down. This references plans to "strengthen the role of Ofcom to take action against channels which broadcast extremist content” being expected for inclusion in Wednesday’s Queen’s speech.
In other words, as the headline implies, no pre-broadcast banning role for Ofcom.
As usual though, the reader is left with the question: Why leak this if the decision was already made?
Either the leak was done to force a climb down behind closed doors which is now being blustered out in the media or Javid simply wanted to take credit for the decision. I don't see any other reason strong enough to bother leaking this?
RE: Ofcom Discussion - munch1917 - 25-05-2015 16:49
^^ It's quite possible the leak may have come from Ofcom themselves, who may be uncomfortable with being put in this position of being a censor rather than just a regulator.
There is also a bigger picture here, with a raft of measures being proposed supposedly to counter extremism. There is quite an opposition to many of these measures behind the scenes, so this particular leak could just be part of a wider process of raising opposition to this package of proposals and showing that there is opposition within the Tory ranks to them in order to get them waterd down to a more acceptable level.
RE: Ofcom Discussion - ShandyHand - 25-05-2015 19:11
(25-05-2015 16:49 )munch1917 Wrote: ^^ It's quite possible the leak may have come from Ofcom themselves, who may be uncomfortable with being put in this position of being a censor rather than just a regulator.
There is also a bigger picture here, with a raft of measures being proposed supposedly to counter extremism. There is quite an opposition to many of these measures behind the scenes, so this particular leak could just be part of a wider process of raising opposition to this package of proposals and showing that there is opposition within the Tory ranks to them in order to get them waterd down to a more acceptable level.
Yes I was suggesting Ofcom could be the source in my previous post on this. Your second paragraph suggests a more internal leak.
For me an Ofcom source doesn't quite tie with the decision already having been made as the government are trying to imply. Unless the leaker were unaware of this. I suppose you could also argue they could have leaked in an attempt to put off any proposals being made along these lines in the future.
I do take your point on the wider issues though. We shouldn't take these matters in isolation.
RE: Ofcom Discussion - eccles - 25-05-2015 23:50
Read an interesting article about the £12b welfare cuts that the Tories have promised to make and Ian Duncan Smiths reservations about the whole idea. Basically it said the Tories never expected to be elected with an absolute majority when they made the pledge, and were banking on the LibDems watering them down.
Similar consideration might apply to censoring extremist content. The brighter Tories know that Ofcom is not capable of large scale (pre) censorship, that it would be a complete anathema to LibDems - and even liberal elements of their own party like David Davis - and illegal under the HRA. Let Theresa May float the idea, placate the back benches, then shout in mock indignation when coalition partners shoot the idea down. Only there arent any coalition partners.
To complicate matters, the Tories only have a majority of 8. Governments inevitably lose seats during Parliaments, and some of their backbenchers who oppose the idea could forget to turn up for the vote, particularly if they plan to retire in 2020. That means it is far from certain the measure would get through, unless wrapped up with a load of other measures they could not ignore.
Who leaked the memo? No idea, but it might never have been a serious proposal. Only now they have a majority they are stuck with it. On that basis even Theresa May has a vested interest in getting the idea kicked out or watered down as soon as possible.
RE: Ofcom Discussion - Scottishbloke - 26-05-2015 02:38
I sometimes wonder how long it'll take before Ofcom start fining football clubs next (not like I want to put any ideas in their heads)
On Sunday I was watching the game between Dundee United and Dundee and the commentator had to apologise for the bad language throughout the game.One such sentence that was picked up by the mics was "Fuck off Muirhead you fucking shitebag"
In many ways Ofcom actually promote all things that fall foul and instead sensationalise them into something bigger.I hope one day we return to light moderating on the channels and also return to the freedom of if it's in the adult section then expect adult content, take one look at how watered down and fearful of the regulators the channels have now become and every night I laugh at the fact that they all have 18+ certificates on them.
RE: Ofcom Discussion - ShandyHand - 26-05-2015 09:06
^ Ofcom and its like do often end up propagating and legitimising what they act against. At their worst, they become part of the blame culture and the culture of offense that has somehow taken hold in our society of late. (The reasons for this are probably many and varied but I would put a significant part down to the political elite offering an knee-jerk reaction to the freedoms offered to the individual by the internet and alike.)
There is an interesting artical here on how a severe example of this can be found in the fight against extremism that we have been talking about:
http://www.commondreams.org/views/2015/02/15/islam-and-culture-offense-missing-point
RE: Ofcom Discussion - ShandyHand - 26-05-2015 11:36
^ Ofcom are hoping the changes they are introducing to premium rate number charges will drive down prices:
http://www.cityam.com/216366/premium-phone-costs-set-get-bit-cheaper
For the babe channels numbers? I doubt it.
RE: Ofcom Discussion - eccles - 27-05-2015 01:53
On a more serious note, a decision described as one of the CEOs, has been to order BT to open up dark fibre to competitors. No, its not some secret subscription only cable tv service, its unused direct cable capacity, or something like that. Competitors reckon they can put it to good use. BT say its theirs and they dont see why other people should use it, even if they pay rent.
The significance is that this is a complete 180 from the position under previous management. It could be argued that a lot has happened in 5 years (or not a lot, BT had their chance), but it still seems like a slap in the face for Edmundo Richards and co.
Anything that makes previous decision making look incompetent could be helpful.