+- 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 stoops to a new low. (/showthread.php?tid=21599)
RE: Ofcom stoops to a new low. - eccles - 24-06-2010 02:07
Blackjaques, seems I read your post completely the wrong way round. You said "They(Ofcon) really do not want R18 on UK television at all & will go to any length to distort by semantics, upholding dubious complaints" so I thought you were arguing that TVX and PB were more or less cert 15. Seems you were saying they have R18 bits, which goes against your argument that Ofcom "do not want R18...at all".
I'd agree that there seem to be occasional glimpses of material that is at the lower end of R18, but definitely across the line. Glimpses of cunillingus, a bit of fellatio seen in the gap between two bodies, manual stimulation or toy penetration. Enforcement seems a little elastic on the encrypted channels, more like speeding fines than an absolute. But there is no tolerance for channels that take the piss with clear sustained deliberate R18 content like the live shows of just 2 or 3 years ago.
Also as you say, some shows feature erect penises. I'm pretty sure the BBFC issued a clarification, saying aroused gentials (or dilated) qualify as R18 just on their own - thats erect penises, wet or 'wide-on' vaginas and gaping bums - even if there is no touching. (Unless justified by context). Ofcom seem to tolerate occasional erect penises, and that's inconsistent.
Yet strangely being ejaculated on is NOT R18 unless seen exiting the male member - because it could be fake.
Yup, if there is room for doubt the BBFC say it is 18, not R18. Ofcom say the exact opposite.
And pissing is 18, not R18, unless seen leaving the body as that too could be fake. See Frivolous Lola or Black Angel by Tinta Brass, both available in HMV. It's even legal to drink it.
RE: Ofcom stoops to a new low. - IanG - 24-06-2010 09:47
(23-06-2010 14:02 )Hexit Wrote: as long as no 1 calls them on it they will get away with it.
the sad fact is company's like cellcast wont call them on it because they can get away with ripping off there customers as there current foray into the soft porn market proves. infact cellcast could be hauled over the coals in the next few months for there advertising of B.S.Xtame by the A.S.A they advertise evry night saying switch to blah blah for xxx hardcore action.
Hex, no one is forcing you to phone or buy. They cannot get away with anything if you stop using.
Quote:XXX is not a permissible rating and to call something XXX is in breach of BBFC codes and guidlines.
saying something is hardcore is in breach of advertising rules for describing a product. you have to advertise the final product not the ingredients you used to make it. the programs may well be hardcore when they shoot them but they get censored and cut thus the final product is soft porn at best, and at worst not even that.
This is because there are no published 'generally accepted standards'. The only standard ratings in the UK are the BBFC's.
Quote:as long as company's like cellcast can get away with such fragrant violations and indeed covet ofcoms rules, things will not change.
Ofcom's rules?
Ofcom considered:
•Rule 2.1 - the broadcaster must apply generally accepted standards
•Rule 2.3 - offensive material must be justified by context.
(these are not the full clauses - got this from MF - what did they publish in the Bullshitting?)
Right, the Comms Act says
319(2) It is Ofcom's duty in drawing up the code to meet its Standards Objectives, which are:-
319(2)(f) that generally accepted standards are applied to the contents of radio and television services to provide adequate protection to members of the public from the inclusion in those services of offensive and harmful material
Point 1: 319(2)(f) says Ofcom applies the standards BUT Ofcom's deranged Code says the broadcaster is to apply them
Point 2: Ofcom's deranged Code says offensive material must be justified by context whereas, the Comms Act says in 319(2)(f) that Ofcom are to prevent its inclusion full stop! I mean, really, in what context can offensive material be justified? Answer: NONE!
How clear does it have to be?
No sane, rational and reasonable person could have drawn up that Code from this law. Get it to a Judge - NOW! The Code is utter tripe, twaddle.
Call the cops. Someone, everyone.
RE: Ofcom stoops to a new low. - KateP - 24-06-2010 15:18
you know the main problem is they are giving ofcom more power look at the digital economy bill they are now the net police when they are not even fit to police the tv shows they have this is going to be one massive disaster
RE: Ofcom stoops to a new low. - tommo1974 - 24-06-2010 15:31
ok now i know why i left the UK 6 yrs ago everyone is getting stitched to f@@k in spain where i have lived for 6 yrs there is no such extreme censureship and i am now wondering why he hell everyone is moaning aboud erect penis open pussy shot etc OMG wake up people u all geting fu@@ek by censureship uk bunch of wan@@ers ie ofcom. I have sky in spain ....paid for!! and i see some slightly good ish freeview babe channels one in a blue moon but these are nothing compared to european channels and maybe that is why the government will not join he euro zone?????????????? and fuk italy they losing 0 - 2 ha ha hah ahahaha ahaha
RE: Ofcom stoops to a new low. - Scottishbloke - 24-06-2010 16:14
Fuck ofcom, they've basically violated our human rights now and in 2010 its a sorry state of affairs. I urge the new government to ditch these qangos as the uk has now become the laughing stock of europe. Everybody who watches these channels is being denied the right to view what should be a consistant hot show with no questions asked as they should be allowed to fullfill the expectations for the viewer. A new law should be brought stating that unless at least 1000 complaints are logged then action should not happen as ofcom are fining channels on the basis of one petty complaint. The only time I ever phoned ofcom was to complain about the speed of my broadband and also a certain channel was still charging me a subscription fee despite the fact I had cancelled the channel in question, these were justified complaints not petty ones.
RE: Ofcom stoops to a new low. - Gold Plated Pension - 24-06-2010 20:57
(24-06-2010 15:18 )KateP Wrote: you know the main problem is they are giving ofcom more power look at the digital economy bill they are now the net police when they are not even fit to police the tv shows they have this is going to be one massive disaster
Ofcom were not given any additional resources when they were given this responsibility so are looking to the industry to self regulate, similar to the ASA for advertising and the Portman Group for the alcohol industry but they will not let TV/Radio self regulate, nor will they start taking a light touch approach to enforcement as per their code.
When the new Broadcasting Code and Advertising Code come into effect in September this year Ofcom WILL be retaining the authority for control over babechannel content they will not be letting the ASA do this.
This is because the ASA have no statutory duties and currently rely on Ofcom to levy regulatory sanctions for breach of licence conditions concerning advertising. There is a standard condition on all licenses that broadcaster have to comply with ASA rulings.
If you look at the protracted 'enforcement' regime of the ASA before they involve the Office of Fair Trading for regulatory sanctions (for non broadcast advertising) then you will understand why Ofcom will never give them full authority over the channels. It is very much an arms length, light touch regime unlike Ofcom.
http://www.babeshows.co.uk/showthread.php?tid=14756&pid=511638#pid511638
RE: Ofcom stoops to a new low. - arron88 - 24-06-2010 22:33
(24-06-2010 16:14 )Scottishbloke Wrote: I urge the new government to ditch these qangos as the uk
Have you sent them an email and if so what did they say in reply?
RE: Ofcom stoops to a new low. - StanTheMan - 24-06-2010 22:35
(24-06-2010 20:57 )Gold Plated Pension Wrote: Ofcom were not given any additional resources when they were given this responsibility so are looking to the industry to self regulate, similar to the ASA for advertising and the Portman Group for the alcohol industry but they will not let TV/Radio self regulate, nor will they start taking a light touch approach to enforcement as per their code.
When the new Broadcasting Code and Advertising Code come into effect in September this year Ofcom WILL be retaining the authority for control over babechannel content they will not be letting the ASA do this.
This is because the ASA have no statutory duties and currently rely on Ofcom to levy regulatory sanctions for breach of licence conditions concerning advertising. There is a standard condition on all licenses that broadcaster have to comply with ASA rulings.
If you look at the protracted 'enforcement' regime of the ASA before they involve the Office of Fair Trading for regulatory sanctions (for non broadcast advertising) then you will understand why Ofcom will never give them full authority over the channels. It is very much an arms length, light touch regime unlike Ofcom.
http://www.babeshows.co.uk/showthread.php?tid=14756&pid=511638#pid511638
I must say I'm very encouraged by the number of posters surfacing recently, who obviously know their stuff when it comes to Ofcom's workings. It's almost as though Ofcom's dirty secrets are finally being exposed properly, and to people who are able to decipher it to laymen like me.
Posts such as 'Ofcom are a bunch of twats' are all well and good (I've been guilty of such comments, I know) but they don't really get us anywhere, do they? This forum almost has its own team of lawers now. Bravo men!
RE: Ofcom stoops to a new low. - eccles - 24-06-2010 22:52
IanG, the Comms Act says
319(2) It is Ofcom's duty in drawing up the code to meet its Standards Objectives, which are:-
319(2)(f) that generally accepted standards are applied to the contents of radio and television services to provide adequate protection to members of the public from the inclusion in those services of offensive and harmful material
~ nothing in the leigslation singles out sex for special treatment. The Code covers a range of material including swearing, quiz shows, (not) frightening children, impartiality of news, etc BUT only sex and swearing are singled out for independent public attitude surveys and lengthy reports. Even the most extreme language is permitted in after 9pm with a warning, so only sex is subject to absolute bans.
Why? From where does Ofcom derive justification to treat sexual content differently from any other standards issue?
After all, it's not in the legislation, and it's not in any consultation or survey.
"319(2)(f) that generally accepted standards are applied to the contents of radio and television services to provide adequate protection to members of the public from the inclusion in those services of offensive and harmful material"
Protection only needs to be "adequate" ~ that little modifier makes all the difference [EDIT] Ofcom might not be under an absolute obligation to prevent offence. There are only 2 ways it could do that - close down every broadcaster, or pre-censor everything that goes out. Even in 1937, under Lord Reith, serving Royal Naval Commander Tommy Woodroffe managed to cause offence with his famous "The Fleet's all lit up" live commentary of the Spithead Naval Review.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-WpiTa7azQs
GPP: "Ofcom were not given any additional resources when they were given this responsibility"
~ I had not realised until last week that Ofcom are industry funded through compulsory fees. In theory that gives them tremendous scope to fund a huge organisation (except during current cuts). Be afraid. Be very afraid.
[EDIT] Curious. The Communications Act 2003 empowers Ofcom to raise fees for telecom and broadcasting licencing purposes. But not Digital Economy. So either they potentially have unlimited fee raising powers as I speculated above, or Digital Economy is not covered and any spending on it is illegal. Hmm.
Scottishbloke: "A new law should be brought stating that unless at least 1000 complaints are logged then action should not happen as ofcom are fining channels on the basis of one petty complaint"
~ Good point. A consultation or two ago someone said on the record that Ofcom should ignore complaints made days or weeks after a broadcast. It's well known that when a controversial show goes out a campaign is sometimes set up, and people who did not even see (or hear) the show write in to complain. they didn't see the show, so they weren't offended. End of. (Remember Sachsgate, Big Brother, etc).
Likewise they should exercise due skepticism over what may be unfounded complaints by competitors, "trade complaints".
They ignored these suggestions, but they are on the record as having been formally made during a Consultation process.
Ofcom's own committee Minutes and guidelines, and possibly the Communications Act, say that action should be "proportionate". Well, fining a channel £50,000 for a serious of regular offensive broadcasts that are only watched by people who do not find them offensive, very late at night, on channels that can be locked out, on the basis of a single complaint is not proportionate.
RE: Ofcom stoops to a new low. - amandasnumerounofan - 24-06-2010 23:07
The Government according to Nick Clegg and I quote "Is open to suggestions from the publc as to where there should be cuts in government spending":bounce:
Like the government will listen. Mine, like most of you, is to cut the funding of Ofcom.