(07-04-2013 23:44 )Scottishbloke Wrote: [ -> ]Give it a few years and technology will really be the one that well and truly defeats ofcom when the amount of channels on our SKY EPG increases dramatically. Internet TV is already on the horizon anyway.
Just how are ofcom going to be able to control not just the UK based channels but the numourous foreign ones that will most likely become a reality aswell.
At present SKY UK is broadcast from the Astra 2 satelite whilst the European ones are using the Astra 1 and various hotbird ones for their platform.
My prediction is that in a few years time we'll all be sharing the same satelite from a much larger one at a new position because money talks and increasing revenue via more subscriptions will be the way forward.
I'm currently able to view some European channels anyway via my smart phone. TV's I'd guess won't be far behind in this ever increasing and expanding era.
SB, Internet TV is already covered by the AVMS Directive and the OFCOM-appointed VOD regulator, ATVOD.
ATVOD have killed-off just about every UK-based 'TV-like' adult service on the Internet. Under ATVOD's 'rules', to access R18-type material online in the UK you must possess a valid credit card - a bank card will not do as this doesn't prove you're over 18.
ATVOD believe the law supports their rules. The AVMS Directive states that "material which may seriously impair the physical, mental or moral development of a minor must be made available in such a way that they will not normally see or hear it".
ATVOD have not defined what constitutes the 'normal development' of a minor. Nor have they presented any evidence to support the view that R18-type porn can seriously impair the normal development of a minor.
Indeed, as we are sexual creatures, we require sexual knowledge, experiences and stimulation to behave and develop normally. Evolution by natural selection relies upon an evolutionary advantage for a species to survive. If the sight or sound of our species' means of reproduction COULD seriously impair a child's normal development, this would represent an evolutionary disadvantage and our own means of reproduction would have destroyed mankind many thousands of years ago. It is thus IMPOSSIBLE for any creature to have its normal development seriously impaired by the sight or sound of its own means of reproduction.
It is also blatantly obvious that the British Establishment's sexually repressed attitudes and paranoia toward sex and porn are utterly unnatural and without any rational basis. Why is the human body deemed 'offensive' by some? Why is sex deemed 'obscene' by some? Sex is natural and necessary, not only for our species' survival but also for our personal wellbeing and mental health. The human body is an absolute triumph of form and function. It takes a totally insane misanthropic mind to deem anything about sex and the human body 'offensive and harmful'...which is of course proof that those in power making these assertions are not normal or right in the head. As such, OFCOM, ATVOD, the BBFC etc. are not fit to stand in judgement.
Normal development requires knowledge and experience. Denying anyone knowledge and experience can only result in abnormality. And I give you OFCOM and ATVOD as proof positive that restricting a person's access to sexual materials, knowledge and experiences can only result in total self-righteous insanity. These people are DANGEROUS, MINDLESS, SANCTIMONIOUS, MORALISING CRETINS! They place their own BASELESS BELIEFS above scientific evidence, logic and reason. They have twisted the meaning of the law to suit their own narrowminded agendas and ridden roughshod all over our Fundamental Human Rights.
Look we all no that a woman showing her pussy after the 9pm watershed really doesn't matter anymore in this modern era we're living in, and if you asked some of the twats at Ofcom they would probably agree to!! I've been thinking to myself why over the past 5 yrs or so has Ofcom been so eager to tone down the levels of Adult entertainment hence making up make shift laws as they go along, and fining the channels ridiculas amounts of money?
One word "CORRUPTION " i mean answer me this? does anyone no where the fines go after the Adult channels have been fined? Now i wouldn't dream of suggesting that the money is being syphoned into secret bank accounts? Or that Ed Richards is doing anything untoward perish the thought!!
However with all the western Governments corrupt to the corr, it really wouldn't surprise me if some under hand dealings were being done!!
From time to time Ofcom quotes protection of children as an issue with daytime broadcasts or ones in the postwatershed transition period (9pm to undefined, midnight or earlier as the whim takes them).
Rule 1.3 "Children must...be protected by appropriate scheduling from material that is unsuitable for them."
In Broadcast Bulletin
226 Pick TV (run by Sky) was investigated for showing Most Haunted at 6pm.
Quote:Sky stated that Most Haunted was not a series which is significantly attractive to children. The full series of Most Haunted, broadcast on Pick TV from July to November 2012, had attracted a total child audience (4 to 15 year-olds) average of “only 7%”. However, although this specific episode had attracted a child audience of 14%, this figure was still significantly lower than the threshold of 120 on the child index scale described by Sky as “used by broadcasters across the industry” as a measure of whether a programme attracts a significant proportion of children relative to the population as a whole.
Does anyone know what the child index scale is? Or where the 120 figure comes from? It sounds as if this does not mean 120 children. One possibility is that 100 is the ratio of children as a fraction of the UK population, so 120 would be 20% higher. On that basis kids shows might rate 200% or higher while documentaries, arts, antiques shows, soaps and politics might rate 50% or below, and only that high because some parents plonk the kid down next to them.
Before getting too excited, Ofcom rejected the argument pointing out that 14% still represented 32,000 child viewers aged 4-14.
Ofcom also rejected the idea that the show was primarily for entertainment (not real, hence not scary) despite having ruled so in Bulletin 49 (Dec 2005). When it comes to quoting previous Ofcom decisions back at Ofcom it is worth realising that enforcement is one way street where previous decisions only work in the regulators favour.
For that reason my nickname for Ofcom will be Humpy Dumpty:
Quote:'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.'
'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.'
'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master — that's all.'
I'm somewhat confused as to how these changes will benefit us lovers of the 900 channels. It looks to me almost like ofcom's powers have been increased.
"The proposed changes include removing the obligation for Ofcom to review the public service broadcasting landscape every five years and instead allow the UK Culture Secretary to request a review when it is needed"
This is the bit that confuses me the most. It's more or less saying to me that ofcom can rule the channels with no hope of change. Without the need to review the broadcasting code every 5 years then that hardly looks like good news to me.
It's more or less confirming that ofcom can continue to shift the goal posts when it so please's them to do so without having to go through parliment in order to do so
Aren't these the changes that were announced a year ago? If there is anything on the (pretty rubbish) DCMS website I cant see it. These changes are about lifting the burden of regular reviews from the big broadcasters as well as enabling Ofcom to reduce spending. It is based on the idea that public service broadcasting (BBC, ITV, Five) does not need a major shake up and is more or less trustworthy.
Unfortunately that is a million miles away from standards regulation, particularly for untrusted operations, like babe channels run by pornographers whose motivation is to make shedloads of money from sexchat phonelines and subscriptions to porn sites.
Ownership of ITV vs Standards on sex channels, different things.