I believe that there are investigation still ongoing concerning the babe channels that Ofcom started quite some time ago that were mentioned in previous Bulletins, but a least the latest Bulletin shows that no new investigations are to be launched and no complaints were made by the general public at all, so that has to be good news .
(19-03-2013 01:45 )eccles Wrote: [ -> ]Much as I would love to believe Ofcom have had a change of heart, they focus on themes when they can, saving up cases with a similar theme. That allows them to look consistent and sends a message to a sector, but does mean an apparent lack of action in the run up.
dont forget it is only 2 weeks since Ofcom said they would be monitoring channels, and it can take 4 to 6 months to investigate, reach a decision and publish.
No iv'e not forgot about this monitoring campaign and I don't believe Ofcom have had a change of heart, but the broadcast bulletins show that the general public aren't making complaints in any vast numbers about the babe channels, like i posted not one single person was listed has making a complaint about the babe channels in the last bulletin, but there was plenty about the non babe programs, no new investigations were being launched into the babe channels either, so the lack of complaints suggests that the majority of the general public see nothing wrong with them and the channels are not exceeding their own generally expected standards to what should be shown on channels clearly labeled as Adult .
But Ofcom still feel the need to implement a targeted monitoring campaign against the babe channels even though they don't seem to be exceeding the public's generally excepted standards, maybe Ofcom should monitor programs that the public do complain instead .
Ofcom seem to be out of touch with what does and doesn't exceed the public's generally excepted standards to me, aren't some of Ofcom's rules/ guidelines supposed to be based around the public attitudes and generally accepted standards etc ? , Ofcom just make judgement based around their own attitudes/expected standards as far as i can see .
I tend to think that the news that Ofcom haven't received any complaints is a good thing, plus it shows that rival channels are not grassing up each other, i hope they've finally got the message at long last!! Whether or not Ofcom are investigating any channels privately who knows?
Oh by the way, has anyone heard about any other channels applying for a foreign license?
(19-03-2013 16:23 )mr mystery Wrote: [ -> ]... aren't some of Ofcom's rules/ guidelines supposed to be based around the public attitudes and generally accepted standards etc ? , Ofcom just make judgement based around their own attitudes/expected standards as far as i can see .
Supposed to, yes.
Interpretation is the big thing.
(21-03-2013 00:13 )eccles Wrote: [ -> ] (19-03-2013 16:23 )mr mystery Wrote: [ -> ]... aren't some of Ofcom's rules/ guidelines supposed to be based around the public attitudes and generally accepted standards etc ? , Ofcom just make judgement based around their own attitudes/expected standards as far as i can see .
Supposed to, yes.
Interpretation is the big thing.
remember this forum is very much a minority, so their rules/guidelines could actually be what the vast majority think.
RCTV, I'm not sure about that. There are, as I'm sure you know, only ever one or two complainants re these channels. Even then, for the most part these complainants tend to claim the content exceeds OFCOM's Code not "public standards" or "generally accepted standards". More to the point, OFCOM's Code doesn't even reflect their own research into public standards and expectations. OFCOM's research clearly shows that the viewing public EXPECT to see sexual content on an adult sex channel and are thus more accepting of it IN THAT CONTEXT. OFCOM's Code (via their so-called Stakeholder Guidance) dares to state that sexual content on a sex channel "will never be justified by the context". This is blatantly ridiculous and epitomises OFCOM's absolute prejudice against adult sex material.
Such is OFCOM's hatred of even the tamest sexual material, you can't even watch a softcore murder mystery after midnight on a FTA channel anymore - it has to be shown behind PIN protected encryption and proof of age subscription/request to receive restrictions. None of this was deemed remotely necessary in 2004 under the ITC Code but, come 2005, despite none of this offending against the old "taste and decency" clause of the Broadcasting Act 1990, it somehow became totally unacceptable against the new "harm and offence" clause in the Comms Act 2003. And that is clearly ridiculous too because none of this material harmed or offended anyone before OFCOM published their Code but, apparently, that all changed quite literally overnight the day OFCOM published their shitty Code. Quite simply, public attitudes to material that's been on FTA TV for more than a decade doesn't do a complete u-turn in the blink of an eye...except of course when OFCOM are the people deciding WHAT the "generally accepted standards" of the viewing public 'are'!
IanG I'm going to take a different slant to this, maybe there's only one of two complaints because the rules and guidelines are what people find acceptable, and because a lot of people who would complain don't watch them.
Also remember Europe will always be above ofcom and the UK in terms of what laws/rules it wants to impose on UK/Ofcom. Ofcom research can show one thing, and they don't have to use it, waste of research, but they don't have to do anything with it, and may not have been done to be something that is going to be implemented.
One thing I would love to see is getting rid of the watershed or at least a review of it.
Well as you all know by now I'm a very busy man. This is my first proper visit to this forum for a whole week. I could have posted last night but I was well and truly fucking knackered. Let's just say that ofcom and watching telly this week has been the last thing on my mind so from a personal point of view I have this weekend off at long last. Also I have just had a 14 hour sleep so I'm full of energy once again
I have however been following the stories of the day. Press regulation for starters has been given the go-ahead and well as always there is always 2 sides of the story to this.
A lot of journalists are absolute scum, they will make up and fabricate any old story just to sell a paper. They have for many years and far too long in my honest opinion been getting away with murder. The News Of The World phone hacking scandal was an absolute disgrace. The way also that they have treated people in the public eye has been intrusive to say the least so they had to be reigned in.
I believe in freedom of the press but there has to be rules and regulations in place. I supported David Cameron's royal charter proposal. A code of practice in place but at the same time keeping the freedom of the press at the fore front.
Now that press regulation has been given the go-ahead that effectively means that any story will have to be given the ok by the politicians before it is allowed to go to print and that's where the problem lies with me. A lot of Politicians to me are no better than Jounalists. The thing I have liked about the freedom of the press is the fact that's we've been able to expose them for every dirty and underhand dealings such as individuals such as Jeffrey Archer who was found gulity of perjury which if it wasn't for the freedom of the press that would have been kept hush hush no doubt.
Last week for me yet another great freedom of the UK was taken away from us in this ever increasing nanny state where the word democracy is just about a contradiction.
^^ More or less agree with all that.
On the plus side, though, Rupert Murdoch isn't very happy about it.
Every cloud, and all that
(23-03-2013 17:09 )Scottishbloke Wrote: [ -> ]Well as you all know by now I'm a very busy man.
Mars bars won't deep-fry themselves.