Ofcom Discussion

Back to standard programming after the twilight zone.
Ofcom what a bunch of bar stewards

Post#3328.
I'm guessing the poster is alluding to some kind of irony at David Cameron being happy to be photographed shaking the hands of billionaire Mr Desmond publisher of various porn mags (& I think also owner of Television X ?) and and worst of all .......
owner of Channel 5 ! (until he sold it just very recently)

Mr C is therefore knowingly hobnobbing with Britain's leading purveyor of filth ?

(20-11-2014 04:00 )Scottishbloke Wrote:  Eccles I'm somewhat confused here, maybe it's me that's missing something here but just what exactly does 2 story's declaring that Britain is back from 2 leading newspapers got to do with ofcom

OK, I didnt spell it out. The event was a big charity do at Grovesnor House, hosted by "the owner of Express Newspapers, Mr Desmond, who is also president of Norwood". Richard Desmond introduced the PM to the stage.

Could you imagine Maggie Thatcher or any other prime minister even being seen in the same room as a well known pornographer, let alone posing for pictures with them and publically praising them? John Major and Paul Raymond? Tony Blair or a minister as David Blunkett or Jack Straw having dinner with David Sullivan? No. Bill Clinton and Larry Flint? No. They would take the view that no amount of charity work would make someone who made their fortune from 20 years of selling hard core porn would be unacceptable to their supporters, no matter how much charity work they did.

Cameron might have chosen his words carefully, calling Desmond "remarkable", whatever that means, but its not impossible that there is a communication channel about porn laws.

But surely Ofcom clamps down on anything arousing, and that's against Desmonds business interests?

It was pointed out in another thread that a law has just been passed making it mandatory for internet porn to have age verification. It only applies to the UK but the clear implication is that foreign based sites will be blocked sooner or later unless they sign up to a UK age verification payment scheme.

All this because some parents kids are out of control.

What that does is to drastically reduce the competition to online UK porn providers and sex shop owners. Yes, Ofcom clampdowns hurt babeshows, but they also raise the bar, making it harder for small independent operators to open new channels, or for other broadcasters to switch over to babeshows, naked news or naked quizzes late at night, and protect the market for other business lines such as online sales and sexshops.

That is of course just speculation and might be totally wrong.

I also have a theory that Desmond is working towards a peerage.

People can get excited about changes in the head of Ofcom as much as they like but it's stuff like this that's dictating the way Ofcom deal with sexual content.

The various groups who see stuff like that as being "harmful" to kids and "objectifying" women are proving to be very vocal and sadly quite effective it seems.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-30157742

We are developing a bizarre, left wing, secular prudery that harks back to the more conservative, religion-inspired prudery of old. Seems the liberal 60s and 70s were an all-too-short golden era.

(22-11-2014 19:50 )MARCCE Wrote:  People can get excited about changes in the head of Ofcom as much as they like but it's stuff like this that's dictating the way Ofcom deal with sexual content.

The various groups who see stuff like that as being "harmful" to kids and "objectifying" women are proving to be very vocal and sadly quite effective it seems.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-30157742

Supermarkets to hide tabloid front pages because of sexual content concerns

Newspaper front pages have never bothered me, and if these censorious idiots get there way children will reach the age of 18 without having any concept of sex, relationships or the problems that can arise - then get into deep shit.

Children need to know that rapists exist (recent headlines about a )footballer).

Children need to know that child abusers and kidnappers exist (recent high profile headlines about "the Portuguese case" - I doubt the parents would welcome search engines linking to here so I wont mention the name), and alleged murder by 1970s gangs allegedly linked to powerful people).

Children also need to be educated about the other nasty things out there such as religious extremism, racism, Middle East violence, etc, because those can affect them.

Although most newspaper sales are automatic, some are impulse buys, and the habit of buying a newspaper can start out with occasional impulse buys, so this will hit newspaper sales short and long term.

Meanwhile magazines will not be covered up, allowing tinies to see those awful womens mags full of Big Brother trash, celeb boob jobs and breakups, National Enquirer, Tattoo Monthly, Biker News and Fantasy Art.

Not only that, but if they wander down the pharmacy aisle they will see condoms, lube ("whats that for Mum?") and a small selection of vibrators and cock rings.

Supermarkets to hide tabloid front pages because of sexual content concerns

Newspaper front pages have never bothered me, and if these censorious idiots get there way children will reach the age of 18 without having any concept of sex, relationships or the problems that can arise - then get into deep shit.

^^^In the olden days publications displaying adult content would be stored under a shop counter away from 'innocent' eyes and the person wanting to access such content, would have it handed to them by a shopkeeper under cover of what I believe was a brown paper bag. If the sexual puritans have their way this could be future for our humble British tabloids If we're not careful.

The Thoughts of Chairman Ed

Regulator has to be involved in politics to function

It would be “delusional” to think the regulator is not involved in political circles

In his dealings with six or seven culture secretaries over the past decade, "not a single one of those ministers has sought to overstep the mark in a way that has troubled me"

Ofcom has a “uniquely low” threshold for review and that “every day of every week” the regulator is defending between three and 10 of its decisions in court

Guardian 19 Nov 2014

Good to know that the Chief Executive of Ofcom does not think the 6 or 7 current and previous Culture Secretaries have not overstepped the mark. Couldnt have them annoying him.

Ofcom Dragged Through Courts

Quote:Ofcom taken to court over complaint handling process

Ofcom may be forced to alter its TV complaint handling process after being accused of treating broadcasters more favourably than the public.


The media regulator will be subject of a judicial review at the High Court on 28 November after the way it dealt with complaints around Channel 4 programme Big Fat Gypsy Wedding was criticised.

The Traveller Movement, which is bringing the case on behalf of the traveller and gypsy communities, has accused Ofcom of favouring broadcasters, highlighting its decision to send draft “harm and offence” complaint reports to them, but withholding the documents from the people complaining.

A statement put together by the Movement suggested that this allows the broadcaster to “consider it, comment on it, and potentially change it”. C4 will support Ofcom in the case and will be represented by a Queen’s Counsel.

If the challenge is successful Ofcom may have to change its complaint handling procedure, although the watchdog “stands by its decisions and procedures”.

The Traveller Movement said a victory will put “ordinary people on a level playing field with powerful media broadcasters”.

The case revolves around complaints made by the Traveller Movement concerning C4’s airing of Big Fat Gypsy Weddings and Thelma’s Gypsy Girls. According to the Movement the shows breached the Broadcast Code for “depicting children in a sexualised manner and depicting violent sexual assault of girls and young women as normal” in traveller communities.

Although complaints we “supported by expert evidence of the harm that programmes caused to children”, Ofcom rejected the complaints in November 2013.

“Ordinary people look to Ofcom to protect them and their children from harmful and offensive broadcast,” said David Enright, partner at solicitors Howe & Co, representing the Traveller Movement.

“The case has exposed a very worrying practice whereby Ofcom appears to treat the broadcasters more favourably than the ordinary members of the public that Ofcom is supposed to protect.”

An Ofcom spokesman said: “The case relates to our decision not to find Channel 4 in breach of the Broadcasting Code for the TV series Big Fat Gypsy Weddings and Thelma’s Gypsy Girls. We stand by our decision and procedures and will be defending them in court this week.”

Broadcast Now

^^^ Interesting. Although I'm all in favour of Ofcom being hauled through the courts, it seems that the above scenario is the mirror image of what happens with the babe shows. There the broadcasters are totally ignored in favour of the complainant, even though the complaints are usually vexatious and spurious.