Tory plans for Ofcom

Scottishbloke I could not agree more. There is far worse things going off in the world than the odd flash of pussy on an obvious adult channel.

The consultation by Ofcom with the licence stakeholders on the amendments to be made to their operating licenses following the coming into force of the Audiovisual Media Services Directive (2010/13/EU) on the 5th May 2010 ended on the 20th May 2010.

I presume that the Broadcasing Code will also have to be amended as well to reflect the update and any changes.

Ofcom has previously stated that these amendments will be completed by mid June so it will be interesting to see if any major policy shift has taken place in relation to content, protection of children, product placement etc...

I again presume that any changes will have to be sanctioned/scrutinised by the new minister Jeremy Hunt, Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport. If so lets hope that he takes this oppurtunity to start the ball rolling in cutting their budget and re-focusing them on stimulating the audio/visual market in relation to fresh investment rather than punishing them for minor infringements of the illegal code.

C'mon the tory party and start doing what you promised in your manifesto. No better time than now seeing as George Osborne has to announce his 6 billion pounds of cuts from public services on Monday.

Problem is, the new government will want to show it is listening and working for the electorate; and we all know that the vocal minority, backed up by the hysterical media (see the Sun's recent monumentally absurd 'Paedo Heaven..' headline regarding the padded bra's for 7yr olds story), shout the loudest and are the ones that force the action.

Don't expect anything to change with regards to a relaxing of broadcasting rules, in fact - and maybe i'm being cynical - if Ofcom can prove themselves useful to the government by bringing in the money via fines for any breach of code why change anything. Yes, Ofcom will probably be shrunk to save on money, but I honestly can't see any changes regarding adult content, particularly on unencrypted and fta channels - there are people in politics that want to ban Page3 for god sake, just watch the fuss they'll make if the broadcasting rules are relaxed.

In the Mirror newspaper:

Prime Minisister David Cameron has secret talks with Rupert Murdoch

David Cameron has held secret talks with Sky TV owner Rupert Murdoch at No 10, raising fears the Tories are preparing a war on the BBC.

The media baron sneaked in by a back door for a private meeting with the Prime Minister on Tuesday but neither Downing Street nor Mr Murdoch's News Corp would say why.

Labour MPs fear Mr Cameron has agreed to pay him back for his newspapers' slavish support during the election campaign.

The Tories have already agreed to two his key demands: abolishing the media regulator Ofcom and the BBC Trust.


I've looked for any other info in the leaked Queens speach regarding the first wave of £6 bn in cuts but neither paper mentions Ofcom, lets hope there is something in the above.

(23-05-2010 09:01 )Jay39 Wrote:  In the Mirror newspaper:

Prime Minisister David Cameron has secret talks with Rupert Murdoch

David Cameron has held secret talks with Sky TV owner Rupert Murdoch at No 10, raising fears the Tories are preparing a war on the BBC.

The media baron sneaked in by a back door for a private meeting with the Prime Minister on Tuesday but neither Downing Street nor Mr Murdoch's News Corp would say why.

Labour MPs fear Mr Cameron has agreed to pay him back for his newspapers' slavish support during the election campaign.

The Tories have already agreed to two his key demands: abolishing the media regulator Ofcom and the BBC Trust.


I've looked for any other info in the leaked Queens speach regarding the first wave of £6 bn in cuts but neither paper mentions Ofcom, lets hope there is something in the above.

Found this in the Daily Mail in respect of the above

Another quango in the firing line is Ofcom, which oversees TV and other media. Chief executive Ed Richards, who was forced to cut his £430,000 pay after public uproar, is a former adviser to Tony Blair and one of a number Ofcom officials with close links to Labour. Ofcom may escape abolition, but could lose several of its functions.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...z0oljU5ETZ

It makes sense to do away with ofcom as we're the only country in europe with a tv regulator and one of the most strict, things do take time but the babe shows are still showing stronger material that they did last year at this time. Its fairly obvious that things will get more relaxed under a new government, you'll still get the occasional feminist politician complaining but thats the minority and will probably get laughed at so banning things such as page 3 will never happen. Infact I bet you David Cameron probably secretly watchs the 900's from time to time when his wifes out the house. Any man that doesn't watch porn is a liar.

By any criteria Ofcom's broadcasting regulation must be judged a failure. ITV's public service broadcasting has been cut to the bone - regional news and non-crap kids TV is non-existent, their top shows are a chav "talent" show where the public laugh at deluded fools making a spectacle of themselves in public and a soap that descended from hard-to-write real-life stories to murder, psychos and arson 10 years ago. Advertising on other channels is rampant, standards are dismal, and the requirement for 20% EU content is univerally ignored.

Regulation of adult channels seems to consist of acting as a patsy to one operator faithfully investigating large numbers of complaints against a competitor, tying up their management for months at a time and lumbering them with heavy compliance costs even if never fined. Woof woof!

Not sure how much of their £225 Million annual budget is spent on broadcasting regulation, rather than telecom operators, and how much of that goes on the adult sector, but there must be scope to save £25-50 million. After all, Ofcom's budget is more than the GDP of the 10 poorest nations*.

It does what it does in obsessive detail, but that does not mean it doing the right things or achieving results.

The Government needs to take a long hard look at Ofcom's role, scope and where it directs it's effort, then cut everything that does not actually need doing.

(*Tonga: $259M, Micronesia $238M, San Tome and Principe $189M, Cook Islands $183M, Palau $164M, Marshall Islands $162M, Kiribati $114M, Anguilla $109M, Tuvalu $15M, Niue $10M ~ Wikipedia, 2005 figures)

Now it's a bit funny revisiting this thread as nothing has changed, so let's be honest irrespective of whether it be the Labour Government or Tories running this country, one common fact which has remained firm is the ofcom question, this is more than political, it stems back now to years of repression and although Ofcom's remit is up for debate in an upcoming house of commons debate, it's looking likely it'll just be for their power's to be increased, I hope I'm wrong and instead we see a dramatic turn of events that could maybe rule them unfit for purpose, no doubt a few MP'S will stand up and question the Prime Minister on this and instead of using the we want to see porn on the telly argument instead it'll be a question regarding whether this is simply wasting tax payer's hard earned money on this quango. I will be watching the debate and turn of events with interest.

Well now it's been a long time since this thread was last discussed. July 2011 infact.

In light of the leveson enquiry going on and a decision that could change the way the press operates forever I thought it might be worth again having a look at it.

Interesting developments I've seen on the news tonight involving the debate whether or not the press needs a regulator and for me it hold's parrell's with current ofcom control.

David Cameron famously said back in 2009 that if he ever came to power that ofcom as we know it would cease to exist. Myself and other's have accused Cameron of going back on his word over this but new evidence has come to light over this.

Nick Clegg favours an ofcom style press regulator whilst David Cameron oppose's it and support's the freedom of the press. This tell's me that Cameron also oppose's ofcom, unfortunately he is overpowered by the Lib Dems and the rest of MP's in the house of commons.

My theory goe's. If the Tories win the next general election outright and go it on their own. No coalition government then ofcom's day's could yet well be over. My understanding on the subject now is that both the Labour and Lib Dem's support ofcom whilst the Tories don't.

David Cameron might have been telling the truth all along. Your thought's

(29-11-2012 22:20 )Scottishbloke Wrote:  Nick Clegg favours an ofcom style press regulator whilst David Cameron oppose's it and support's the freedom of the press.

A little off topic, but I think Cameron doesn't want to have an ofcom style press regulator just to help his friend Rupert Murdoch

But back on topic, how does it mean that Cameron opposes Ofcom?

Isn't this current Ofcom in charge of what appears on tv, but Cameron is opposed to one keeping an eye on the press?

He went back on his word that he would reduce Ofcom's influence, but hey never trust a politician.