Open letter to Ofcom

(10-07-2010 18:14 )surfin4 Wrote:  YOU REALLY THINK OFCOM ARE THE PROBLEM?........THESE CHANNELS PUT OUT CONTENT THATS DESIGNED TO FRUSTRATE THE AVERAGE MALE IN AN ATTEMPT TO SELL THERE PAY PER VIEW CRAP.....OFCOM ARE JUST THE EXCUSE .... NUDITY IS ALLOWED ON TV BUT WHY GIVE IT AWAY FREE?

if you subscribe to the channels you get the online hardcore for free so it really is ofcom that is the problem .

Ian fella I have no idea if this will make you feel any better, but if you want to take a look at Jada's last post on her web blog, she has had a little go at Ofcom to let the girls have some more freedom.

(10-07-2010 18:14 )surfin4 Wrote:  YOU REALLY THINK OFCOM ARE THE PROBLEM?........THESE CHANNELS PUT OUT CONTENT THATS DESIGNED TO FRUSTRATE THE AVERAGE MALE IN AN ATTEMPT TO SELL THERE PAY PER VIEW CRAP.....OFCOM ARE JUST THE EXCUSE .... NUDITY IS ALLOWED ON TV BUT WHY GIVE IT AWAY FREE?

Yes, I do think Ofcon are the problem, altough I will admit that the broadcasters are not blameless. They've proved to be extremely childish in all this what with their snitching on each other. Grow up, ffs.

The broadcsters have just capitalised on the situation (which is of Ofcon's making).
Yes, nudity is allowed on TV, but not gratuitous nudity. This could lead to a high degree of sexual arousal, therefore it needs to be curbed (in Ofcon's world).

(10-07-2010 18:55 )blackjaques Wrote:  

(10-07-2010 18:14 )surfin4 Wrote:  YOU REALLY THINK OFCOM ARE THE PROBLEM?........THESE CHANNELS PUT OUT CONTENT THATS DESIGNED TO FRUSTRATE THE AVERAGE MALE IN AN ATTEMPT TO SELL THERE PAY PER VIEW CRAP.....OFCOM ARE JUST THE EXCUSE .... NUDITY IS ALLOWED ON TV BUT WHY GIVE IT AWAY FREE?

Yes, I do think Ofcon are the problem, altough I will admit that the broadcasters are not blameless. They've proved to be extremely childish in all this what with their snitching on each other. Grow up, ffs.

The broadcsters have just capitalised on the situation (which is of Ofcon's making).
Yes, nudity is allowed on TV, but not gratuitous nudity. This could lead to a high degree of sexual arousal, therefore it needs to be curbed (in Ofcon's world).

sorry pal but your wrong i got a motorised satelite about 7 years ago because i was sick to my back teeth of the rubbish filling the sky channels .....was great especially italian tv hundreds of free erotic shows untill about three years ago when sky got involved bought up all these channels and replaced them with phychic tv and orange americans selling damned exercise equipment and burger makers......they do the same thing with sport its all about money but because you pay a tv licence you are supposed to be protected from exploitation from unscrupulous gangsters like we are discussing here......ofcom are set up as the bad guys......you know the free channels are run by the same crowd who do the ppv..........they want to put out crap thats the point they want you buying there rubbish, and if there was even a half good alternative they would be out of business in a week.

(10-07-2010 18:14 )surfin4 Wrote:  YOU REALLY THINK OFCOM ARE THE PROBLEM?........THESE CHANNELS PUT OUT CONTENT THATS DESIGNED TO FRUSTRATE THE AVERAGE MALE IN AN ATTEMPT TO SELL THERE PAY PER VIEW CRAP.....OFCOM ARE JUST THE EXCUSE .... NUDITY IS ALLOWED ON TV BUT WHY GIVE IT AWAY FREE?

Back when Ofcom started up there was a wide range of independent channels. The explicit ones were subscription only but some of the free to air ones were stronger than todays encrypted shows - in one a presenter gave a live tutorial on a**l sex with a bilbo, barely covering her girlfriends naughty bits with her hand, with fullon uncensored audio. Then Ofcom clamped down. Sky Movies manages to compete with Film4 and movies on BBC, ITV, 4, Five, etc, all offering quality movies. It has the edge because a few of the movies are still box office material and it offers extra value like staggered starting times, but look at some of the old stuff that Sky Movies viewers get - Waynes World (1992), Dr Dolittle 4 (2008), Cats & Dogs (2001), Burn After Reading (2008), Cast Away (2000) and American Pie (1999) [Monday 12 and Tuesday 13 July].

Whether a late night channel goes encrypted or not should be a commercial decision, not a content one. Can they justify higher cost and smaller audience some how? Theme nights? Exclusive presenters? Top notch presenters? More of them? Multiple camera angles? View operate cameras? Expensive sets/HD/3D?

But yes, it is Ofcom's fault. They have successfully strangled the adult sector for 5 years. There are now more channels but fewer operators than 5 years ago. Any small operator without unlimited funding could be forced out. Ofcom punishes free to air operators whose content gets hot, so they loose audience.

Stale recorded material on a 15" computer screen just isn't the same.

And part of the reason why Italian channels went soft 3 years ago was an EU directive that banned international explict content. Also remember that satellite TV is very much the exception on the continent - there are local broadcasters that fill the late hours with adult content, they just don't rent transponders. However I was just getting into and still miss a Italian low-rent channel 5 that had a semi-naked weather forecaster each night when Sky took over. She'd start wearing a bikini bottom and some weather symbols and the audience would be sitting at home just wishing for rain

(10-07-2010 22:36 )eccles Wrote:  

(10-07-2010 18:14 )surfin4 Wrote:  YOU REALLY THINK OFCOM ARE THE PROBLEM?........THESE CHANNELS PUT OUT CONTENT THATS DESIGNED TO FRUSTRATE THE AVERAGE MALE IN AN ATTEMPT TO SELL THERE PAY PER VIEW CRAP.....OFCOM ARE JUST THE EXCUSE .... NUDITY IS ALLOWED ON TV BUT WHY GIVE IT AWAY FREE?

Back when Ofcom started up there was a wide range of independent channels. The explicit ones were subscription only but some of the free to air ones were stronger than todays encrypted shows - in one a presenter gave a live tutorial on a**l sex with a bilbo, barely covering her girlfriends naughty bits with her hand, with fullon uncensored audio. Then Ofcom clamped down. Sky Movies manages to compete with Film4 and movies on BBC, ITV, 4, Five, etc, all offering quality movies. It has the edge because a few of the movies are still box office material and it offers extra value like staggered starting times, but look at some of the old stuff that Sky Movies viewers get - Waynes World (1992), Dr Dolittle 4 (2008), Cats & Dogs (2001), Burn After Reading (2008), Cast Away (2000) and American Pie (1999) [Monday 12 and Tuesday 13 July].

Whether a late night channel goes encrypted or not should be a commercial decision, not a content one. Can they justify higher cost and smaller audience some how? Theme nights? Exclusive presenters? Top notch presenters? More of them? Multiple camera angles? View operate cameras? Expensive sets/HD/3D?

But yes, it is Ofcom's fault. They have successfully strangled the adult sector for 5 years. There are now more channels but fewer operators than 5 years ago. Any small operator without unlimited funding could be forced out. Ofcom punishes free to air operators whose content gets hot, so they loose audience.

Stale recorded material on a 15" computer screen just isn't the same.

And part of the reason why Italian channels went soft 3 years ago was an EU directive that banned international explict content. Also remember that satellite TV is very much the exception on the continent - there are local broadcasters that fill the late hours with adult content, they just don't rent transponders. However I was just getting into and still miss a Italian low-rent channel 5 that had a semi-naked weather forecaster each night when Sky took over. She'd start wearing a bikini bottom and some weather symbols and the audience would be sitting at home just wishing for rain

ok well who ever is responsible is going to kill tv for good the content is a laughable mixture of food shows and talent shows for the slightly retarded...... bring on internet tv and kill em all off

One thing that is fact is we're supposed to be at the heart of a western democracy after all isn't that the reason why we went to war in the first place to end government dictators in europe. In a democratically elected government why are we then subjected to fund through our own hard earned cash the pockets of those greedy ofcom bastards which in turn is a dictorial style government which censors media and what they deem as suitable and unsuitable viewing. I urge Cameron and Clegg to show ofcom the door, show you mean business in the word change or in your own words a new kind of government well excuse me if I'm wrong but the longer ofcom remain its still effectively a Labour style government, ofcom were the creation of Labour and should end with Labour. All ofcom does is discriminate against material that they don't like or understand and this is unconstitutional and is a serious breach of human rights. This country preaches democracy to others but shows blatant double standards when it comes to our own.

(11-07-2010 20:20 )Scottishbloke Wrote:  why are we then subjected to fund through our own hard earned cash the pockets of those greedy ofcom bastards

Would you prefer Ofcom was run by wage slaves or volunteers?

Quote:I urge Cameron and Clegg to show ofcom the door

Working on it.

here is the main reason why things arent shown on TV, this is from the Communcations act 2003 of which Ofcom are running under

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.

very interesting read and there is 67 online pages of stuff from which Ofcom are running, one point i did notice was that Ofcom can borrow money, but the secretary of state must agree to giving them money, now under this new government i cant see that happening much if at all, especially with their spending cuts, under Labour they probably had their free reign of money coming in thick and fast, so might be the change we all need.

If anyone wants to have a read of their code here is a link to it

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2003/ukp...30021_en_1