+- 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 - 18-12-2010 00:57
(17-12-2010 11:32 )beller Wrote: Just to let you know that, for what it's worth, I have now made an official Freedom of Information Act 2000 request to see what Ofcom's "generally accepted standards" are and who decides on them. They are legally bound to reply by 17th January 2011.
I encourage everyone else here to do the same. It's easy to do via the http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/ website.
I have also written to my MP this morning to ask her to follow up the sudden change in "generally accepted standards" which has been imposed upon the Babe Channels as from today. A sudden change in generally accepted standards sounds like a contradiction in terms to me.
Notice too that this publicly accountable, publicly funded organisation has imposed these changes without any public announcement.
Maybe the Daily Mail apoplectics are the public announcement. They seem to follow each other remarkably closely.
Good luck to you. You might also like to ask them for guidelines that they have sent to channels recently. If they argue that these are covered by commercial sensitivety please say, as no way can the same information sent to every industry operator in the sector be confidential.
And yes, normally they consult for 3 months before announcing a change and hide behind "research" that is clear as mud. Be interesting to know exactly what the status of these new "guidelines" is. There do not appear to be any changes to the Broadcasting Code in the pipeline, and nothing else has any other legal significance that an indication of how things might go.
While on the subject of consultations, these were announced today. Please nobody suggest that Ofcom are being devious and decitful by sneaking these out on the last Friday before Christamas:
Procedures for handling appeals on scope and for imposing sanctions in relation to On-Demand Programme Services
Revising the penalty guidelines
Dispute Resolution Guidelines - Ofcom’s guidelines for the handling of regulatory disputes
The Penalties one says:
"The central objective of imposing a penalty is deterrence. The amount of any penalty must be sufficient to ensure that it will act as an effective incentive to compliance."
and
Factors include ... duration ... gain ... steps to remedy contravention ... history of contravention ... preventative steps ... whether intentional or reckless ... extent to which senior management ought to have known
and most worryingly
"The extent to which the level of penalty is proportionate, taking into account the size and turnover of the regulated body."
~ not proportionate to the offence, but proportionate to turnover.
Imagine if a speeding fine depended on your wages not your speed.
Somehow I doubt that th BBC will be fined 1000x more than, say, Elite, for broadcasting a "Fuck".
And "history of contravention" is bollocks because fines are only resorded to because of a history of contravention. Unless the mean finally getting round to fining the BBC for transmitting Fs during the daytime repeatedly (check it out, they really are the worst offenders, its the music festivals).
RE: Ofcom Discussion - HenryF - 18-12-2010 01:29
The hypocrisy is evident in Ofcom's non-response to the 'Xfactor outrage' (Daily Mail header) dancers in skimpy costumes cavorting suggestively - before the watershed on prime time tv. This incident generated thousands of complaints to Ofcom. I think I am right in saying that babe channel issues are interrogated on the basis of individual complaints -aren't they?
RE: Ofcom Discussion - Gold Plated Pension - 18-12-2010 18:48
(17-12-2010 11:32 )beller Wrote: Just to let you know that, for what it's worth, I have now made an official Freedom of Information Act 2000 request to see what Ofcom's "generally accepted standards" are and who decides on them. They are legally bound to reply by 17th January 2011.
I encourage everyone else here to do the same. It's easy to do via the http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/ website.
I have also written to my MP this morning to ask her to follow up the sudden change in "generally accepted standards" which has been imposed upon the Babe Channels as from today. A sudden change in generally accepted standards sounds like a contradiction in terms to me.
Notice too that this publicly accountable, publicly funded organisation has imposed these changes without any public announcement.
Maybe the Daily Mail apoplectics are the public announcement. They seem to follow each other remarkably closely.
If only Robin Esser, executive managing editor of the Daily Mail who recently called for the abolition of Ofcom would keep the momentum going as the Daily Mail does when exposing Health and Safety, immigration, benefit, etc abuses.
On Tuesday they issued a freedom of information request to every local authority requesting copies of all letters, e-mails, minutes of meeting held with or concerning local organisations, schools etc wishing to put on a nativity play or other christian play to celebrate xmas. They also wanted to know if any animals were involved with such performances. Obviously they are checking to see if any LA are imposing small minded restrictions on these organisations, banning the use of live animals due to the risk of Escherichia coli, requesting the use of battery operated candles rather than real flame candles, dumbing down the christian message so as not to upset other religions or getting all involved with such productions to be CRB checked, no photo's etc. The list is endless when small minded bureaucrats get involved.
The Daily Mail needs to be brought on our side, whilst they may not fully support the babe message, we do have a common aim of abolition or reduction of power of this faceless quango.
RE: Ofcom Discussion - Scottishbloke - 18-12-2010 21:39
I think recently there has been a big swing towards the abolition of ofcom and everybody does have their own reasons of course. Pissing Simon Cowell off recently on the content of the X Factor show's wasn't very wise and maybe ofcom have shot themselves in the foot here when more and more people are now beginning to question the existence of ofcom. How dare they preach what's suitable and not suitable content for broadcast. With the X Factor scandal I think it has highlighted that ofcom are just getting a bit too big for their boots and need shot down in not uncertain manner. Ofcom should be abolished and all the powers should be brought back to the government who I would imagine would not want to come down on censorship as much as ofcom do. The watershed which is in place needs to be rewritten and I've said it before channels should have the right to broadcast whatever they want at any time of the hour so long as the pin restriction measures are in place. All freeview box's, Virgin, BT and Sky Box's should all be fitted with this technology and channels should only be fined if they fail to pin protect programmes of an adult nature before 9PM. And I've said it in a previous post what we saw on the X Factor last weekend was nothing different from what we used to see when Baywatch was broadcast at 5PM on a Saturday. We need to exercise common-sense and last weekends X Factor show was nothing more than mild titillation if you can even call it that.
RE: Ofcom Discussion - StanTheMan - 18-12-2010 22:08
So as others have accepted, it looks as though there was some truth in Laura's tip-off.
This actions needs to affect the Babeshows' daytime revenue. If it doesn't, then they'll be more than happy to go along with anything Ofcom demand. Next for the chop, the nightshows.
The only hope we have of the Babeshows even contemplating challenging this overnight decision is for them to be hit where it hurts - in the pocket. I don't want to see anyone losing their business/jobs, but while their revenue is unaffected, they'll happily settle into a routine of ultra-tame dayshows.
And for what it's worth, I don't buy this watershed crap when it comes to channels that are specifically aimed at adults. If children are accessing these channels at night and seeing total nudity (albeit tastefully done), why the hell does it matter if the dayshows show a bit of knicker and the odd nipple slip??
RE: Ofcom Discussion - stoly - 19-12-2010 07:16
THIS WILL BE A GIANT STEP BACKWARDS, AND INFRINGE ON THE RIGHTS OF THE INDIVIDUAL TO ACCESS WHAT THEY WANT ON LINE.
The internet was set up as a way of accessing material free from government interference.
A Conservative MP has admitted logging on to internet pornography sites from the Commons after a constituent's complaint about children's access to them.
He asked ministers to look at whether it was "desirable or technically feasible" to take measures which would restrict the access of pornographic material to vulnerable people
Net porn lock for children
The government is to combat the early sexualisation of children by blocking internet pornography unless parents request it.
So it looks like they will be targeting your ISP providers to make this happen. A meeting is taking place next month with all ISP providers to deal with this. Not Ofcom, this is coming from the twats the give them their orders. If China can block what their citizens have access to, I'm sure it will happen here.
This will enable them to have access to all the addresses of the people who enable their computers, if you have children at home you can potentially be targeted as a pedo for allowing it.
![[Image: cable_106_20101219_0717.ts_000031057_thumb.jpg]](http://imagechunk.com/viewer.php?file=cable_106_20101219_0717.ts_000031057.jpg)
Potentially the ISP providers may decide not to carry anything that covers porn. Which puts sites like this one, no more
RE: Ofcom Discussion - Rammyrascal - 19-12-2010 13:06
think the porn companies will fight this or will find ways round this lock if it happens
RE: Ofcom Discussion - sweetsugar007 - 19-12-2010 13:37
Ultimately as I have said on numerous occasions over the last year the only way this gets solved is when everyone bites the bullet and pays to pin protect their content then all of this goes away! It is a matter of economics not ne essarily censorship.
RE: Ofcom Discussion - stoly - 19-12-2010 13:53
(19-12-2010 13:37 )sweetsugar007 Wrote: Ultimately as I have said on numerous occasions over the last year the only way this gets solved is when everyone bites the bullet and pays to pin protect their content then all of this goes away! It is a matter of economics not ne essarily censorship.
Yeah, but whats also been pointed out is, every sky box and freeview box already has pin protection built in.
RE: Ofcom Discussion - Kenilo - 19-12-2010 13:56
If they are allowed to get away with this it will just get worse and worse.If the Mary Whitehouse Brigade start to think they have the power to censor everything we watch we will be in trouble. Women on TV will be buttoned up to the neck and covered down to their ankles. What will they target next if they get their way. Th Olympics? The female athletes wearing their skin tight running gear? The female swimmers in their swim suits? Womens volleyball? Gymnastics? The list could go on and on. It might sound a bit over the top but if I am not mistaken people rang in and complained about the cameramen at tennis matches filming women tennis players from behind when they served the ball because you would get a flash of their knickers and they got their way you dont see too many of those camera angles anymore ( I used to love watching Martina Hingis tucking the spare balls into her knickers). Top of the pops was the same with the cameras getting too close to the audience dancing. Think about it?