The previous government gave Ofcom carte blanche to decide what viewers would be allowed to see on TV knowing full well it would be unduly influenced by the Church and Mediawatch. Even the argument for additional PIN protection was undermined by a Ofcom commissioned survey suggesting minors knew their parents Sky PIN but who may have exaggerated the truth. This is 2010 , other countries around Europe allow their adult subjects to make a considered choice and freedom to watch stronger adult material. Ofcom and its current broadcasting code are part of the nanny state which needs to be sorted out.

Strange how we get so overexcited about displying sex, when we are so careless about showing violence - there is good evidence to show that a diet of graphic violence rubs off. How about targeting things that clearly make people more aggressive?

We should have the same standards as the Europeans have.

R18 standard material should be allowed on PIN protected subscription channels which have to be specifically ordered from the broadcaster.

There's no evidence of any harm from Europe in those countries which do allow it, and that includes Spain, Sweden, Denmark, France, Belgium, Holland and many others.

Such material has been allowed on subscription TV in these countries for well over TWENTY years. If the harm was real, they'd know it by now. Such evidence should be the only reason to impose restrictions here, otherwise adults should be allowed to watch whatever they wish, with PIN etc protecting children After all we ARE supposed to be free people aren't we ?

Jezzapezza, you say 'there is good evidence to show that a diet of graphic violence rubs off'. Actually, when you look at the 'evidence' there is simply no causal link between a person's exposure to violent media, of any form, and their actual propensity to behave violently in real life. Might I recommend a psychology degree?

The Art / Education thing is often a flimsy pretect for nudity.

When Janet Suzman went topless for a Shakespear scene what 90% of the audience saw was sex, not Art. When Facejacker had a naked life model most of the audience were looking out for sexual stimulation rather than paying attention to the finely observed impression of an art critic, but hey, the full frontal nudity was justified by context. Or the Naked Vet comedy scenes the Armstrong and Miller filmed.

And Channel4's lunchtime daytime series on nude modelling?

The Art/Enjoyment distinction is a middle-class conceit and makes Ofcom look stupid. Allow nudity regardless of context.

Would like to add to this with some new info.

Ofcom had a budget of £142m for the tear end of March 2011.

It has 873 staff.

Its results were:

Programme standards

Of the 10,679 closed cases (28,072 complaints) relating to programme standards:

152 cases were found to be in breach either of the Broadcasting Code, other Ofcom codes or of licence conditions. Of these, six cases were subject to statutory sanctions (involving six separate broadcasters)
13 cases were resolved
10,514 cases were not in breach or out of remit.

SO. It's cost us £142m to find 152 cases that were in breach of the code they set, and only six were a breach to a statutory standard.

Not good value for money!

You need to remember that ofcom does do other things than TV censorship. Regulating BT and other ISPs for example.

TV censorship however should not be part of what they do.

There are enough channels now to make viewer choice a reality.

I do not believe Ofcom have followed the intent or letter of the law. To allow some perceived 'offence' from a handful of hypersensitive prudes to destroy adult entertainment TV is not right according to basic Human Rights and the principles of Free Speech the British people have enjoyed since the Bill of Rights 1688.

The Comms Act 2003 clause 319(2)(f) requires Ofcom to draw up a Code such "that generally accepted standards are applied to the contents of TV and radio services to provide adequate protection to memebrs of the public from the inclusion in such services of offensive and harmful material".

Offensive and harmful material is not that which might cause offence to a handful of religious creeps. Ofcom received over 30,000 complaints re the broadcasting of Jerry Springer: The Opera and took no action whatsoever. Yet Ofcom receive ONE or TWO complaints from supposed viewers (often rival channels) about "anal or labial detail" (read fleeting glimpse) on a sex chat channel and start demanding midnight start times and mandatory PIN protection.

Clearly, the intent of the law was to prevent religious, racist and sexist propaganda causing widespread offence amongst reasonable and rational viewers. It was not intended to allow some fraction of bigots and hypersensitive 'nannies' to start dictating minority standards to the UK populace.

Ofcom are clearly operating a biased and discriminatory system. Adults that enjoy sexual entertainment are being treated like third-rate citizens, indeed, adults are only permitted to watch 'adult' enetertainment Ofcom deem fit for the under eighteens to watch because mandatory PIN is useless at protecting them...according to Ofcom's so-called 'research'.

Ofcom cannot even be trusted to hand-down accurate and absolute 'guidance' to programme makers. In Bull. 151 Ofcom claimed that "just because we said that activity could not appear before 10pm doesn't necessarily mean it can appear after 10pm". No it doesn't but, when I see a sign that says "No parking before 9am" I, like every other sane and rational English speaking person in the is land, don't assume it means "No parking at anytime".

Ofcom now claim flesh coloured undies are the same as being nude and as some dingbat is offended by such implied nudity then even these are now banned from TV.

Ofcom are off the rails. They are acting without any proper legal oversight or restraint. They have utterly destroyed the little sexual freedom we had in 2004/5 and have certainly not progressed adult TV services or the choice of adult TV services as their remit clearly demands of them. Ofcom simply pamper to the whims of the lowest forms of anti-porn fascist bigots in the UK - and that's exactly what the Human Rights Act is supposed to prevent.

When we have a culture of overzealous campaigners intentionally watching adult channels looking out for offense, I fail to see how the ofcom model is suitable to regulate TV broadcast. An encripted x-rated channel is only ever likely to be accessed by a person who is intending to view such material, not by accident. Mediawatch's tactics of "scanning" adult based channels for material they find offensive is purely an attempt to become the regulator themselves and impose their own moral code on the populace.

Thank you for taking the time to post your idea.
 
Please note, this website is about repealing or amending existing laws in order to restore civil liberties and cut business and third sector regulation. We believe that the idea that you have submitted falls outside our present remit, because:

Your idea is not clearly presented and is difficult to understand; please try rewriting it and submitting it as a new idea so that it can be remoderated

For that reason, we have closed this idea for further contributions. We hope there will be a suitable opportunity in the future for your contribution.