Sorry but there appears to be some confusion over Ofcom's role here. The Office of Communications is a government quango set up by labour which had policy making powers. Therefore it was not responsible to any civil servant in Whitehall or minister in the Dept for Culture, Media and Sport.
All the rules and regulations we currently have are entirely of their own making. They set them and they regulate them.
One of the good things to come out of this Tory/Lib coalition is the total overhaul of Ofcom. It will be merged with Postcomm to form one Communciations regulator and all policy making power will be stripped. It's going back to the relevant dept and will ultimately be the responsibility of an elected MP.
(28-11-2010 01:10 )smell the roses Wrote: [ -> ]Ofcom are just following a government directive. Working to the instructions of some faceless civil servant tucked away in an office somewhere in Whitehall. Therefore it is progressive governments that decide that you, sitting alone in front of your TV's will not be allowed to cast your eyes on the delightful muffin of your favourite model. or to even spell out the word muffin on your keyboard. Such is life with censorship.
Surely in this instance Ofcom are the faceless Civil Servants. Not the ordinary Joes in Southwark Bridge Road, but the ones who make the regulations and then act as investigators and prosecutors when any possible breach in those regulations occurs. Surely it is an affront to natural justice for this situation to remain in place for much longer.
The licence holders, when they meet with Ofcom should demand that the rules they operate by are clearly laid out and when a complaint is received it should be investigated by an independent third party. Yes the Bang Management have been stupid in the past, but Ofcom are not beyond reproach for the way they have targeted the Babe Channels. Like it or not these channels have a sizable following and Ofcom had better learn to live with it. When they start quoting viewer expectations and other reasons for their high handed behaviour, make them produce hard, empirical evidence to support their claims or tell them in future any attempts to interfere with a legitimate business will be met with a sold legal defence, in court if necessary.
If Ofcom are allowed to behave like this again, we won't have any Babe Channels at all. But thats what they probably want anyway.
(28-11-2010 01:26 )BigBen Wrote: [ -> ]Sorry but there appears to be some confusion over Ofcom's role here. The Office of Communications is a government quango set up by labour which had policy making powers. Therefore it was not responsible to any civil servant in Whitehall or minister in the Dept for Culture, Media and Sport.
All the rules and regulations we currently have are entirely of their own making. They set them and they regulate them.
One of the good things to come out of this Tory/Lib coalition is the total overhaul of Ofcom. It will be merged with Postcomm to form one Communciations regulator and all policy making power will be stripped. It's going back to the relevant dept and will ultimately be the responsibility of an elected MP.
just for once can an mp doe something good and sets up a rule book for adult channels different to mainstram tv. also ofcom having one hurrah before being scrapped
(28-11-2010 01:26 )BigBen Wrote: [ -> ]Sorry but there appears to be some confusion over Ofcom's role here. The Office of Communications is a government quango set up by labour which had policy making powers. Therefore it was not responsible to any civil servant in Whitehall or minister in the Dept for Culture, Media and Sport.
All the rules and regulations we currently have are entirely of their own making. They set them and they regulate them.
One of the good things to come out of this Tory/Lib coalition is the total overhaul of Ofcom. It will be merged with Postcomm to form one Communciations regulator and all policy making power will be stripped. It's going back to the relevant dept and will ultimately be the responsibility of an elected MP.
Please Big Ben I don't wish this to become a party political on behalf of the Tory- libs. I am just saying that if the government of the time created this quango then the present government still holds sway in what they can and will do. As your letter states, They are about to get shot. And "guess what" make another faceless figure behind a desk somewhere in Whitehall.
(27-11-2010 21:50 )bigguy01 Wrote: [ -> ]one problem is we have had a government for the last 13 yrs (labour) telling us what to do and what not to do (eg fox hunting, banning of competitive sports days, so there no winners or losers) especially when you have someone like harriett harman in power at the time has a minister for women pushing through a law which already exists in different parts called discrimenation (race, sex, sexual orientation, religious etc). so we have had through different watchdogs a nanny state create, which was called big government which did not work. has soon the government changed this channel thought it might push the boundries because it was different philosphy and politics however the attitudes of the watchdogs (ofcom, fsa) have not changed. has someone said these are unique because they fall in within the rules of ofcom but at the sametime outside them therefore a new rule book needs to created reg no nips before 10 (this would provide "safety zone" to make sure that the channels are within the rules), no flashing of the gash, regs on the outfits. also there needs to a sliding scale of punishments accidental flashing would be a slip on the wrist but repeated flashing a fine. but serious breachs of the rules fines than suspension then removal of channel.
please the read book called 1984. the parrallels of the books we are seeing today.
If that were true the "thought police" would be breaking your door down...
On Thursday night I had a scary thought that kept me awake until I told myself I was being paranoid.
The long standing joke among police, traffic wardens, schools inspectors, health and safety officers, trading standards, tax inspectors, etc, is that they will never ever need to go on strike. All they need to do is do their job. Investigate and prosecute every minor infringement. Until the bosses give in and relaxed real world enforcement comes back into play.
Now suppose people in an enforvement position are told they are being made redundant. With reduced redundancy packages. And reduced pension inflation linking. And sod all transferrable skills.
Do you think some might say, Im not going to show that discretion and common sense my boss keeps going on about, these here are The Rules, and the boss has no authority whatsoever to vary them. If the bosses didnt like The Rules they should have said so long ago.
So dont be surprised if over the next 2-3 months complaints that previously would have been binned are investigated, let alone more serious ones. To clear the backlog shortcuts will be introduced, stuff that used to be ignored will be investigated and harder decisions will be handed down. ALL the babe channels should be worried. And religious channels that preach fundamentalism, plus channels showing softcore films and porn-umentataries.
The BBC, ITV, C4 even Five will probably be OK though because of a mindset that says stale stodgey predictable content is what TV should be.
(26-11-2010 12:55 )gazfc Wrote: [ -> ]^^^Who is the idiot running bang media
The idiot running Bang is the person who has been providing some of the best daytime and nightime shows we have seen for many months. Look at the threads for these shows and they are some of the largest on this forum.
What you should be saying is who is the idiot at Ofcom who has personally pursued this broadcaster to the extent that their licenses have been revoked without a fair hearing or right of appeal.
The Idiot
Chris Banatvala is Director of Standards at Ofcom with responsibility for the enforcement and policy development of standards in broadcasting.
Chris was responsible for the development of Ofcom’s first Broadcasting Code, which sets standards for television and radio broadcasts.
Chris was formerly a journalist on Channel 4 News, before joining the Independent Television Commission where he was Head of Factual Programmes.
Chris was appointed to the Content Board in January 2007. Chris is a member (on a rotational basis) of the Broadcasting Sanctions Committee and Broadcasting Review Committee. Chris also sits on Ofcom’s Operations Board.
As a journalist he would have fought for the freedom of expression now as head of standards he is suppressing that freedom on babe channels. As part of Ofcoms guidelines, see below, he also refuses them the right to appeal their decisions, only allowing broadcasters to seek judicial review, an expensive and timely process.
These guidelines have been drafted in the light of the Human Rights Act 1998 (‘HRA’). The Act does not provide for a process of appeal from Ofcom’s decisions. The only remedies available are under judicial review in the Courts. However, mindful of Article 6 (right to a fair trial) under the European Convention of Human Rights, Ofcom has set out to design and operate a fair, open and transparent system giving the broadcaster the opportunity to respond to the case against it at every stage as well as the chance to have oral representations (for fines and/or shortening or revocation of licence).
So no right to a fair hearing and no appeal to either an independant tribunal or court, sounds like North Korea or China to me.
So lets all not suddenly become Bang haters i'm sure they have enough on their plate with Ofcom still pursuing them.
(28-11-2010 02:54 )eccles Wrote: [ -> ]On Thursday night I had a scary thought that kept me awake until I told myself I was being paranoid.
The long standing joke among police, traffic wardens, schools inspectors, health and safety officers, trading standards, tax inspectors, etc, is that they will never ever need to go on strike. All they need to do is do their job. Investigate and prosecute every minor infringement. Until the bosses give in and relaxed real world enforcement comes back into play.
Now suppose people in an enforvement position are told they are being made redundant. With reduced redundancy packages. And reduced pension inflation linking. And sod all transferrable skills.
Do you think some might say, Im not going to show that discretion and common sense my boss keeps going on about, these here are The Rules, and the boss has no authority whatsoever to vary them. If the bosses didnt like The Rules they should have said so long ago.
So dont be surprised if over the next 2-3 months complaints that previously would have been binned are investigated, let alone more serious ones. To clear the backlog shortcuts will be introduced, stuff that used to be ignored will be investigated and harder decisions will be handed down. ALL the babe channels should be worried. And religious channels that preach fundamentalism, plus channels showing softcore films and porn-umentataries.
The BBC, ITV, C4 even Five will probably be OK though because of a mindset that says stale stodgey predictable content is what TV should be.
Fucking hell are you Winston Smith..:)re:bigguy01
(28-11-2010 02:59 )Sooky™ Wrote: [ -> ] (27-11-2010 11:01 )kasone Wrote: [ -> ]yeah that is my point no one complained when they broke the rules on this forum, but now they come out the closet and start to lay the blame, so yes hypocrites, did you watch the shows when these rules was broken and did you complain, I dont think so, I guessing that you enjoyed it when they broke the rules.
You kinda contradict yourself there. In order to be "hypocrites" people would have to have been pretending to have one belief, while really holding another. How did they demonstrate their support for Bang Media before if they hadn't said anything?
You cannot assume, just because people didn't say something that nobody had a problem with their behaviour. I did, I just don't see the need to voice every opinion I have on the forum. I have always firmly believed that daygirls should be daygirls (cover up more etc) and stop trying to be nightgirls-lite. I also have no discernable want for the channels to get harder in content. If I want to see harder material I will look elsewhere for it.
Despite this widespread belief that everyone on this forum are against the rules and regulations that the channels have to adhere to, I'm fine with them. I don't want R18 material accessable on the tv. Try as you want to explain away solutions to deal with the issues of stopping children from seeing it, but anyone that does either is evading the issue in order to simply make their point - or they can't remember what it was like to be a kid. My parents had parental locks on channels when we had good old sky when I was a kid.....it didn't take me long to figure out what the pin was and access that which they had tried to stop me seeing. I somehow doubt I was the only one. I do not see how putting on parental locks is somehow a magic fixer of the issue when it wasn't when we were kids. Explain to me that.
So, when it comes to the present situation with Bangbabes - I have no sympathy with them (with some of the girls for being out of a job, yes, but not for the channel and its bosses). They knew the rules, they flaunted them, they got punished, they carried on the same behaviour.....and we're now supposed to be outraged on their behalf because they are too incompetent to run what should be a fairly easy channel type to run? Fuck off. You'll be telling me we should feel sorry for Stalin because he was dealing with the aftermath of a financially draining war when he was forced to slaughter a number of his own people (it seems the in thing to have ludicrously over the top comparisons at the moment in this thread, thought I would join in).
You reap what you sow - and at the end of the day, all those anti-Ofcom bunch should be attacking Bang Media, not defending them. All this tripe about how they were defying the laws as only through active defiance can change be brought about is bullshit. All it's done is presented Ofcom with a case they can refer to as vindication of their position and actions.....how does that help the great cause, comrades? 
Well comrade Sooky now that you've mentioned Stalin i'm sure that you can justify comrade Mandela's change in policy from non violence to terrorist.