Ofcom expose blog

(21-01-2010 13:33 )woolleysheep Wrote:  You keep maintaining it's all the fault of THIS government, but what government have we ever had in this country that was in favour of less restrictive broadcasting regulations?

I agree I have seen the comments slating the left wing or right wing agendas. Censorship remains a political hot potato who ever supports it is likely to be unpopular so unrestricting it in line with the rest of the world would be seen as a vote loser. You only have to see the outcry when the licensing laws for pubs were changed and the political points lost there.

There are only two ways this would change:-

1.) A groundswell of opinion from the masses which would mean its politically safe to do this. Ofcom are only there to enfore the Broadcasting Act and nothing more.

2.) legally challenge it.There is scope for this under EU restraint of trade laws and it would be easy to prove that you are being disadvantaged within a competitive common market. But it would be expensive and it would take a long time.

A small loophole would be to invoke the pin protection on the Sky EPG after say 12.00pm that way you could argue full frontal nudity is permitted in line with other broadcasters at this hour. I am not sure how this would help Freeview and Cable customers but it would be a start.

(21-01-2010 13:33 )woolleysheep Wrote:  You keep maintaining it's all the fault of THIS government, but what government have we ever had in this country that was in favour of less restrictive broadcasting regulations?

What does 'light touch' mean? What does 'respecting Freedom of Expression' mean? These terms are in the opening paragraphs of the Comms Act 2003. The Comms Act most certainly does not state R18 must be banned from TV - indeed, for Ofcom's Code to abide by the terms of the HRA 1998 this MUST BE stated in law.

Clearly, Ofcom have paid no attention to the INTENT of this Government yet, the Government has done nothing to 'correct' Ofcom's actions - thus I blame the Government's indifference and ineptitude for creating piss poor legislation - a very real failing of THIS Government and its 3500+ new laws (that's one for every day they've been in power).

No one is in favour of a Stasi police state, are they? Do you like being spied on by 5 million CCTV cameras? Do you want every website you visit and every message you send over the net, by phone and email being held on a database for years to come?

Pray tell, what have Victorian values got to do with modern Britain, indeed, the modern world?

The Government(s) of this country are where the buck stops - that's the deal. We permit them to RUN the country, not RUIN it for generations to come. They alone are accoutable for every human rights abuse their appointed quangos foist upon us without proper legal scrutiny, democratic check and balance.

Ofcom are a law unto themselves (apparently) - that in itself is unthinkable and undemocratic and goes against the very founding principles of this nation. And there is ONLY one institution to blame for this situation and, you guessed it, its THIS Government! Just to illustrate: Do the BBFC have powers to fine people selling unrated videos or, do Trading Standards have to prosecute these people under the law in a court of law? As I've said before, this Government have allowed Ofcom to act as unelected, undemocratic and completely independant legislature, judge and jury - inventing 'law' in their Code as they go along and applying it according to their own 'interpretation' and imposing fines as they alone see fit. The whole thing is evil and, quite clearly, wide open to abuse.

I hope this clarifies the situation as I (and I would think most every right-thinking person in this country) sees it.

(21-01-2010 14:59 )IanG Wrote:  I hope this clarifies the situation as I (and I would think most every right-thinking person in this country) sees it.

I'm afraid it's not clear. Are you saying a change of government will make any difference or not?

(21-01-2010 17:36 )archibald cockfoster Wrote:  

(21-01-2010 14:59 )IanG Wrote:  I hope this clarifies the situation as I (and I would think most every right-thinking person in this country) sees it.

I'm afraid it's not clear. Are you saying a change of government will make any difference or not?

No. RTFM

(20-01-2010 00:34 )DanVox Wrote:  

(19-01-2010 03:09 )IanG Wrote:  The original Ofwatch R18 campaign bit the dust shortly after the new Code was published. We lost. We lost because ...

We lost.

We lost because pro-censorship responses to the consultation outnumbered pro-liberalisation replies 100:1.

We lost because any politician who supports liberalisation will be branded a perv and hounded out of office.

We lost because the broadcasters can't be arsed to take Ofcom to the High Court. And why should they when they get exactly the same amount of money from hardcore websites?

The 4 Sky PPV adult film channels closed a few weeks ago.
Sky channel 945 SportxxxGirls closes Sunday night.
The broadcasters have given up.

- I take back the bit about Sky 945 SportxxxGirls closing. The listing was coming up blank and I read too much into it. But I stand by the rest. There are fewer free channels, no encrypted live ones, and the rules have not been relaxed. In France, Germany, Italy, Spain, etc, a politician who was scared of sex would be laughed out of office for having no balls. Even the female politicans don't have a problem with it. Here having no balls and no sex drive is seen as a badge of honour.

DanVox, etc., as I'm sure you all know, Ofcom's 'reasoning' for the sex ban all hangs on there supposedly being no "technical means" to protect the under 18s from accessing adult material which, the Ofcom Executive told them (the Content Board) wasn't going to harm the under 18s anyway and is thus perfectly acceptable under the TVWF/AVMS terms.

The fact is however that every piece of televisual equipment sold in the EU has to be fitted with a Parental Lock system to prevent unauthorised use/access by children.

My TV has not only a Parental Id Number (PIN) lock but, also a PIN protected on-off timer which only allows the TV to function between certain hours - e.g. 6am to 9pm. So, even if this TV was hooked-up to $ky AND in a child's bedroom where they're not being supervised AND and the child knew the $ky PIN (as Ofcom claim) then, at 9pm when more mature programming begins, the TV would switch off so protecting the children from seeing (perfectly harmless) adult material.

My VCR, STB and DVD all have similar Parental Id Number code locks which prevent any unauthorised use. Even if a child finds my R18 stash while I'm not at home, they can't play the DVDs without the PIN codes to turn both the DVD player AND the TV on.

Protecting individual channels, as Ofcom seem to believe is necessary, is simply not feasible on all platforms. This 'failing' was recognised many years ago so, the EC decided that ALL televisual equipment should be fitted with a foolproof OFF switch and legislated so - hence the PIN Lock on ALL equipment sold in the EU.

Now if the Gov. appointed Communications Regulator isn't aware of this all-or-nothing Parental Lock mechanism then I don't think they're fit to regulate anything because IT IS THE DE FACTO "other technical means" the EC brought forth to meet the requirement to protect children in the TVWF/AVMS so that ALL programme makers across Europe COULD sell their programmes across the WHOLE of Europe where the material is LEGAL - and R18-type material is definitely LEGAL in the UK.

Of course, STBs and Digiboxes are more sophistcated these days and they do have per-channel or even per-programme PIN access control but, even if this PIN control is compromised, if the TV can be disabled with a totally different PIN which isn't known to the kids then, kids can most certainly be adequately protected from viewing ANYTHING AT ALL without proper supervision.

As I say, either Ofcom are ignorant of the Parental Locks out there or, they're relying on the ignorance of the public to justify their ban. Either way Ofcom are failing in their duty to protect kids AND live up to their remit to give adult audiences adult material post watershed.

If anyone reading this isn't aware of what controls you've got then, please go and check your equipment now and report back here (if you will) so that we can sort this whole fucking issue out. As I see it, we already have a very large stick with which to beat Ofcom about the head for failing in their duty to inform parents about what they (the parent) can do to protect themselves and their kids from anything they (the parent) feel to be 'harmful or offensive' material - one 'size' does not fit all as these terms are a matter of subjective opinion (as was 'taste and decency' in the ITC days which permitted far more explicit material than we are being allowed by ignorant and power-crazed Ofcom).

My TV and recording equipment all have parental locks on them and as IanG says probably all modern TV gear has them. OFCOM are just pretending to be holding the higher moral ground for the sake of a few. A few what? Someone complains because there is a beautiful woman rolling around on a bed half dressed. Do they not consider the possibility that the person complaining is the size of a beached whale and has spent years convincing the hubby that women dont realy look like they do on the telly. Or the one that complains that little Mickey was caught watching the channels on his own after the watershed while she was in the boozer getting sozzled. OFCOM might do well to pass on some of those complaints to social services. I mean if you dont give a fuck what your kids are doing or watching or you couldnt be arsed putting on the parental blocks you have no right to give out about it. What amazes me is that these people have the ability to switch the channel on but dont seem to know how to turn it off. If I come across a channel and eastenders or coronation st is on it gets switched off in a flash ( Now thats what I call Offensive TV). You have to ask ,Are OFCOM just picking the easy option and lining their coffers.

Nobody went out of their way to stop me from seeing porn from the age I was wanting to do so and I think I turned out okay.

I don't have children but when I do it won't be any different (I'll leave the easy and quick to use parental locks switched off), and I certainly wouldn't want Ofcom going out of their way to enforce their rules on me and my family because they think they know best. I wouldn't want to keep my son locked away and overprotected so much that on his eighteenth birthday he bursts out of the door to buy a nuts magazine and never comes back.

That would be the least of your problems Yoko? Ono! He could burst in the door at 18 and ask you Why is there hairs all over is balls? and why does his dick keep getting hard? At least that is the impression I think OFCOM and the whitehouse brigade would like the world to work. Dont mention sex and it will go away.

(21-01-2010 00:00 )DanVox Wrote:  And guys, it's no use saying or thinking "Up until this organised postal barage, the response statistics were 75% in favour" because we all know the games not over until the whistle blows (or Yazmin does).

Hi all, I've just been reading through this thread and saw this (above)... can Dan or anyone please clarify what the Yazmin comment is refering to? It reads like she's 'blown the whistle' (sorry, couldn't get away without the inuendo!) on these channels before... interesting???!!!

Could anyone clear this up?