(30-08-2012 11:14 )MARCCE Wrote: [ -> ] (30-08-2012 01:48 )Digital Dave Wrote: [ -> ]This is the root of the problem - the channels will not, under any circumstances, defend themselves. Even worse, they grass each other up. There have been various posts on this forum which maintain that it's up to us to effect change and not the channels, something I'll never understand.
In any event the channels themselves obviously find it commercially viable to run a business under Ofcom's ever-changing regime, and have decided that challenging Ofcom is not worth their while. I think they're wrong.
I've also seen comment on this forum that it would take years for any change to be brought about, but look how quickly Ofcom were defeated when challenged by Sky recently - it took a matter of months and Ofcom were publicly accused (by the court) of rejecting evidence which didn't suit their criteria. Sound familiar?
A matter of months? It was a 2 year legal process. They challenged Ofcom's position back in 2010.
I think it's quite evident that the channels, even all grouped together, would never be able to sustain a legal challenge of that magnitude with the costs it involves.
The two year process was down to Ofcom manufacturing its 3000 pages of evidence - which the High Court took a matter of months to completely dismiss. Read the full ruling for the exact language used, it suggests malicious intent, lies, withholding and misrepresenting evidence.
Ofcom governs media by personal preference not legal precedence. It is wholly the fault of the broadcasters that this trend is allowed to continue.
(01-09-2012 12:54 )HenryF Wrote: [ -> ]Ofcom governs media by personal preference not legal precedence.
They exist with the blessing of the government, though. Also, the subjective interpretative nature of their work surely means that any game of chess between Ofcom and a disputing party could involve an interminable number of moves. The leeway that leaves them open to challenge is what gives them room to manoeuvre.
(01-09-2012 12:54 )HenryF Wrote: [ -> ]suit their criteria. Sound familiar?
The two year process was down to Ofcom manufacturing its 3000 pages of evidence - which the High Court took a matter of months to completely dismiss. Read the full ruling for the exact language used, it suggests malicious intent, lies, withholding and misrepresenting evidence.
Ofcom governs media by personal preference not legal precedence. It is wholly the fault of the broadcasters that this trend is allowed to continue.
Any case like that is going to be a lengthy procedure with all types of legal processes going on. It invariably takes an inordinate amount of time for cases to even reach court in the first place.
As Addison points out, Ofcom have discretionary powers. That has been, and always will be, the problem facing these channels. Yes you can challenge Ofcom about their interpretations but you will sure as hell be facing a very lengthy legal battle to do it.
And the channels aren't Sky unfortunately. They clearly will not have the resources required to fight that type of legal battle.
Question for everyone here:
Can we all agree to NOT mention openly when flashes or slips or mics left on moments happen?
I used to do a bit of this myself in the past, before I knew about how Ofcom worked, and before a certain channel producer expressed concern about our revealing comments.
If a mic is left on, and swearing is heard, and Ofcom hears about it, they could fine the channels a lot of money. If slips or flashes happen, and Ofcom hears about it, then the same could happen, meaning we will continue to see tame shows from these channels because we can't keep things to ourselves. Send someone a PM instead.
I would say that unless any of you want these channels to go under or remain very tame and watered down, then please stop revealing so much in your comments and caps. If a woman flashes, don't mention it on the open forum or show it in a cap, if a mic moment is heard with swearing, don't mention it.
Just my opinion, because some of the members here who I think enjoy these channels, seem to reveal too much, and when a channel producers asks if we'll keep quiet on certain things, why no listen to them?
I hope the new members read this as well.
im in agreement mrmann and agree with what your saying. ive pretty much stopped mentioning things like this myself for the reasons youve said
While agreeing with the basic sentiment about using caution about mentioning things, I do think it has to be a personal decision. I for one wouldn't want to see the forum become censored, with posts removed because they mention flashes or suchlike, it is a discussion forum, people should be at liberty to discuss.
However much you try to censor these things, others will continue to raise them, and if they can't be discussed here, they will be discussed elsewhere, so if Ofcom (or others) really are monitoring the forum for information, they will simply move to where the discussion moves to.
Bottom line, it's up to the channels to monitor and control their own output to keep it within the regulations. Of course there will always be mishaps, just as there are on the main tv channels occasionally, but if a certain girl consistently steps close to the line, or a producer consistently allows things onscreen that can get them in trouble, then the channel has to have words with them, not rely on us keeping quiet about it.
Reluctantly I would keep quiet if I saw a flash. Ofcom action is a oneway street, they would never admit that having something feature regularly and next to no complaints means it is an accepted standard, and have said as much. All it does is to give them ammunition. Reluctantly because taking away discussion and caps greatly reduces the value of this site.
(03-09-2012 01:33 )eccles Wrote: [ -> ]Reluctantly I would keep quiet if I saw a flash. Ofcom action is a oneway street, they would never admit that having something feature regularly and next to no complaints means it is an accepted standard, and have said as much. All it does is to give them ammunition. Reluctantly because taking away discussion and caps greatly reduces the value of this site.
i think flash is the wrong wording for it, mistake more like , gone are the days where a model such as amanda rendall would give u an eye full ,they are rarer than rocking horse shit now days ,the cameramen are like hawks and with 2 pairs of knix on the girls ,odds are against anything being seen ;(,what gets me is when a mistake as i say happens anywhere else on tv , be it either swearing or nudity no one gets the 3rd degree treatment like the babe channels , its so fucking obvious ofcom are bias towards them !
PM appoints Maria Miller as secretary culture media and sport and MINISTER FOR WOMEN & EQUALITIES..Right lets see if this person can get fanny on uk tv if she is for womens equal rights..They show male but not female making women unequal and hyper sexist so she should be concerned about this 100%..Giving her a few days then going in for the kill.
You know we should not have to do this fighting they show Ford cars and Vauxhall cars in same show they dont pixellate out Vauxhall for no reason.They show other cars as well in same programme so how childish is it to to cut from programme ,pixellate out or film from behind female bits in same show..Fuck off with this sexist act and come on Marie get this ultra sexist shit sorted out and an apology for past 60 years and all the programmes reshown WITHOUT SEXUAL DISCRIMINATION IN THEM.
(04-09-2012 14:29 )fedup Wrote: [ -> ]PM appoints Maria Miller as secretary culture media and sport and MINISTER FOR WOMEN & EQUALITIES..Right lets see if this person can get fanny on uk tv if she is for womens equal rights..They show male but not female making women unequal and hyper sexist so she should be concerned about this 100%..Giving her a few days then going in for the kill.
I think there are more important rights women would want to fight for than fighting tooth and nail just to show a fanny on tv