Ofcom stoops to a new low.

(21-06-2010 16:45 )mrmann Wrote:  How could Offcom fine a channel when they aren't even breaking the code???

(21-06-2010 17:31 )mrwotzup Wrote:  if all the complaints are being made by the same 'type' of person (vested interest,professional complainer,competitor etc) but no ordinary member of the Public how is that protecting the Public Morals ?

The fines are obviously more to do with Ofcom making easy money, in an attempt to prove themselves cost effective & thereby justifying their existence, rather than protecting public morals. Ofcom have obviously realised that these channels present an easy target.

(21-06-2010 20:17 )mrmann Wrote:  ...I know some people don't want the watershed time to be moved up, but perhaps if they moved it up by an hour or two, than we might be able to see full frontal for once. From ten until eleven or midnight, it can be the same kind of show we have now, but at eleven or twelve, we can have full frontal...

I'm a bit busy atm, but I had to comment on the watershed thing.
This is from the OFCOM survey into viewer opinions of Adult PRS TV services...

Quote:Option two: As now, allow long form [TV shows]but not short form [TV adverts] promotion of the product

The majority of participants (around three in five) said that the adult sexual entertainment PRS should only be promoted on television in the same way that it is currently promoted. It should remain as long form promotions on dedicated channels within the Adult section of the EPG. This view was particularly common among women.
Those who opted for Option Two were able to apply additional restrictions, if they felt they were necessary. The additional restrictions that could be applied were:
o Must only be on a dedicated TV channel in the Adult section of the EPG;
o Must not be carried on Channel 3, Channel 4 or Channel 5;
o Must not be carried on Freeview;
o Must not feature before certain times;
o Must feature warning about risk of offence;
o Must have appropriate limits on language and nudity.

Almost all applied the following restriction:
o Must only be on a dedicated TV channel in the Adult section of the EPG

Furthermore, unless a genre-driven EPG and parental PIN functionality were available, then the majority thought that the promotion must not be carried on Freeview. The two restrictions were also supported by a significant, mainly female participants:
o Must feature warning about risk of offence;
o Must have appropriate limits on language and nudity.

A minority, mainly men, supported blocks of long form promotion outside of the Adult section of the EPG. [This is refering to blocks of programs on channels like 'Dave' and 'Men and Motors' ie, specialist, but non-adult channels] However, these participants typically supported this option with the following restrictions:
o Must not be carried on Channel 3, Channel 4 or Channel 5;
o Must not feature before certain times (post 9pm watershed, ideally later);
o Must feature warning about risk of offence;
o Must have appropriate limits on language and nudity.

As before, unless a genre-driven EPG and parental PIN functionality were available, then the majority ruled that the promotion must not be carried on Freeview.

Notice that not one single person on that survey placed the restriction of a watershed upon broadcasts on specialist adult channels.
Despite it being explicitely offered as an option.

Not one.


...not even the women, old biddies and grandads.

Hurrah for Ofcom. My mother and her W.I. friends can now walk the streets in total safety. (or perhaps not).

(21-06-2010 20:53 )TheDarkKnight Wrote:  

(21-06-2010 20:17 )mrmann Wrote:  ...I know some people don't want the watershed time to be moved up, but perhaps if they moved it up by an hour or two, than we might be able to see full frontal for once. From ten until eleven or midnight, it can be the same kind of show we have now, but at eleven or twelve, we can have full frontal...

I'm a bit busy atm, but I had to comment on the watershed thing.
This is from the OFCOM survey into viewer opinions of Adult PRS TV services...

Quote:Option two: As now, allow long form [TV shows]but not short form [TV adverts] promotion of the product

The majority of participants (around three in five) said that the adult sexual entertainment PRS should only be promoted on television in the same way that it is currently promoted. It should remain as long form promotions on dedicated channels within the Adult section of the EPG. This view was particularly common among women.
Those who opted for Option Two were able to apply additional restrictions, if they felt they were necessary. The additional restrictions that could be applied were:
o Must only be on a dedicated TV channel in the Adult section of the EPG;
o Must not be carried on Channel 3, Channel 4 or Channel 5;
o Must not be carried on Freeview;
o Must not feature before certain times;
o Must feature warning about risk of offence;
o Must have appropriate limits on language and nudity.

Almost all applied the following restriction:
o Must only be on a dedicated TV channel in the Adult section of the EPG

Furthermore, unless a genre-driven EPG and parental PIN functionality were available, then the majority thought that the promotion must not be carried on Freeview. The two restrictions were also supported by a significant, mainly female participants:
o Must feature warning about risk of offence;
o Must have appropriate limits on language and nudity.

A minority, mainly men, supported blocks of long form promotion outside of the Adult section of the EPG. [This is refering to blocks of programs on channels like 'Dave' and 'Men and Motors' ie, specialist, but non-adult channels] However, these participants typically supported this option with the following restrictions:
o Must not be carried on Channel 3, Channel 4 or Channel 5;
o Must not feature before certain times (post 9pm watershed, ideally later);
o Must feature warning about risk of offence;
o Must have appropriate limits on language and nudity.

As before, unless a genre-driven EPG and parental PIN functionality were available, then the majority ruled that the promotion must not be carried on Freeview.

Notice that not one single person on that survey placed the restriction of a watershed upon broadcasts on specialist adult channels.
Despite it being explicitely offered as an option.

Not one.


...not even the women, old biddies and grandads.

Interestng.

(21-06-2010 17:31 )mrwotzup Wrote:  Do Ofcom investigate the motive/background of the person behind a complaint or just take it at face value ?

I wonder if the Freedom of Information Act (A request exposed the MP's Expenses Scandal * ) could be used agaist Ofcom to see if the complainants are ordinary members of the public,professional complainants with a vested interest (say a member of an organisation) or a competitor.

I appreciate that some things may need to be confidential but if all the complaints are being made by the same 'type' of person (vested interest,professional complainer,competitor etc) but no ordinary member of the Public how is that protecting the Public Morals ?...

http://www.ofcom.org.uk/about/cad/foimain/tpi/

Just fired this off in their direction...

To: information.requests@ofcom.org.uk

subject: Adult PRS complaints


Can you provide me with the following information please...

1. The total number of complaints you have recieved against adult PRS broadcasts since your inception.
2. The amount of those complaints that you have upheld.
3. The total amount of appeals against your decisions to uphold these complaints.
4. The total amount of appeals that have been successful.
5. A breakdown of the complainants
ie. How many complainants were:-
members of the viewing public
morality activists
broadcasting competitors
submitted anonymously
6. The average cost of an appeal against one of your decisions.
7. A list of each of the fines you have imposed upon adult PRS broadcasters.
8. A list of fines unpaid because the broadcaster subsequently went out of business.

Thanks in advance.
MyRealNamezorrrz

A freedom of information act request would work as this is a government dept. Title your letter/email with Freedom of Information request.

(21-06-2010 22:02 )TheDarkKnight Wrote:  Just fired this off in their direction...

subject: Adult PRS complaints

Can you provide me with the following information please...

1. The total number of complaints you have recieved against adult PRS broadcasts since your inception.

Don't expect an answer - they won't tell you how many complained through an FOI!

(21-06-2010 22:38 )arron88 Wrote:  Don't expect an answer - they won't tell you how many complained through an FOI!

oh...prey tell how you know that.

FYI...i'm already 2 steps ahead of that scenario.

TDK, I think I've reached the finish, are you there with me?

Let me tell you a story...

For a long time now I've had the uneasy feeling that the Ofcom Content Board have been screaming for help. I do not believe they are deranged prudes who cannot understand plain English. I do not believe they could pull such an unethical stunt and claim "you can't do that before 10pm" means "you can't do that at all ever". The Content Board (or whoever makes these calls) have, as I intimated previously, gone all 'HAL9000' or 'Colonel Kurtz'. They are in confict within and are acting without due restraint. They've been crying for help since day one and stunts such as these are attempted suicide.

The 'why' of all this nonsense and insanity was a conundrum until it was revealed last year that the VRA 1984 hadn't been fully enacted - on a mere technicality. Now imagine what would happen if, after 16 years of enforcement and many convictions under the Act according to the very real and intended purpose of the Act, that these all had to be overturned because of a silly mishap. No one in Britain wants to pardon those selling obscene and unclassified videos. The Law had been enforced to the letter according to the will of the People and Parliament. It had indeed punished wrong doers who, probably, speaking even as an anti-censorship campaigner, were a risk to society. What if this undoing of justice was also coupled with R18 finally going hardcore? And having to be allowed on 'adult' TV channels? The morality police would have had a heart attack - they nearly did. So, an executive decision was made, one we can perhaps see was justified if unjust according to our long held beliefs and rights promised by The Crown. I can forgive the ones who did this, I understand their reasons but its not right, technically.

So, now there's a dark secret to conceal based on a white lie. Webs do become tangled very quickly and this one almost fell apart in 2003/4. So, another plot and another cover-up was hatched, all of course in the hope it acted in the interests of the people. And in the middle of this maelstrom is poor old Ofcom. Trapped by guilt and duty, falling at every hurdle, it would drive anyone insane.

What we need I think is a ruling from the ECHR. One that clears the air and sets the record straight. Perhaps then sanity can return to the land of TV regulation, so that freedom and justice, rhyme and reason can return to these shores...?

We are only human and we all make mistakes and that road to you know where is always paved with good intentions.

So I'll make a plea for those who need to to fess-up, pretty please, I beseach you do the right thing. We all forgive you I'm sure, I do, I understand. Now what say you all?

The truth will set us all free!

And they all lived happily ever after.