The UK Babe Channels Forum

(20-12-2014 02:45 )eccles Wrote: [ -> ]

(17-12-2014 03:13 )Scottishbloke Wrote: [ -> ]Eccles I'm sensing with the tone of your post that your not holding out for much optimism with the appointment of Sharon White.

Tis the season of goodwill, so lets be positive. Sharon White has 28 years of doing what ministers tell her, but on the positive side she has 28 years of working in an organisation that prides itself in being politically neutral, following the rules and doing what is right, even if that means occasionally saying No to ministers*. And there will be far more of a focus on market regulation of telecoms, internet and post than a handful of TV channels.

(* The same could have been said about Colette Bowe when as chief press officer at the DTI she selectively leaked parts of the Attorney Generals confidential legal advise about Westland, showing dear old Leon Brittan in a good light and Michael Heseltine in a bad one, but lets gloss over that. She was only 40 at the time.)

What has Trisha Goddard got to do with this?! I used to fancy her mind, although she's too old now.

Ofcom has sneaked out consultation on its Draft Annual Plan just in time for the Christmas quiet period when no one will notice.

One thing leaps out from a very quick look

Quote:Ensure content complies with broadcasting rules by taking a new targeted approach to our enforcement activities for TV broadcasters

A1.71 ... extending monitoring of TV content to detect content which raises issues of potential audience harm, particularly of channels about which we receive few or no complaints;

^Looks like the channels are still in the firing line then.

So let me get this....they are going to look at stuff that people DON'T complain about? Not their job as far as I can see....CBeebie and Disney better watch out....

In an era of a runaway national budget deficit, you'd think the Govt would have burned this quango on the bonfire years ago, but no.

(23-12-2014 03:35 )eccles Wrote: [ -> ]extending monitoring of TV content to detect content which raises issues of potential audience harm, particularly of channels about which we receive few or no complaints;

Otherwise known as making up our own 'offences' in order to generate extra revenue through fines.

Plus, a little self-justification for their own existence just in case anyone with any clout actually asks exactly why we are paying for this particular branch of the prurience society.

Oh, and there's that phrase "potential... harm" again. Wouldn't want to actually have to prove anyone was caused any issue by anything they saw now would you Ofcon?

It is becoming more and more obvious, almost by the day, that Ed Richards sold out any independence that Ofcom had after the last election in return for his organisation's continued existence and, no doubt, a growing extension to his gold-plated pension. Thanks, Ed, I'm sure all Dave's ideals were yours eh..?

Going on what Eccles has highlighted about his replacement, things certainly do not bode well for the babe channels. (Not exactly household names are they these people that sit in judgement on what everyone in the land can see in his or here home?! Why are broadcasting execs with established careers in the industry never even rumoured for these appointments?!) I find it very hard to see Sharon White as being anything but a box-ticking tokenist puppet of an appointment with an emphasis on revenue. Which is where we came in...

I hope she proves me wrong...

(23-12-2014 03:35 )eccles Wrote: [ -> ]Ofcom has sneaked out consultation on its Draft Annual Plan just in time for the Christmas quiet period when no one will notice.

One thing leaps out from a very quick look

Quote:A1.71 ... extending monitoring of TV content to detect content which raises issues of potential audience harm, particularly of channels about which we receive few or no complaints;

Potential audience harm should only apply to the intended audience anyway. Anyone tuning in who thinks otherwise has probably made a bad personal decision to watch Adult R18 labelled programming.

Anyone underage you can argue has also made a bad personal decision (one that legally lies with the parent or guardian and not the channels) because it's clearly labelled Adult R18, so, whatever the content is, you cannot apply potential harm arguments using underage viewers as an example as it's ALL seen as harmful to under 18's regardless of what is actually shown. (The same would apply to a R18 film with violence, drug use etc. This is why rating and the adult section of the EPG exists, it sets the intended audience before you choose to watch it, and if you or your child are not within that then your right to be offended is void and you can swivel

If Ofcom do intend to monitor content they should monitor content in regards to the intended audience - Customers to the adult services advertised - and seeing as it's so clearly defined "televised phone sex advertisements" (right Ofcom?) I nominate Snookered as Ofcom content monitor chief, free to assemble a team of wankers to monitor and scrutinise at will

Ah, but in reality Ofcom remain petty and the real enemy is people making money that they would rather have

Seems to me there hasn't been a better time for the channels to start pushing their corner than now.

In the wake of the Charlie Hebdo atrocities the "deal with it" attitude to possibly causing offence is as as strong as it's been for some time.

With more and more people comfortable with possibly offending a whole religion in order to protect freedom of speech and expression then it shouldn't be too hard a job for the channels to justify offending the odd straggler now and again in order to protect their own freedom of expression should it?

I won't hold my breath.

totally agree MARCE and if the forces of freedom are stronger for the loss of life then they did not die in vain

Hey Folkes,

Well i'm not sure whats happening with the new person in charge of ofcom, since the departure of Ed Richards? By the looks of the content since the turn of the year it appears things have pretty much stayed the same regarding content. However we're only 2 weeks into the new year so maybe i'm being a little hasty.
On a positive note, i'm hoping for things to be turning in our favour, whether the upcoming general election will bear any weight on proceedings is another debate altogether. Lets hope 2015 will be a better year for our babe channels