+- 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 Off (/showthread.php?tid=21456)
Ofcom Off - IanG - 18-06-2010 19:35
If anyone is in any doubt about Ofcom's ILLEGAL ACTIVTIES this is the FRAUD in a nutshell.
IT IS NOT THE FAULT OF ANY CHANNEL THAT PEOPLE COMPLAIN, IT IS ENTIRELY OFCOM'S. BUT OFCOM FINE THE CHANNEL!
Under section 319(2) of the Communications Act 2003, Ofcom are to create a Code to ENSURE
(a) the under eighteens are protected;
(f) that generally accepted standards are applied to the contents of radio and television services to provide adequate protection to viewers from offensive and harmful material;
It is ENTIRELY OFCOM'S FAULT that their Code is shit - THEY WROTE IT.
EVERY COMPLAINT IS THEIR RESPONSIBILITY, THEIR FAULT, THEIR BREACH OF THIS LAW.
PUBLIC ENQUIRY NOW PLEASE DAVE, NICK and any bloody body left out there that's NOT part of this CONSPIRACY.
IF I MEET WITH AN ACCIDENT...YOU'LL KNOW WHY LADS.
FUCK KNOWS WHERE THIS STOPS...?
Don't tell me NONE of the 'adult' channels legal reps couldn't see this? I'm not a fucking lawyer BUT I FOUND IT! You lot aren't worth a shit. YOU ARE SHITS.
DISGUSTING. PUTRID. OBSCENE!
And THEY DARE lecture US?!
I am so, so fucking angry. AREN'T ANY OF YOU?
RE: OFCOM OFF - IanG - 19-06-2010 07:27
Ofcom have been operating an ILLEGAL Code since its publication.
The Communications Act 2003 states:
Quote:319 OFCOM’s standards code
(1)It shall be the duty of OFCOM to set, and from time to time to review and revise, such standards for the content of programmes to be included in television and radio services as appear to them best calculated to secure the standards objectives.
(2)The standards objectives are—
(a)that persons under the age of eighteen are protected;
(b)that material likely to encourage or to incite the commission of crime or to lead to disorder is not included in television and radio services;
©that news included in television and radio services is presented with due impartiality and that the impartiality requirements of section 320 are complied with;
(d)that news included in television and radio services is reported with due accuracy;
(e)that the proper degree of responsibility is exercised with respect to the content of programmes which are religious programmes;
(f)that generally accepted standards are applied to the contents of television and radio services so as to provide adequate protection for members of the public from the inclusion in such services of offensive and harmful material;
(g)that advertising that contravenes the prohibition on political advertising set out in section 321(2) is not included in television or radio services;
(h)that the inclusion of advertising which may be misleading, harmful or offensive in television and radio services is prevented;
(i)that the international obligations of the United Kingdom with respect to advertising included in television and radio services are complied with;
(j)that the unsuitable sponsorship of programmes included in television and radio services is prevented;
(k)that there is no undue discrimination between advertisers who seek to have advertisements included in television and radio services; and
(l)that there is no use of techniques which exploit the possibility of conveying a message to viewers or listeners, or of otherwise influencing their minds, without their being aware, or fully aware, of what has occurred.
(3)The standards set by OFCOM under this section must be contained in one or more codes.
(4)In setting or revising any standards under this section, OFCOM must have regard, in particular and to such extent as appears to them to be relevant to the securing of the standards objectives, to each of the following matters—
(a)the degree of harm or offence likely to be caused by the inclusion of any particular sort of material in programmes generally, or in programmes of a particular description;
(b)the likely size and composition of the potential audience for programmes included in television and radio services generally, or in television and radio services of a particular description;
©the likely expectation of the audience as to the nature of a programme’s content and the extent to which the nature of a programme’s content can be brought to the attention of potential members of the audience;
(d)the likelihood of persons who are unaware of the nature of a programme’s content being unintentionally exposed, by their own actions, to that content;
(e)the desirability of securing that the content of services identifies when there is a change affecting the nature of a service that is being watched or listened to and, in particular, a change that is relevant to the application of the standards set under this section; and
(f)the desirability of maintaining the independence of editorial control over programme content.
(5)OFCOM must ensure that the standards from time to time in force under this section include—
(a)minimum standards applicable to all programmes included in television and radio services; and
(b)such other standards applicable to particular descriptions of programmes, or of television and radio services, as appear to them appropriate for securing the standards objectives.
(6)Standards set to secure the standards objective specified in subsection (2)(e) shall, in particular, contain provision designed to secure that religious programmes do not involve—
(a)any improper exploitation of any susceptibilities of the audience for such a programme; or
(b)any abusive treatment of the religious views and beliefs of those belonging to a particular religion or religious denomination.
(7)In setting standards under this section, OFCOM must take account of such of the international obligations of the United Kingdom as the Secretary of State may notify to them for the purposes of this section.
(8)In this section “news” means news in whatever form it is included in a service.
Does anyone remember Ofcom's first unauthorised attack on Babestar?
According to law Ofcom are to ensure the protection of under eighteens. So why is it the channel's fault if a 13yo boy and two friends are found watching Babstar at around 9:10pm by the boy's mother? If this was indeed 'offensive and harmful material' as defined by law (which it wasn't) what 'adequate protections' had Ofcom included or stipulated in their Code?
The law requires that this NEVER happens and it is Ofcom's DUTY to the People of Britain to ENSURE that it DOESN'T. The law doesn't say Ofcom can wait around for someone to complain and then nab the channel. They're supposed to police their licensees to prevent complaints, harm and offence - that's their job as per this law.
It is fraudulent to fine a channel for Ofcom's own failure to fullfil its DUTIES and OBLIGATIONS according to the law. I suspect Ofcom fines the channel in order to pay the fines imposed on Ofcom by the Courts for their failure to live up to their DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES TO THE PUBLIC AND THE LAW as the UK TV Police. However, this may just be an illegal scam, money laundering operation and/or other such fraudulent revenue-generating activity (and who's getting the dosh?).
Ofcom has no Right to issue 'guidance' in their Bulletins because they are NOT AUTHORISED nor QUALIFIED to do so. They cannot understand what the Comms Act DEMANDS of Ofcom let alone how to correct their OWN mistakes.
Ofcom are to publish ONE OR MORE Codes which SHOULD state to the letter what is and is not permitted. Ofcom can only CHARGE a channel for a breach IF it is in CLEAR breach of one or more clauses in their standards Codes - it should NOT rely upon a complaint from the public and an adjudication process. Ofcom are to police broadcasters and prevent breaches before they occur or prosecute breaches as they occur and ALL ACCORDING to their Code.
I worked in Standards for over 10 years - British Standards - Ofcom simply have no concept of what is REQIURED of them. If BSI produced a Standard for seatbelts with as much 'clarity' and 'diligence' as Ofcom then it would likely be safer not to wear it. Moreover, Ofcom would ensure they could clobber the manufacturer for failure to comply with their 'standard' everytime someone died or complained that the seatbelt had failed to prevent injury.
Surely the FIRST 'generally accepted standard' that Ofcom are to apply to contents of programmes must be The Law? If Ofcom choose to interpret "offensive and harmful material" as that which "may cause harm or offence" then they cannot produce a standard for content as required by section 319(1) BECAUSE everyone's concept of what may cause 'harm or offence' is different - hence Ofcom receive a constant stream of complaints for supposed 'breaches' of their Code (which FAILS to set any standards at all) with which to raise cash for their own failure to understand their RESPONSIBILITIES and DUTIES.
What is Ofcom's Standard definition of harm as defined in their Code? What is Ofcom's Standard definition of offence as defined in their Code? Without these STANDARDS how is anyone to know if they are LIKELY to breach the Code and THUS prevent doing so? If Ofcom wish to fine channels according to their Code then, as a principle of law, the channels MUST be able to know before they commit an offence that they will likely be committing an offence under Ofcom Code and avoid doing so or, commit a blatant breach of the Code and be summarily fined or sanctioned as a result.
If the laws of the UK said "don't offend anyone or else we'll have you" would it wash with the public and the courts? Does it satisfy the most basic principles of clarity and understanding so that we can by choice avoid breaking the law as law-abiding citizens? NO PUNISHMENT WITHOUT LAW is an ABSOLUTE RIGHT. FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION is a FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT.
Ofcom are to prevent; prohibit the inclusion of; and otherwise protect against; members of the public EVER having to complain about the contents of programmes. Any breach of their Code should be CLEAR under the Code and the Code ALONE. Ofcom have NO AUTHORITY to quote the Comms Act to broadcasters - it is Ofcom's LEGALLY ENFORCED JOB DESCRIPTION no one else's. The Comms Act applies to Ofcom and Ofcom ALONE and any breach is very likely a criminal offence on Ofcom's part.
Ofcom are an atrocity. They are CRIMINALLY NEGLIGENT according to this law.
RE: OFCOM OFF - mrmann - 19-06-2010 13:28
Good read! I agree with all of that as well.
It's like they don't even know what they want, and are just trying to cover their lies.
I also hope they can clearly spell out what is and isn't allowed on the channels in the new code, so that it's not confusing to people.
Slightly off topic:
Elite Nights had an amazing show last night, but I kept asking myself, which is more extreme, a full frontal shot of a woman, or all of the crazy stuff that went on last night? I just don't get it. I think the people running Offcom find vagina's to be disgusting, when it's a normal body part that everyone is familiar with. The only glimpses we see on the channels are due to mostly accidental slips, but the rest of the stuff is far more suggestive and graphic than seeing a female body part. When they show everything else but won't let us see a vagina, it must make the women feel even more insecure about their bodies, like a normal body part is something gross. I just can't get my head around Offcom's way of thinking.
RE: OFCOM OFF - IanG - 19-06-2010 14:42
Chears mrmann, my apologies to eveyone for flying off the handle these past couple of days but the way Ofcom seem to think they can quite literally get away with anything is atrocious.
As you can probably understand, as someone who's worked for one of the most respected Standards Bodies in the world and knows exactly how much time, effort and expertise goes into making a proper generally agreed and oft legally-enforced Standard for safety marks etc. what Ofcom turned out was nothing short of pathetic.
There shouldn't be gray areas, there can be no scope for misinterpretation, it has to be bang on the money or else you as the Standards maker are the one at fault.
And according to the way I read the Comms Act, it is indeed, Ofcom's fault. They are given free reign to write as many Codes as they need to cover every type of channel or programme type but, choose instead to try and cover all programming with one - and then patch the holes with supposed 'guidance' that cannot be trusted. You're lazy and shoddy Ofcom - not fit for purpose at all in any way shape or form. It's a bit like drawing up a standard for all types of electrical goods - virtually impossible and the result useless. - "2.1) It will have a plug and some wire and must be covered in plastic." - as if that really helps to keep people safe.
They probably spend more time discussing ways to avoid complying with the results of all their Public Consultations than anything else.
One thing still nagging at me is they way they dare to wave the Comms Act at their licensees. The law is quite clear it applies to Ofcom alone and that their Code is all they can throw at their licensees. This is a cover-up for their incompetence at producing a proper Code or Codes (and I believe quite deliberate to keep the till rolling). Oh and of course they get to examine all the naughty bits reported to them by Shocked of Aylesbury.
Have Ofcom EVER told a complainant, "Well it was after 11pm and was in the 'adult section of the EPG' so what do you expect to see?" - I don't think so, not to my knowledge. No, its ALWAYS the Channel at fault (apparently). Anyone noticed how Ofcom keeps pushing it that bit later to start or 3 pairs of knicks safer. This is slowly removing personal responsibility for your own viewing and monitoring what your kids are upto. All part of the NL Big Gov. "trust us we'll do it all for you...go back to work don't worry" plan.
I do wish the "we can't have that!" people in moral straight jackets could just grow up and stop acting like kids - it is LIBERATING for the WHOLE of society. I wouldn't mind if they were right but they're all brainwashed freaks and we're not supposed to have to put up with their claptrap according to Human Rights.
RE: OFCOM OFF - TheDarkKnight - 19-06-2010 15:54
(19-06-2010 14:42 )IanG Wrote: Chears mrmann, my apologies to eveyone for flying off the handle these past couple of days but the way Ofcom seem to think they can quite literally get away with anything is atrocious.
...
Entirely understandable sir. I had to walk away myself last year 'coz it did my head in that much I was in real danger of doing something stupid.
You are entirely correct with your interpretation of OfCom's application of 'standards'.
The problem is, we don't have recourse to the law, so there's fuck all we can do about it. Yeah, sure, on paper we can take them to court, but in reality, the costs of such an action are totally prohibitive. In effect, we DON'T have recourse to the law and we're supposed to be living in a democaracy.
It just sticks in you throat and make you gag the more you think about it.
I believe the lack of proper rules and regulations stems from the shit they got into over the ludicrous document that was the 'green book'. They don't want to go down that road again.
I guess they're coming out with a set of regs now because the writings on the wall for them and they want to 'lay down the law' before they, finally, get kicked out on their arses. Doing so puts the onus on us to then prove that these regs are unjustified, again something that is beyond the ability of the average Briton. It also highlights their thinking that most people in this country are somehow ashamed of sex and wouldn't dare stick their head above the parepet to shout down these new regs. This just shows how backwards and out of touch they are with modern days Briton and her general populous.
I had to PMSL this morning. I haven't watched Big Brother at all this series, not 'coz i'm a BB hater, but prolly more to do with the World Cup being on. Anyway, this morning they were showing some repeat of last nights post eviction show and Davina was taking calls from the public. Some women came on the line and asked the bird who had just been booted out if she always wears skimpy clothing or did she just do it because she was on BB. She replied she was proud of her body and she always wears stuff like that. Davina then quized the caller as to why she was asking. She replied that her grandchildren were watching and...I didn't get to hear the rest as Davina started to ask 'well, how old are they?' and the audience just erupted into a chorus of booing. The call was ended at that point.
The people of Briton seem to be completely fed up with irresponsible morons butting into our lives and dictacting our behaviour when it's them that are the ones at fault.
They and OfCom are simply on another planet to the rest of us.
Shame we can't do anything about it, eh.
RE: OFCOM OFF - IanG - 22-06-2010 21:16
Quote:Some women came on the line and asked the bird who had just been booted out if she always wears skimpy clothing or did she just do it because she was on BB. She replied she was proud of her body and she always wears stuff like that. Davina then quized the caller as to why she was asking. She replied that her grandchildren were watching and...I didn't get to hear the rest as Davina started to ask 'well, how old are they?' and the audience just erupted into a chorus of booing. The call was ended at that point.
Well that's one of my/the points about progressing society. Granny want's to impose her 'standards' from yesteryear, which no doubt can be traced back to her granny and the Victorian anti-sexual revolution.
What the hell is so 'disgusting' about our own bodies? Are these old folks nuts or just brainwashed?
Naturism has boomed across Europe in the last 100 years and artporn is now mainstream.
We want to move forward, the oldies think we should stay put or go backward. It wasn't better back then, denial of what is natural and normal is far worse than open acceptance of it. And 'abstinence' is about the worst thing you can prescribe for men and women -like a RC Priest or a 'hysterical' Victorian lady.
RE: Ofcom Off - amandasnumerounofan - 22-06-2010 21:43
What the fuck are her gran kids doing watching a show that is on normally after 10pm in the first place. Take some fucking responsibility because that is why we have the watershed. It is retards like that, that are ruining this country.
RE: Ofcom Off - arron88 - 22-06-2010 22:07
(22-06-2010 21:43 )amandasnumerounofan Wrote: What the fuck are her gran kids doing watching a show that is on normally after 10pm in the first place. Take some fucking responsibility because that is why we have the watershed. It is retards like that, that are ruining this country.
Don't you think Ofcom would get a slew of complaints if they suddenly thought it was Ok for E4 to broadcast adult sex content? Most would not be happy with that I suspect. No regulator could cope with 100 complaints every day, day in day out, for the same broadcast - something would have to be done.
RE: Ofcom Off - TheDarkKnight - 22-06-2010 22:41
(22-06-2010 22:07 )arron88 Wrote: Don't you think Ofcom would get a slew of complaints if they suddenly thought it was Ok for E4 to broadcast adult sex content? Most would not be happy with that I suspect. No regulator could cope with 100 complaints every day, day in day out, for the same broadcast - something would have to be done.
FYI...The vast majority of the people of Britain do not want to see the type of adult broadcast that this site is associated with on the mainstream channels, period. It's farely safe to assume you can extend that to all types of adult sex content.
...although I fail to see why you brought that up in relation to AmandasNumberOneFan's post.
RE: Ofcom Off - amandasnumerounofan - 22-06-2010 23:03
That was why several years ago the babechannels were moved into to the adult section on Sky because at the time they were amongst the regular channels. But like Dark Knight said what has your post got to do with mine. Plus, if I was found to be letting my kids watching adult tele by social services, I would quite rightly deemed an unfit parent.