Ofcom stoops to a new low.

You might have had a point, except the VRA doesn't affect OFCOM.

They work under the communications act 2003 and the broadcasting act (1990?).

The VRA has already been ammended (In February) and the loophole has been closed.

I can't possible agree that OFCOM are in any way, shape or form, 'victims' in this, or any other scenario.
The way they manipulate figures, ignore valid points and opinions, push through meaningless legislation, commission quantative reports instead of qualatative reports (using select groups instead of representative groups) suggests, to me, that they are doing nothing more than pushing the values of a minority upon the people of Britain.

Incidently, I got a reply from OFCOM about my FOI query, just acnowledging reciept and promising to deliver any information they hold within 20 days. Which is the procedure.

I've been looking through the survey over the last few days and I'm compiling a list of further questions to throw at them in the next few weeks. I want to hammer down the results and get exact figures rather than all the ambiguose language that they've used (like 'minority', 'majority', 'most', 'some' and most...erm...significantly...'a significant proportion') I'm also gonna ask about the spelling mistakes in that particular section of the results and ask if the published report was as submitted to OFCOM by Essential Research ltd or if it was edited prior to publication. If it was edited, i'm gonna ask for a copy of the origional report as submitted by Essential Research ltd.

Power to the people o/

*runs off to buy shares in 'The London brown trouser company*

TDK Wrote:You might have had a point, except the VRA doesn't affect OFCOM.

Not strictly no BUT, it does when its the source of UK's film ratings classification system - that generally accepted standard that would indeed apply to TV shows and age rating and times of broadcasts. You can't have R18 on TV if the EC don't know R18 exists and still believe h/c is banned in Britain...because someone forgot to tell them (accidentally or on purpose...).

Shh! Someone might think the game is up

(21-06-2010 22:45 )TheDarkKnight Wrote:  oh...prey tell how you know that.

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

(22-06-2010 19:37 )TheDarkKnight Wrote:  Incidently, I got a reply from OFCOM about my FOI query, just acnowledging reciept and promising to deliver any information they hold within 20 days. Which is the procedure.

Think you'll only get an answer to question 7 and maybe another question if you're lucky but we shall see.

You should have done one to ask how much each stage of participation TV consultation cost, with description of research carried out - and final total of whole process. My guess would be somewhere between £0.2 million - £0.3 million.

(22-06-2010 20:28 )arron88 Wrote:  Think you'll only get an answer to question 7 and maybe another question if you're lucky but we shall see.

I should get a reply for all of them. The statistics are a matter of public record already. I'm just (essentially) asking for them to collate them together.

(22-06-2010 20:28 )arron88 Wrote:  You should have done one to ask how much each stage of participation TV consultation cost, with description of research carried out - and final total of whole process. My guess would be somewhere between £0.2 million - £0.3 million.

shhhh...it's already on the list...and I'm betting its shit loads more than that

(22-06-2010 20:32 )TheDarkKnight Wrote:  I should get a reply for all of them. The statistics are a matter of public record already. I'm just (essentially) asking for them to collate them together.

Ofcom will just point you to the fortnightly reports they publish. The FoI does not require organisations to reply in a particular format or to do the work of collating different documents.

We shall see

(22-06-2010 11:31 )IanG Wrote:  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.

You might find these Minutes of the Content Board from 15/16 June 2005 interesting. link

Item 3: "The Content Board remained divided over the issue* and the executive agreed to seek further clarification on the TWF test prior to the matter being discussed by the Ofcom Board." (transmission of “R18” sex material should be prohibited under Article 22(1) of the TWF Directive)

Item 6: "It was recognised that the decision had to be proportionate and that Ofcom would need to be able to justify the level of restriction imposed" (re Ofcom's general duty to provide adequate protection for members of the public from offensive and harmful material and protection of under 18s, and the rights of individuals to freedom of expression including the right to receive information)

also from Item 6: "On balance (although the Board was very evenly divided), the Content Board felt that there was insufficient evidence to indicate whether or not the physical, mental or moral development of minors might be seriously impaired by the transmission of such material, and therefore until such evidence was available they should take a cautious approach to this issue"

Not quite what you were referring to IanG, but clear evidence of differences of opinion at the heart of Ofcom, at least back in 2005.

Goldust.

On gathering further information I now believe the decision against Asian Babes was based purely on racial grounds.

http://www.bectu.org.uk/news/593