(31-05-2010 01:43 )eccles Wrote: [ -> ]One problem is that the anti-porn brigade does not speak with one voice, and they have about 20 different arguments against porn. Solve one argument and someone will pop up with a differrent one....
And one of the biggest critics of
not allowing "Hardcore" on TV is this gent:
Yet he put up the money to challenge the BBFC, which in turn allowed Hardcore on video...
He proclaims that a hardcore video or DVD is perfectly safe, but an encrypted Satellite or Cable channel is a danger to children. Perhaps that is because he owns the UK's biggest chain of sex shops....
Quote:No Content Committee having 2 day meetings in hotels around the UK every month....
And you can check into any Hotel in the UK and watch R18 on their pay movie channels, yet not via UK Satellite or Cable.
To think we are funding that prick with taxpayers money when its obvious for all to see this is one corrupt bastard. Now 2 weeks after the election and the ofcom situation is still unresolved. Its now time for big decisions to be made, after all the people voted for change.
no they voted conservative. meaning back to underfunding of schools and hospitals, bigger than needed cuts to public services back to 5 million unemployed, yet they will have 1million pound bonuses. when they leave office and go to the private sector where after they made laws in parliament to protect the said bonuses.
Teachers regulation board, the General Teaching Council for England was abolished today. Education Secretary Michael Gove said "It doesn't improve classroom practice, it doesn't help children, it doesn't earn it's keep, so it must go."
(02-06-2010 20:04 )Hexit Wrote: [ -> ]no they voted conservative. meaning back to underfunding of schools and hospitals, bigger than needed cuts to public services back to 5 million unemployed, yet they will have 1million pound bonuses. when they leave office and go to the private sector where after they made laws in parliament to protect the said bonuses.
As opposed to Labour, spending more than we can afford on schools and hospitals, creating non-jobs and quangos, along with extended disability benefit, to disguise the true unemployment figure, and then when they leave office and go to the private sector where after they made laws in parliament to protect the said bonuses
Something I don't understand is why people think they can axe ofcom replacing it with 'nothing'
and they think that ofcom costs the taxpayer £150 million a year.
A while ago I played Devil's Advocate and asked if we actually need Ofcom. Newspapers, magazines, books and websites are not licenced at all, nor are political parties, building firms or cross-channel ferry companies, and kareoke pubs don't get licences for entertainment, just alcohol sales and health & safety inspections.
It was a bit tongue in cheek, seriously I think there has to be some form of regulator. Without it the worst excesses of scumbag reporting and media owners with an agenda will go unchecked. At best it would take 3-5 years and half a million to get a case of blatant libel to court, in reality most abuses would not be blocked at all.
What I dislike about Ofcom is that it does not seem to apply it's own rules, seems biassed and inconsistent, does not listen, is excessively bureaucratic and spiteful. And unclear. And riddled with conflict of interest.
Spiteful - in official Broadcast Bulletins Ofcom have complained about broadcasters having legal representation, like a teacher expressing shock when a pupil turns up for a telling off with a legal expert. And if a channel disagrees and does not accept that it broke the rules they get a harsher sentence. Sorry, but if I park on a yellow line I expect a flat rate fine, not a discount for arselicking, specially if the line was so faded I could not see it.
Bureaucratic - finally worked out that one reason why the Broadcast Bulletins describe the Babes clothing, nail varnish and hair in such dribbling detail is that Ofcom feel they have to establish that the channel was intended for erotic arousal, not serious drama, before going to the second stage of seeing if the content "exceeded viewer expectations" or "could cause offence". It would be simpler to ask the channel if they disputed that their channels were erotic. I'd piss myself laughing (technical term, OK) if Desmond or Sullivan actually tried to deny it, and it would be a gift to their competitors.
No, Ofcom cannot make the simplest announcement without wrapping it in excessive unnecessary self-defensive Sir Humphrey-ese.
Biassed - too quick to jump on the Babe sector despite fewer complaints in an entire year than one episode of Britains Got Talet (1/5/2010, 4 complaints re nudity) or Coronation Street (10/5/2010, 6 complaints re Drugs, smoking solvents or alcohol).
Biassed - runs surveys with selected clips and unrepresentative focus groups that could be predicted to be anti-sex, but does not run similar attitude surveys AT ALL re violence, horror, gore, blasphemy, mediums, gambling, teleshopping, etc.
There is a clear conflict of interest with Ofcom defining the parameters of surveys, interpreting results, writing regulations, monitoring channels, running investigations, adjudicating and even hearing appeals against itself, as well as awarding licences.
So here's the essense of my proposal.
Separate out the various functions to separate independent bodies.
Also why not give the major broadcasters and representatives of groups of smaller ones a minority of seats on the Ofcom Board as well as Content and Sanctions Committees? 1/3 could come from Broadcasters.