(20-11-2009 13:35 )IanG Wrote: [ -> ]Ofcom (the licensed broadcasting regulator) have no power over the BBC.
If this is true, within the last year alone why did the BBC get fined £400,000 by Ofcom for faking competition winners and deceiving viewers on television programmes, plus £95,000 for running unfair competitions on radio stations, plus 150,000 for broadcasting the prank phone calls to Andrew Sachs made by Russell Brand and Jonathan Ross.
(20-11-2009 13:35 )IanG Wrote: [ -> ]Anyhow, so that this post isn't completely off topic, anyone seen this pile of bile?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...raphy.html
There is no mention of freeview at all in this article, only satelite tv and the internet.
He obviously agrees with a lot of us that Babestation is tame on freeview.
(21-11-2009 06:28 )vila Wrote: [ -> ]SNIP
I don't care what Mandy and Campbell did or said, the programme I saw had no saving grace - it wasn't in the least bit clever, witty or 'arty' and the language in it had the potential to cause far more offence to a far greater number of people than all the babe channels put together.
In your opinion; as it happens, I quite like "The Thick of IT". However, I don't think pointing out material that you think has the potential to cause greater offence is the way to go about things; Yes, I know you are merely illustrating the double standards of Ofcon, but as this is Ofcon we're talking about, it will only give them ideas
, and do we really want even more censorship in wider UK broadcasting? It’s bad enough now, IMO!
(21-11-2009 12:23 )Censorship :-( Wrote: [ -> ] (21-11-2009 06:28 )vila Wrote: [ -> ]SNIP
I don't care what Mandy and Campbell did or said, the programme I saw had no saving grace - it wasn't in the least bit clever, witty or 'arty' and the language in it had the potential to cause far more offence to a far greater number of people than all the babe channels put together.
In your opinion; as it happens, I quite like "The Thick of IT". However, I don't think pointing out material that you think has the potential to cause greater offence is the way to go about things; Yes, I know you are merely illustrating the double standards of Ofcon, but as this is Ofcon we're talking about, it will only give them ideas , and do we really want even more censorship in wider UK broadcasting? It’s bad enough now, IMO!
I actually saw about 10 minutes of this program while flicking through the channels recently. Never seen it before.
While I was not offended, I was very surprised at the language that was used and would be very surprised if a lot of complaints were not received about it.
(20-11-2009 19:38 )cosmonaut Wrote: [ -> ] (20-11-2009 13:35 )IanG Wrote: [ -> ]Ofcom (the licensed broadcasting regulator) have no power over the BBC.
If this is true, within the last year alone why did the BBC get fined £400,000 by Ofcom for faking competition winners and deceiving viewers on television programmes, plus £95,000 for running unfair competitions on radio stations, plus 150,000 for broadcasting the prank phone calls to Andrew Sachs made by Russell Brand and Jonathan Ross.
The creation of Ofcom was a landmark piece of legislation. For the first time ever an external body - Ofcom - was given regulatory power over the BBC. The Governors were downgraded to a Trust. Basically the BBC Director General and Trust get
[edit:]first bite at any complaints, and decide how to spend licence money, but Ofcom can rule on content and fine them. Check the Bulletins and you'll find the BBC has been found in breech many times, , often for swearing on live broadcasts from pop concerts.
(21-11-2009 12:23 )Censorship :-( Wrote: [ -> ]In your opinion;
Yes, of course in my opinion, what else are we discussing here? The crux of Ofcom's case against the babe channels is the alleged potential to offend, which depends entirely on the opinions of the viewers in question.
(21-11-2009 23:48 )DanVox Wrote: [ -> ]Check the Bulletins and you'll find the BBC has been found in breech many times, , often for swearing on live broadcasts from pop concerts.
Which, being live, is beyond their control, yet in one of their own pre-recorded shows it's apparently ok.
Makes you wonder which planet these Ofcom entities come from, doesn't it?
(22-11-2009 02:09 )vila Wrote: [ -> ] (21-11-2009 23:48 )DanVox Wrote: [ -> ]Check the Bulletins and you'll find the BBC has been found in breech many times, , often for swearing on live broadcasts from pop concerts.
Which, being live, is beyond their control
Not beyond their control when they knowingly interview "stars" with a well-known track record. And more than any other other organisation, the BBC has the ability to manage a 30 second time delay.
(20-11-2009 19:38 )cosmonaut Wrote: [ -> ] (20-11-2009 13:35 )IanG Wrote: [ -> ]Ofcom (the licensed broadcasting regulator) have no power over the BBC.
If this is true, within the last year alone why did the BBC get fined £400,000 by Ofcom for faking competition winners and deceiving viewers on television programmes, plus £95,000 for running unfair competitions on radio stations, plus 150,000 for broadcasting the prank phone calls to Andrew Sachs made by Russell Brand and Jonathan Ross.
Hmm! Seems I had a mental aboration! I stand corrected.
vila et al. my apologies for being so wrong.
One thing though folks - that money Ofcom fined the BBC is OURS - its license payers money. Talk about robbing Peter to pay Paul...
In any sane and rational world when a public organisation gets fined - BBC, Network Rail, unsafe Councils - the money gets docked from someone pay or bonus instead of the public loosing out. But I agree, it doesn't happen that way.