Elite TV / Studio 66 - General Chat & Discussion

(07-03-2020 13:46 )babelover48 Wrote:  What would it take to change that situation Dave?
Government legislation or OFCOM relaxing rules?

I'm not certain of this, but i should think it would be Ofcom relaxing the rules, Ofcom implemented that rule in the first place i believe .

(07-03-2020 16:50 )BarrieBF Wrote:  

(07-03-2020 16:18 )Rake Wrote:  Labour created Ofcom in 2002

The creation of Ofcom was merely a merger of several already existing bodies and it didn't create broadcasting standards or the Broadcasting Standards Code.

The Broadcasting Standards Code was originally drawn up in 1988 by the Broadcasting Standards Council, later becoming the the Broadcasting Standards Commission, which was one of the regulatory bodies merged into Ofcom.

So you agree that Labour created Ofcom in 2002, thank you.

Ofcom, in contrast to their passive, zombie forerunners the BSC and BBFC etc., and encouraged by the Executive, pro-actively and aggressively pursued the detection of breaches of the so-called standards, and enforcement therein.

(07-03-2020 17:45 )Rake Wrote:  Ofcom, in contrast to their passive, zombie forerunners the BSC and BBFC etc., and encouraged by the Executive, pro-actively and aggressively pursued the detection of breaches of the so-called standards, and enforcement therein.

Do you have any evidence of this? It seems very doubtful, to put it mildly.

Although Ofcom state that they sometimes monitor channels, in reality no action ever seems to be taken against any channel unless a complaint has been made. Even then their 'enforcement' is generally pretty mild. Although they have sanctions available, they don't make use of them very often.

I'm pretty sure nothing has changed from the way the broadcasting code was enforced prior to the merger which created Ofcom. Although Ofcom claim to be strict, they are only strict in the way they apply the code when it comes to making their findings. When it comes to punishments, their enforcement of the broadcasting code usually amounts to nothing more than a slap on the wrist. Anyone can verify this for themselves by reading the monthly bulletins they publish.

Also, it's hard to believe that any government would interfere with the way that Ofcom oversees the broadcasting code. I'd say that was a conspiracy theory too far, although I'm happy to be corrected if evidence to the contrary exists.

(07-03-2020 16:18 )Rake Wrote:  

(07-03-2020 15:55 )ShandyHand Wrote:  

(07-03-2020 13:14 )Dave_A Wrote:  ... BS start at 10pm on freeview because they have a Dutch licence, not a Ofcom licence.
The Dutch don't have the same restrictions as Ofcom, concerning the start time of babe channels broadcasting on freeview, hence why BS starts at 10pm .

The Dutch have sensible regulation that treats adults as responsible for their own actions. Our authorities think they know what's best for everyone and infantilise joe public with an utterly contemptible Victorian moralising attitude... But then we do keep voting people that express such views into positions of power. It would seem we want others rights taken away and it's much too easy to say "yes... it'll never get to the level where it affects me."

Agree Shandy. Labour created Ofcom in 2002, at the height of the Blair Terror.

Then Cameron pledged he would quash 'em all if he got elected and promptly forgot he'd ever said it once he was. I'd love to know what Ed Richards or his supporters said to him.

(07-03-2020 18:28 )BarrieBF Wrote:  

(07-03-2020 17:45 )Rake Wrote:  Ofcom, in contrast to their passive, zombie forerunners the BSC and BBFC etc., and encouraged by the Executive, pro-actively and aggressively pursued the detection of breaches of the so-called standards, and enforcement therein.

Do you have any evidence of this? It seems very doubtful, to put it mildly.

Although Ofcom state that they sometimes monitor channels, in reality no action ever seems to be taken against any channel unless a complaint has been made. Even then their 'enforcement' is generally pretty mild. Although they have sanctions available, they don't make use of them very often.

They don't need an iron fist at this point. The inch-ing thumb screw ensures everyone stays in line and tamely self-censors. Have you heard how classic records are now buttered for the mildest swear words on the radio? What purpose does that serve? What difference has that made to childrens' language? It impacts absolutely nothing but gives them a kick of control and the illusion of making a difference. Ofcom's content board are King Canute but the erosion they fear from the tide they are trying to hold back is largely a reactionary myth. Is the Netherlands full of any more sex pests, perverts or sexist Neanderthals than anywhere else? Of course it isn't. But somehow Ofcom think their children have been harmed for years by their parents being treated like adults and having the ability to chose what they watch on their own TVs. They are the ones with the problem.

(07-03-2020 16:05 )Chrisst Wrote:  Poor old S66, BS broadcast to the same nation with (sometimes) the same girls doing much the same thing but their licence is something to do with a completely different country so they are allowed to do things the home grown variety can't ...

Just a note of caution: We have to be very careful knocking Ofcom if in doing so we think we are aligning with the operators in some eternal opposition. No doubt 66 and BS wish Ofcom would bugger off with their too close attentions at the mo. I'm sure also they'd have prefered it if the regulator had never come to the resolution to make them abide by advertising rules rather than those for editorial content back in the day... BUT don't, for a minute, imagine the operators and their babes want uncensored television. The broadcast rules maybe being applied too clawingly and intrusively now but for a few years the operators were content with the bed Ofcom had made them and the space it had created for them to monetise visuals off of TV.

Do you think babes want guys to have the expectation of fta puss on TV?! Do they bollock. Do you think the so-called second 'golden era' of shows in 2010 would have lasted forever without Ofcom sticking its nose in? Would it heck. The shows would've come to want more revenue and so would have decided to monetise along the lines they eventually did in any case. The changes might not have been as abrupt as Ofcom dictated but market forces would have told eventually. Too much visual content was being sold too cheaply in 2010 and the channels would've soon learnt their error, even without Ofcom.

66 could have acquired the same Dutch licence as BS. BS could have used theirs for more than the occasional spike of content - on the odd channel, months apart - and the additional couple of extra hours of FV a night. That they did not over literally years speaks volumes... The fight against Ofcom is not the channels' fight we were told; Ofcom are "our friends" we were told specifically by a BS prod, on these very pages, a few years ago... Well, I wonder if they'd be saying the same things today, now they are being gradually edged from TV and having their remaining output to the box turned to so much bland pap (particularly in the daytime)...

I'd like to say there's a lesson in all this: That if you cosy up to the devil, you're in danger of getting burnt. But, unfortunately, its really hard to see how they could have done any different. That's very British for you.

(07-03-2020 21:45 )ShandyHand Wrote:  66 could have acquired the same Dutch licence as BS.

Studio 66 don't have any business operations (broadcasts) in the Netherlands, so could not have acquired a Dutch licence.

I actually think that for a long time Studio 66 would have applied for a Dutch licence were it been a feasible option for them.

(07-03-2020 20:18 )ShandyHand Wrote:  Then Cameron pledged he would quash 'em all if he got elected and promptly forgot he'd ever said it once he was. I'd love to know what Ed Richards or his supporters said to him.

They said that Ofcom was value for money.

Cameron had claimed the move would be a big saving for taxpayers, but Ofcom pointed out that their budget was actually a huge amount less than the combined cost of the 5 bodies it replaced. Specifically, they claimed that in the first 5 years of its existence, Ofcom had reduced staffing by 300 and saved the country £117 million, to which Cameron really had no answer.

The irony was that the stated reason for Ofcom's creation in the first place was to SAVE MONEY. Cameron's assertion that splitting Ofcom up again and transferring its powers to other bodies would also save money seemed like an illogical argument.