Blatant double standards from ofcom, one rule for one and another rule for another. Doesn't make any sense whatsoever and would love to look at Ofcoms faces if they are fired. They need to get a grip fast or be consigned to history. So it's ok for Sexcetra on SKY173 showing womens private parts, but with babe channels it's a different ball game. Ofcom should live in the 21st Century instead of living in the past all of the time. An absolute waste of tax payers money.
(05-11-2010 21:37 )ledders69 Wrote: [ -> ]Blatant double standards from ofcom, one rule for one and another rule for another. Doesn't make any sense whatsoever and would love to look at Ofcoms faces if they are fired. They need to get a grip fast or be consigned to history. So it's ok for Sexcetra on SKY173 showing womens private parts, but with babe channels it's a different ball game.
I'm afraid it
is a different ball game. Sexcetra is not trying to entice you to call a premium rate telephone number by using sexual imagery as encouragement. The babe channels are. That makes all the difference to Ofcom.
Stumbled across "Dance Off Pants Off" on MTV Sky 160 last night. Very late, first a celeb version where nothing was shown, then the normal version - a series of "normal" people dance to music and get their kit off. Some do actually show the lot.
Two male dancers first, one young, one old and fat, both showed cock. Then a slightly plump female dancer, bit coy showing her tits but a bit of muff was shown. Then another male dancer, ended up waggling his cock, and finally a fit 19 year old, not at all shy about showing her tits after her bodice came off, but didnt get to see the pants come off.
Basically a series of strips with varying amounts of genital flashes, and no discenable dramatic justification. Only context seems to be that the show is about strpping to music.
Sootbag1 as the mouthpiece for Ofcom on this forum exactly what is unlawful about using sexual imagery to entice people to use premium rate services.
No doubt you are aware that some years ago Ofcom were trying to close down these free to view channels or make them go encrypted in line with the BCAP advertising standards code. Ofcom stated
'If it is a prohibited advertising category under the BCAP Advertising Code, i.e. adult chat on unencrypted channels it must be taken off air.'
There was also a judgement made by the Eurpeon Court of Justice on 18th October 2007 that stated a quiz show using PRS could be classified as teleshopping. Ofcom believed that the significance of the ECJ’s judgement extended beyond blocks of quiz TV to other genres of Participation TV displaying similar characteristics, for example adult chat TV. This reinforced their position concerning encryption or removal.
Following consultation Ofcom ruled that all adult chat participation tv broadcasts using PRS would be regarded as teleshopping and as such all broadcasters had to reflect this on their licence. Both the Broadcasting Code and Advertising Code were also updated to reflect this and came into effect on the 1st September 2010.
Therefore Adult chat using sexual imagery to entice viewers to phone using PRS is now teleshopping and permitted under the ASA code, section 22 and 23.
Any complaint made concerning a broadcast after the 1st September should strictly be dealt with by the ASA who following a negative decision can request Ofcom to sanction/penalise the broadcaster.
Should Ofcom now need to get involved if the ASA deem an adult broadcast (advert) acceptable, even if a similar broadcast prior to September was deemed to be in breach by Ofcom. No doubt Ofcom will have their way.
(06-11-2010 20:55 )Sootbag1 Wrote: [ -> ]... Sexcetra is not trying to entice you to call a premium rate telephone number by using sexual imagery as encouragement. The babe channels are. That makes all the difference to Ofcom.
So presumably then Ofcom should have no issue with say BS Extreme broadcast unencrypted and free as there's no advertising or encouragement to call involved?
(07-11-2010 13:42 )Gold Plated Pension Wrote: [ -> ]Sootbag1 as the mouthpiece for Ofcom on this forum exactly what is unlawful about using sexual imagery to entice people to use premium rate services.
You know that I'm not the mouthpiece for Ofcom, I just think it helps to understand your opponent and their motivations, rather than us just sitting round here agreeing that the world is shit. If it was up to me, I would clamp down more on the daytime nudety and sexual content (implied or explicit) but allow full nudity on night times. I would also allow hardcore pornography on TV so long as it was behind the firewall of a monthly subscription channel.
I'm not as familiar as
Gold Plated Pension helpfully is regarding all the rules and regulations, but his post does raise one question: If the content of babe channels since 1 September is considered advertising (for the premium rate phone lines) and should be dealt with by the ASA, why are complaints still being considered by Ofcom? And what has anyone on here done about asking Ofcom why they are considering complaints that should, in the first instance, be considered by the ASA?
I actually think not just the babe channels but for all the channels the watershed rule should actually be abolished and propose that anything of an adult nature before 9 O'clock should be pin protected as these days we all work in a 24 hour society and this has to also reflect on our tv viewing habits. If the watershed rule was abolished I also think that the babe channels would get an easier life from the likes of ofcom who instead should only be fining channels if something of an adult nature is shown before 9 is not pin protected. Its the 21st century and drastic changes are needed.
Found this on the Ofcom site:
European and international Ofcom activities
Here is the complete list of their European activities:
1) Ofcom guidelines for dealing with regulators of other EU member states in relation to the UK-Licensed television channels (129 kB)Published 09|04|10.
2) Cooperation and Exchange of Information - Memorandum of Understanding - Published 25|10|07.
3) Ofcom Response to EU Consultation on Application of State Aid Rules to Public Service Broadcasting
Er, thats it.
And just one Memorandum of Understanding with another regulator (the Swedish one), so plenty of evidence that Ofcom have a great working relationship with the Dutch who will, of course, just roll over and clamp down on broadcasts aimed at the UK.
More ofcom rubbish as per usual. Time to flush ofcom down the toilet and consign themselves to history
It gets worse.
Under the Video On Demand regulations anyone wishing to provide an On Demand Programme Service (ODPS) must "retain a recording of all content (both editorial
and advertising) for 42 days from the date it was last made available to users of the service"
Imagine an investigation into whether something was suitable or not. Big national broadcaster supplies library tape of show to the ATVOD (Association for Video On Demand, co-regulator). But they come back and ask about adverts. Big broadcaster then supplies the ASA (Advertising Standards Authority, other co-regulator) with library tapes of adverts including those annoying ones at the start of the show and the transparent stuff across the bottonm of YouTube.
The ASA says Yes, but which adverts did you show when this viewer down loaded your show? And where were the advertising breaks placed?
The broadcaster says Dunno, the regulations say we have to give you the bits, not say how they were put together.
The two regulators then say that does not give a fair and accurate picture of the content
as seen, and which adverts were shown makes a difference. Imagine a condom ad in the middle a gritty rape scene in Taggart. Or KY jelly in Balamory.
Suddenly the suppliers of Video On Demand are told to keep exact recordings of each download - with overlays - as it leaves their computers, or precise records of combinations of shows and adverts, and their costs go through the roof. What used to be a free ownload costs storage.
http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/broadca...regulation