Are Bangmedia being victimised by Ofcom?

probably pm'n him 2. if the guy doesn't want to partake in the forum thats his choice i suppose, each to there own.

Another question, Why do we need Ofcom? Is it not our responsibility to ensure that material deemed harmful to minors is not readily available e.g pin protection. Is it not our own choice, what we want to watch?

Good points well articulated Shady Cee.

(25-05-2010 01:37 )Shady Cee Wrote:  Ofcom will be more than happy to maintain their status quo, assuring that their respectable values are upheld and that whenever they need to fill the piggy bank, there will always be somebody to fine.

I can't see that handing out financial sanctions are a big money spinner for Ofcom. Their operational costs far exceed any revenue that comes in from fines.

Incidentally, the largest single fine on record (for an adult broadcaster) was £75,000, issued to TVX. That was for showing full hardcore, un-encrypted, on both Freeview and Sky. The complaint came from a "rival broadcaster" according to Ofcom.

Yet TVX didn't loose out... This full hardcore was shown live in an extended free to view, a lot of people signed up to 12 month contracts on the strength of this advertising and after a few weeks of enticing extra subscribers the hardcore stopped.

The last fine TVX received was for advertising the url's to hardcore subscription websites during the daytime...

Quote:I honestly do not see things changing for many, many years, if at all, unless Ofcom are shut down and replaced with a more level-headed broadcasting overseer.

If one of the broadcasters can stand up to Ofcom, in court and challenge the holes and inconsistencies in the broadcasting code, then things may change.
(As happened with the high court challenge that allowed R18 on video as it is today)

(25-05-2010 15:57 )vostok 1 Wrote:  Good points well articulated Shady Cee.

(25-05-2010 01:37 )Shady Cee Wrote:  Ofcom will be more than happy to maintain their status quo, assuring that their respectable values are upheld and that whenever they need to fill the piggy bank, there will always be somebody to fine.

I can't see that handing out financial sanctions are a big money spinner for Ofcom. Their operational costs far exceed any revenue that comes in from fines.

Incidentally, the largest single fine on record (for an adult broadcaster) was £75,000, issued to TVX. That was for showing full hardcore, un-encrypted, on both Freeview and Sky. The complaint came from a "rival broadcaster" according to Ofcom.

Yet TVX didn't loose out... This full hardcore was shown live in an extended free to view, a lot of people signed up to 12 month contracts on the strength of this advertising and after a few weeks of enticing extra subscribers the hardcore stopped.

The last fine TVX received was for advertising the url's to hardcore subscription websites during the daytime...

Quote:I honestly do not see things changing for many, many years, if at all, unless Ofcom are shut down and replaced with a more level-headed broadcasting overseer.

If one of the broadcasters can stand up to Ofcom, in court and challenge the holes and inconsistencies in the broadcasting code, then things may change.
(As happened with the high court challenge that allowed R18 on video as it is today)

A fine is the first step towards closing a channel down. It doesn't have to make the show uneconomic, just send a message.

(26-05-2010 00:35 )eccles Wrote:  A fine is the first step towards closing a channel down. It doesn't have to make the show uneconomic, just send a message.

Don't quite understand the point you are making? Any chance of elaborating?

When I said "I can't see that handing out financial sanctions are a big money spinner for Ofcom. Their operational costs far exceed any revenue that comes in from fines." I was referring to Ofcom not being reliant on occasional financial sanctions to keep ticking over. Their budget for this year is £142.5m. (source)

I'm well aware that a fine of £75,000 isn't going to hurt an organisation like TVX, and that wasn't what I said. In my opinion, TVX made a calculated decision in broadcasting full hardcore, unencrypted on both Sky and Freeview during an hour long extension of their "10 minute free view" to entice new subscribers to commit to 12 month contracts.

They stopped broadcasting these live hardcore shows prior to any Ofcom intervention, warning or sanction. And they quite likely had gained a large volume of new subscribers during these couple of weeks, which would have exceeded any profits lost through a solitary fine.

(24-05-2010 22:57 )Digital Dave Wrote:  Given that arron88 joined the forum in September 2008, yet only started posting tonight I would think it's just an existing forum member who fancies doing a bit of trolling under an alternative screen name.

To go straight in out of the blue by posting pro Ofcom statements has the word 'troll' written all over it.

Id agree with that actually his posts are very pro Ofcom wouldnt surprise me if it was a Ofcom mole, on here trying to find evidence of the channels breaching guidelines.

(25-05-2010 01:37 )Shady Cee Wrote:  

(24-05-2010 20:56 )amandasnumerounofan Wrote:  Just thought of doing a poll for Bangmedia to use for evidence against Ofcom.

While it's possible that some bias may exist, or that competitors may be causing as much trouble for Bangmedia as possible, the opinions of a few forum lads would not constitute evidence I'm afraid. No court will allow unsubstantiated rumour, hearsay or opinion to influence any decision they are called upon to make.

You would need to show that those making the complaints are employees of other competitors, or sympathetic to other competitors, or in the employ of Ofcom. However, even if you could do that, the fact is that Bangmedia would ultimately remain in breach of Ofcom's code - irrespective of who blew the whistle. Whether we believe their legislation to be right or not, it is the law and to break it invites punishment of some description.

Therefore the real issue here is not bias or competition, but the method by which Ofcom dictate to adults what they can or cannot watch. As has been mentioned previously, scenes of nudity, simulated sex and acts of extreme violence are shown on terrestrial television on a fairly regular basis. No doubt complaints are made about them too I imagine, but I wonder how many, by whom and what the resultant action was against the broadcaster? Argueably, it is more harmful to the human psyche to show scenes of extreme violence and carnage, than it is to show two people having a good old shag.

Ofcom have to stop short of an outright ban on everything, as I am sure that the makers of adult entertainment would have legal grounds to contest such an act. In fact, it's entirely possible that a case could be made to the European Courts if such a decision were taken, given the impact such a ruling could have. These are after all, legitmate, regulated businesses who pay taxes, provide income for families and employment for thousands of men and women.

So why does Ofcom seem to spend a great deal of time and effort on the babe channels? I think the answer is really quite simple - Ofcom simply do not like anyone making money out of selling sex, so controls are imposed to satisfy their right-wing, outdated, so-called 'values'. Equally, why kill the cow when you can continue to milk it for as long as you want? Those people and companies who have made money from adult films, DVD's, magazines, etc, have been persecuted for decades in the UK and been subject to massive fines for their trouble. The giant cash cow that is the adult entertainment industry is something from which Ofcom can tear lumps every so often to exercise their control and make money. I don't necessarily mean THEY make money themselves, but for the government they represent and are empowered by. Ofcom is a business like any other, with overheads to pay and a minimum performance level to maintain which they appear to do quite well.

Ofcom will be more than happy to maintain their status quo, assuring that their respectable values are upheld and that whenever they need to fill the piggy bank, there will always be somebody to fine. I honestly do not see things changing for many, many years, if at all, unless Ofcom are shut down and replaced with a more level-headed broadcasting overseer.

The principles which you have stated here represent our own views of the institutional situation very well.

We would add that in the [il]logic of broadcasting regulation, gratuitous violence and nudity in 'mainstream' programming have the defence of 'context', which adult broadcasters do not.

On a point which regularly re-occurs in other posts here and in other threads:
The High Court case which led to the 'legalisation' of R18 ocurred under domestic law regulating the sale of films and games. Any challenge to Ofcom's Broadcasting Code would have to be brought under European Law, because broadcasting is within the EU sphere of competence and DVD sales are not. There is no fundamental freedom in European law to watch or broadcast nudity or porn. The US Constitution which guarantees the right of free expression, with no 'prior restraint' is completely different. Accordingly, there is no such legal right which could be asserted against the present law.

You can watch up to 18 rated under encryption and you can watch R18 on the web. That is the UK law. There is plainly no logic to it. But equally, there are discordancies in every country's law concerning the promulgation of adult material.

(26-05-2010 01:22 )BigBen Wrote:  Id agree with that actually his posts are very pro Ofcom wouldnt surprise me if it was a Ofcom mole, on here trying to find evidence of the channels breaching guidelines.

I doubt an Ofcom mole would have been sending PM's over the last year to forum members stating that nudity and hardcore should not be allowed on TV.

(26-05-2010 01:30 )vostok 1 Wrote:  

(26-05-2010 01:22 )BigBen Wrote:  Id agree with that actually his posts are very pro Ofcom wouldnt surprise me if it was a Ofcom mole, on here trying to find evidence of the channels breaching guidelines.

I doubt an Ofcom mole would have been sending PM's over the last year to forum members stating that nudity and hardcore should not be allowed on TV.

yes you are right vostok 1 my pm was regarding hardcore porn mags in newsagents ,so separate to ofcom,they must have there reasons for the pm,s.
and we are probably just 2 of many they have done this to.

the problem with there pm to me is that they try to make there comments has though they are fact but in actual fact rubbish.
and from what i have read of them and seen on the pm they don,t seem to read most of the posts and think everybody goes out in there spare time to drowned some puppy,s on this forum.
never mind.

The point regarding magazines was there was expert research by a philosopher 30 years ago that said regulation of still images and moving
images should be different. However that was probably done in an era when alcohol was only sold in off licences? You said 'hardcore mags' could be sold but the 'same stuff' not on television. They are different and not the same.

If it was the 'same stuff' the DVD included would be hardcore wouldn't it? It just gets me that 'local shops' can sell all sorts of dangerous things but not a small disc featuring moving images... because a few people might be offended by some moving images they haven't seen.

There certainly are a small number of countries that don't allow newsagents to sell porn magazines! They are only sold in sex shops. Is that more logical?