Ofcom Discussion

How does that saying go again... Death by a thousand cuts.

(05-02-2013 00:49 )Matsui Wrote:  How does that saying go again... Death by a thousand cuts.

You left out the letter N

As oklahoma0001 satys Ofcom have published revised guidelines. Bear in mind that these are guidelines, not rules, technically the specifics of each case are what matter along with the rules, and the only point of guidelines and previous cases is to give a fair expectation and ensure consistency. They should be straightjacket for Ofcom as well as the channels.

It seems odd that Ofcom introduced new guidelines with immediate effect - without consultation. When community radio stations go bankrupt it does not withdraw their licences without first having lengthy consultation periods, during which listeners are deprived of a service. The new guidelines simply seek to clarify matters, they are not urgent safety matters.

Here is a summary of the main changes:

Moved?

Quote:This guidance note is intended to assist licensees who carry ‘daytime chat’ and/or ‘adult chat’ material to understand the likely interpretation of the BCAP Code that Ofcom will apply.

Assorted minor changes like removing underlines or the word "rules" after "Significant BCAP Code". Add a footnote? Change "rules ... will be replaced" to "... were replaced".

At the end of the paragraph titled Free-to-air adult chat advertising Add:
"Licensees are reminded that the ‘watershed’ is at 9pm and adult chat advertising is acceptable between 9pm and 05.30am only.
The transition at 9pm and 5.30am"
and add "There should not for example be any miming of sexual acts between 9 and 10pm." (I might be wrong about this being new).

The shopping list of banned activities has been amended thus:
Deleted "ensure that where more than one presenter is in shot greater care is taken to avoid broadcasting the above images or language."

The reference to rule 30.3 is amended to extend the ban on advertising porn websites to "video or images" and they link to todays bulletin:
"Ofcom licensed services that are broadcast without mandatory restricted access must not promote websites or products such as video content or images, that contain material within the recognised character of pornography.
Under Rule 30.3.1, advertisements for R18 and equivalent products (such as websites or video content or images that contain R18 material or its equivalent) are allowed on services with mandatory restricted access only. R18-rated material or its equivalent must not however feature in advertisements under any circumstances.
Ofcom has published a finding which illustrates its interpretation of Rule 30.3 regarding products that fall within the recognised character of pornography:
http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/enforce...ns/obb223/"

So no porn websites or photos by SMS.

Further down the clarify what they mean when they say presenters should not wear fetish clothing:
[b]"(this includes nurse, secretary or police officer outfits)/b]"

Many nurses, secretaries and police officers would take issue with the statement that their clothing is automatically fetish clothing for a significant number of members of the public, as would most clinical psycholgists.

Secretary?

Really?

Ordinary office wear as fetish?

Ofcom have gone mad. If they said latex or PVC they might have a point, but this is just deranged.

Also technically it is incorrect in a formal regulatory document to the term "fetish" for a kink or mild turn on. A fetish is something without which a person cannot achieve sexual, um, culmination. Many viewers might like a black PVC nurses uniform but can reach a happy ending without it.

On a positive note, it is reasonable to assume that Ofcom have done their homework, been thorough, and anything not listed is acceptable, m'lud.

On that basis they have given the green light to:
School girl outfits (not my cup of tea, but some fans out there)
The Krankies
Teachers
Doctors
Traffic wardens
Prison officers
Soldiers
Naughty Ofcom inspectors
Artists
Anne Widdicombe lookalikes
Ballerinas
Rock drummers, singers, guitarists, Suzi Q
Newsreaders
Decorators
Mermaids (without swimwear)

(05-02-2013 00:59 )eccles Wrote:  ...
On a positive note, it is reasonable to assume that Ofcom have done their homework, been thorough, and anything not listed is acceptable, m'lud.
...

Nice try, but not reasonable to assume anything not listed is acceptable, they include the following disclaimer :

Quote:Please note that the following points are not exhaustive.

They may be dumb, but they ain't stupid ... or is it the other way round

Sorry, two posts, but this is worth a separate mention:

"Ofcom also formally notifies daytime and adult chat broadcasters that as a result our continuing concerns about the compliance of material broadcast on these services with BCAP Code requirements, we are commencing a targeted monitoring exercise of all services broadcasting daytime and adult chat content.

Broadcasters are put on notice that any serious or repeated failings in this area are likely to result in Ofcom taking further regulatory action, for example, the consideration of the imposition of statutory sanctions."

(05-02-2013 01:30 )munch1917 Wrote:  ~~~~~

Quote:Please note that the following points are not exhaustive.

Like i said (an example of the) grey area.

It's clear the channels are in a no-win situation. For the purpose of channels, they need black & white rules, else how the f*ck are they supposed to know where to draw the line on what they can/cannot broadcast.

Ofcom know this, so they introduce more and more "guidlines" that are so fkn NOT black & white, that not only do they indirectly put the ball in the channels' court for the channels to determine this "line", Ofcom then have the audacity to state (as/when they want to) the channels have crossed this line - in breach of whatever "rule", despite there only being a fkn guideline originally!

Like i said, channels are in a no-win situation.

But whilst they do nothing, can we sympathise..? Should we?

(05-02-2013 13:58 )schmoo Wrote:  

(05-02-2013 01:30 )munch1917 Wrote:  ~~~~~

Quote:Please note that the following points are not exhaustive.

But whilst they do nothing, can we sympathise..? Should we?

100% No. Fuck em.

(05-02-2013 19:22 )shylok Wrote:  100% No. Fuck em.

Hahaha...

They certainly don't help themselves, and probably make it worse - by snitching on one another.

So f*ck 'em indeed!

Looking at the updated guidelines again, it does look like as if Ofcom have fudged their response. The only significant changes seem to be confirming that free to view channels cannot advertise porn (nothing new there) and giving examples of what Ofcom consider to be fetish clothing (the ban is not new).

Hardly worth rushing out new regulations.

So why have they? It looks like a case of authority feeling thay have to be seen to do something in response to a complaint and making an ineffectual change.

Why they felt a complaint from a rival channel sufficiently important that they had to rush out a superficial cosmetic change is a mystery.

I look forward to Ofcom rushing out changes in response to complaints about other channels, like Danni Minogue advertising A2 milk when she had a commercial relationship with them on Lorraine Kellys ITV show. Or is it a case of one rule for adult channels and another for everyone else?

Not really any new changes, and don't forget when they publish it to the public, doesn't mean it hasn't been sent to channels for their consultation, as viewers really don't need to be consulted for regulations, it's the channels that need to be consulted, and who would have any weight in rulings/guidelines.