This is the latest list of investigations. Whilst you can see that there are none noted against the Babe Channels this does not necessary mean that no complaints were received.
Up to 25 March 2011
No investigations launched against the Babe Channels.
Up to 18 March 2011
No investigations launched against the Babe Channels.
Some 13 investigations against the Babe Channels have been concluded within the last fortnight with all 8 against Elite TV being found 'in breach' but with no financial or other penalty being imposed.
Other investigations against Red Light Central/Ladies, Xplicit, Honey Days, Fone Girls etc have been found 'not in breach'.
There are still some outstanding investigations against Babe Channels so don't expect operators such as RLC and Elite to start pushing the boundaries as yet.
at least no penalties were put on elite but will mean theyll be cautious for a while yet
The latest list of investigations.
Up to 21 April 2011
No investigations launched against the Babe Channels.
Up to 15 April 2011
No investigations launched against the Babe Channels.
Up to 8 April 2011
No investigations launched against the Babe Channels.
Up to 1 April 2011
No investigations launched against the Babe Channels.
None reported against the babe channels for this period, this does not necessarily mean that no channel is under investigation. For whatever reason Ofc@m do not list all investigations as i am aware of one channel under current investigation which has never been listed.
If Ofc@m claim that their actions are all transparent and accountantable then why do they deliberately withold such information.
Ofc@m were also late in publishing their Broadcast Bulletin for this period that dealt with the 2,868 complaints against the X Factor final show. Obviously the report was delayed whilst their policy and legal departments scrutinised it for accuracy prior to publication due to the sensitivity of the subject and the broadcaster/presenter involved. This was for the show shown pre-watershed on a Saturday night and repeated again the following morning @ 9.30am. Make your own minds up if you feel Ofc@m backed away from a fight but they will be issuing new guidance for such shows and calling the programme makers in for a meeting.
In my opinion Ofc@m have taken the soft/easy way out and have tried to pacify media opinion by issuing additional guidance/calling the broadcaster in. The Daily Mail has not bought this position and have called the regulator a toothless bulldog.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...Ofcom.html
Broadcast Bulletin 180
http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binarie...obb180.pdf
There is an interesting article where the regulator are defending their original 'not in breach' decision against Embarrissing Bodies concerning graphic content.
Fascinating write up of the Embarrasing Bodies complaint. Channel 4 broadcast a show at 7pm about a man with Burried Penis Syndrome. In order to illustrate that the size of aroused and nonaroused penises vary there was a brief scene where a rugby club had their penises measured, pensumably aroused and nonaroused. Remember this was at 7pm on a univesally available channel with no parental controls.
Ofcom decided it was justified by context. One viewer appealed and the Broadcasting Review Committee decided it was justified by context. The Content Board currently has 7 members 3 of whom are members of the Ofcom Board (Executive). (So 4 are non-executive - though I may have misunderstood this term)
The Broadcasting Review Committee has up to 4 members from the Content Board and the full Ofcom Board. The Chair and Deputy Chair must non-executive members of the Content Board but meetings can be chaired by any member of the Content Board. The quorum is 3 members and at least 2 must be non-executive members of the Content Board.
So unless I have misread the rules, there are very few people to choose from when setting up a meeting, particularly if trying to avoid members who took the original decision hearing an appeal about their own decision.
Incidentally "Where the Chairman or Deputy Chairman of the Committee considers it appropriate, decisions may be taken by email"
The complaint seemed quite determined and possibly well funded: "The complainant subsequently submitted a letter before claim pursuant to the Judicial Review Pre-action Protocol, asking that Ofcom withdraw the 23 July Decision and grant a review of the 26 April Decision."
Ofcom reconsidered, asked Channel 4 to justify the show, and eventually decided it was not in breach.
Effectively this complaint was examined 3 times. Were the same people involved in several decisions, or was each process fully independent?
I'm sorry but did I miss something there, do Ofcom not state that nudity shown with intent to cause arousal is harmful and yet they show an erect penis on Channel 4 at 7PM, something wrong there, if an erect penis is not arousal I fail to see what the fuck is, yet we're not permitted to see a vagina on a late night well past the watershed sexline TV Channel. Like I've said before give Ofcom enough rope and they will hang themselves and they are doing just a grande job doing that at the moment. Well done to Ofcom they are really beginning to piss a lot of people of now, how soon before David Cameron call's last order's on Ofcom, right now it doesn't look too rosy for their future, a famous Scottish saying goes "His Jacket is hanging on a shoogly peg" and that's precisely where Ofcom are at the moment.
cameron is unlikely to get rid of ofcom due to crony-ism.
a lot of you guys make the mistake of thinking the channels are programming, and that should they fall under editorial rules protecting freedom of expression. they dont. they are tret as long form advertising and as such are governed by advertising rules. until the channels make the distinction themselves and claim editorial rights of production and the context there of. they will have no option but to bend over at ofcoms will.
im not sure how they could do this without getting rid of the constant adverts and phone numbers though, or be moved to the encrypted section for that matter...
a lot of you say you saw this or that on tv at this or that time. this is of no relevance to ofcom. they base there decisions on 2 films, sexworks and 18, which they state as a general standard. this in itself is an unfair comparison as they are films rated r18 by the bbfc not ofcom. so in essence ofcom are not comparing like with like they are comparing r18 hard core porn which cannot be broadcast on any tv channel, to rated 16/18 soft porn/titillation and lumping them in the same basket. totally bypassing other bbfc standards of ratings. which they are all to ready to use when it suites there purpose.
they shouldn't be able to use 1 standard only to turn around and deny other other standards exist.
the fact is if they were forced to compare like to like ie 15/18 certification films to the babechannels which is more in line with there content. ofcom would find that the shows are much tamer than 90 percent of 18 rated material and 50 percent of 15 rated material.
i think this is where the channels are allowing ofcom to apply unfair and bias rulings. and this may be where the channels can start there own fight back...
another thing that bugs me, is the use of protection of children and minors. the fact is its up to the parents not ofcom to protect there children. so ofcom shouldn't be allowed to use this as a catch all rule which they seem to be doing at the moment.
(03-05-2011 11:14 )HEX!T Wrote: [ -> ]cameron is unlikely to get rid of ofcom due to crony-ism.
a lot of you guys make the mistake of thinking the channels are programming, and that should they fall under editorial rules protecting freedom of expression. they dont. they are tret as long form advertising and as such are governed by advertising rules. until the channels make the distinction themselves and claim editorial rights of production and the context there of. they will have no option but to bend over at ofcoms will.
im not sure how they could do this without getting rid of the constant adverts and phone numbers though, or be moved to the encrypted section for that matter...
a lot of you say you saw this or that on tv at this or that time. this is of no relevance to ofcom. they base there decisions on 2 films, sexworks and 18, which they state as a general standard. this in itself is an unfair comparison as they are films rated r18 by the bbfc not ofcom. so in essence ofcom are not comparing like with like they are comparing r18 hard core porn which cannot be broadcast on any tv channel, to rated 16/18 soft porn/titillation and lumping them in the same basket. totally bypassing other bbfc standards of ratings. which they are all to ready to use when it suites there purpose.
they shouldn't be able to use 1 standard only to turn around and deny other other standards exist.
the fact is if they were forced to compare like to like ie 15/18 certification films to the babechannels which is more in line with there content. ofcom would find that the shows are much tamer than 90 percent of 18 rated material and 50 percent of 15 rated material.
i think this is where the channels are allowing ofcom to apply unfair and bias rulings. and this may be where the channels can start there own fight back...
another thing that bugs me, is the use of protection of children and minors. the fact is its up to the parents not ofcom to protect there children. so ofcom shouldn't be allowed to use this as a catch all rule which they seem to be doing at the moment.
"Another thing"?
Hexit, this is the whole crux of their argument, the reason why they censor.
Ofcon have been acting the role of Social Services since their inception.
No-one challenges them on this (or anything else, it seems).
I can sort of accept their reasoning for censorship on un-encrypted channels but totally reject the same reasoning for censorship on PIN protected channels.
As regards Cameron, only a fool would have believed a politician when he stated he was going to get rid of Ofcon.
Allowing more explicit sex on Uk TV is a HUGE vote loser.
(03-05-2011 20:37 )blackjaques Wrote: [ -> ]"Another thing"?
Hexit, this is the whole crux of their argument, the reason why they censor.
Ofcon have been acting the role of Social Services since their inception.
No-one challenges them on this (or anything else, it seems).
I can sort of accept their reasoning for censorship on un-encrypted channels but totally reject the same reasoning for censorship on PIN protected channels.
As regards Cameron, only a fool would have believed a politician when he stated he was going to get rid of Ofcon.
Allowing more explicit sex on Uk TV is a HUGE vote loser.
Quite right, Jacques.That is the issue at the nub of this. If you cast your mind back through the mists of time to the first broadcast code - it was odds on that relaxation of rules on R18 was imminent, unfortunately the then Minister for Culture made a cameo appearance as the content board sat to make a final call on the issue. Surprise, surprise the outcome of their deliberations was No - even though it flew in the face of Ofcom's own commissioned research. Five years and we now in a position where the channels do Ofcom's work for them - even the previously boundary pushing FilmFour caved in and self-censored DogTooth.
(08-05-2011 02:28 )HenryF Wrote: [ -> ] (03-05-2011 20:37 )blackjaques Wrote: [ -> ]"Another thing"?
Hexit, this is the whole crux of their argument, the reason why they censor.
Ofcon have been acting the role of Social Services since their inception.
No-one challenges them on this (or anything else, it seems).
I can sort of accept their reasoning for censorship on un-encrypted channels but totally reject the same reasoning for censorship on PIN protected channels.
As regards Cameron, only a fool would have believed a politician when he stated he was going to get rid of Ofcon.
Allowing more explicit sex on Uk TV is a HUGE vote loser.
Quite right, Jacques.That is the issue at the nub of this. If you cast your mind back through the mists of time to the first broadcast code - it was odds on that relaxation of rules on R18 was imminent, unfortunately the then Minister for Culture made a cameo appearance as the content board sat to make a final call on the issue. Surprise, surprise the outcome of their deliberations was No - even though it flew in the face of Ofcom's own commissioned research. Five years and we now in a position where the channels do Ofcom's work for them - even the previously boundary pushing FilmFour caved in and self-censored DogTooth.
I had an inkling it was a last-minute decision to censor full R18 from discussions on the Melonfarmer site at the time.
In all of that time, what has really been achieved by banning full R18 from UK television?
Any state censorship surely should show a benefit for society as a whole.
It's the same old argument I go over time & time again.
The UK hasn't benefitted one iota from this censorship but Ofcon are untouchable. (and Cameron's a twat; a liying one at that).
Talking about censorship why is that you can't say t w a t on this forum,, I've had to space the words out ha ha so that it doesn't come up as twit.