'Tamestation'

(12-10-2009 23:25 )oxygenIT Wrote:  I guess the only people that can clarify that are Ofcom themselves or one of the producers from the channels.

Ofcom have said repeatedly that sexually explicit language is classed as adult sex material. Read all the quotes from them I have posted above and then read their broadcasting code, in particular Rule 1.24.

* Rule 1.24 - ‘adult-sex’ material may be broadcast only on premium subscription services and pay-per view/night services that have mandatory protection systems in place between 22:00 and 05:30 .

Now has Ofcom's position become clear to you or do you still need to have some further clarification? As for the producers of the channels, I assure you that they are well aware that they cannot broadcast sexually explicit language.

(13-10-2009 07:42 )admin Wrote:  'The channel emphasised that it took compliance with the Code extremely seriously and had make significant changes to the format of its programme. Its current output did not show masturbation at all, and the broadcaster had issued a directive to all presenters not to use crass language.'

I hope the point is now made

Yes, the point is made. The channels have anyway been careful in the last 3 years or so not to use sexually explicit language on air, so I think most of us realised that this is what Ofcom have instructed them to do.

(13-10-2009 07:53 )admin Wrote:  ~~~
~~~~
* Rule 1.24 - ‘adult-sex’ material may be broadcast only on premium subscription services and pay-per view/night services that have mandatory protection systems in place between 22:00 and 05:30 .
~~~~
~~~~

I would have thought that the Sexcetera program, on most nights at 11pm on Virgin1 freeview channel 20 was ‘adult-sex’ material.

(13-10-2009 10:10 )TheWatcher Wrote:  I would have thought that the Sexcetera program, on most nights at 11pm on Virgin1 freeview channel 20 was ‘adult-sex’ material.

I saw it once but can't remember much about it. Is the programme intended to sexually arouse? (If so, it failed in my case).

(13-10-2009 10:33 )aldershot1993 Wrote:  I saw it once but can't remember much about it. Is the programme intended to sexually arouse? (If so, it failed in my case).

You are right I think in that "intended to sexually arouse" is the test on whether something is adult sex material.

(13-10-2009 11:09 )admiral decker Wrote:  

(13-10-2009 10:33 )aldershot1993 Wrote:  I saw it once but can't remember much about it. Is the programme intended to sexually arouse? (If so, it failed in my case).

You are right I think in that "intended to sexually arouse" is the test on whether something is adult sex material.

Actually admiral, something that is 'intended to sexually arouse' is the 'de facto' definition of pornography or 'sex works'. The Lover's Guide, Sexcetera and so forth are certainly adult sex material but are clearly not 'intended to sexually arouse', indeed, they are informational/educational and thus are not 'sex works' or pornography as such (no matter how explicit the content or language).

The real question is whether BCAP, ASA and dear Ofcom can really prove that the perceived danger to children from 'adult sex material' is real or not.

As I said on another thread, the BBFC were unable to convince the High Court that a continued ban on real sex at R18 (i.e. pornographic sex works) was justified by the unproven moral or psychological harm to children. This was despite the BBFC providing evidence from over 30 child wellfare experts from around the world - there's was concern of course but, cruicially, none of these experts could provide real evidence of harm to 'vulnerable children' from exposure to hardcore porn.

Logic dictates evolution/natural selection could not produce a creature that could or would be harmed by a full working knowledge of its own means of sexual reproduction - no matter what its age. All that Ofcom et al. are 'protecting' is the 'British' (i.e. Christian) belief that porn is bad for...everyone (esp. children). There is NO evidence to back this belief up, it is religiously inspired nonsense. As such, and without any hard evidence to back it up, this religious/cultural belief cannot be used to restrict the rights of non-believers - without proof of harm, Ofcom's 'precautionary approach' is simply a form of fascist oppression.

The High Court didn't allow the BBFC to get away with this unlawful oppression, indeed, when the "any harm which may be caused" clause in the VRA 1984 was not proven, the High Court declared harcore at R18 safe for viewing in the home (on video/DVD and TV!!) because children could not be "serioulsy impaired morally or psychologically" or otherwise harmed by seeing it.

The decision that hardcore sex at R18 is safe for children to view (accidentally) was made in 2000 by the High Court. That decision it is part and parcel of the UK Constitution (it is Common Law and as such affects the interpretation of Statute Law) but, Ofcom et al. have just ignored it and, willing chosen to ban R18 (the legal and generally accepted standard for 'sex works') from TV without any proven reason to do so - they are acting as far outside the law as were the BBFC prior to that ruling and, as such, are acting unlawfully - i.e. ILLEGALLY.

In short, unless Ofcom can provide real evidence of harm to the under 18s from explicit sexual content, they cannot claim to be protecting the under 18s from this harm by imposing a rights-abusing 'R18-type material' ban on all TV-viewing adults and broadcasters. A 'precautionary approach' is what the BBFC were doing - and they were found to be breaking the law!

’admin’ pid=’247066’ dateline=’1255419724’ Wrote:

’vostok 1’ pid=’246921’ dateline=’1255392582’ Wrote:OxygenIT was talking about content broadcast after 10pm. The sanction you quoted concerning Babe World dealt with issues broadcast at 21.15hrs and prior to 9pm.

If there would have been a sanction if the “offending material” was broadcast after 22.00 hrs when Babe World is listed as “18” certificate material on the Sky EPG remains to be seen.

No, it doesn’t remain to be seen. There would still have been a sanction because, for the third time, that kind of language cannot be used on a babe channel - at any time.

Quote from Ofcom:

‘Rule 1.24 of the Code restricts the broadcast of ‘adult-sex’ material to premium subscription services and pay-per view/night services between 22:00 and 05:30 – provided there is a mandatory PIN protection system, or equivalent protections, to restrict access to those authorised to view. A letter sent by Ofcom in September 2006 to broadcasters in the sector made clear that “Under the Code it is prohibited to broadcast content where the visuals or the audio or the overall tone is tantamount to adult sex material and we will intervene if we see such programming. This includes explicit sexual language”.

Here is Ofcom’s judgement in a case stated by them to relate to the date and time of ‘7/8 May 2007, 00:00-01:00’ (therefore after 22:00).

‘We consider that the actions of the presenters (e.g. masturbation) and the explicit sexual language used demonstrated quite clearly that one of the main aims of the programme was to arouse viewers sexually: there was no other significant editorial context for the explicit images and language. Such explicit material is suitable for broadcast only on subscription/pay per view channels that have appropriate protection mechanisms in place.’

Further:

‘The channel emphasised that it took compliance with the Code extremely seriously and had make significant changes to the format of its programme. Its current output did not show masturbation at all, and the broadcaster had issued a directive to all presenters not to use crass language.’

I hope the point is now made and Ofcom’s position is perfectly clear to everyone. The channels certainly understand that they cannot broadcast the kind of language suggested by oxygenIT at any time.

Admin, I am simply trying to illustrate the inconsistencies, illegality and contradictions of the Ofcom code. I am not disputing the existence of Rule 1.24 of the Code, I am trying to show that it is in no way definitive.

The Ofcom Code has never been laid before Parliament and therefore is not law and can only be used as a guide and should comply to current legislation, specifically the EU Television Without Frontiers directive (TVWF) as recognised by the Department of Culture Media and Sport as well as the European Court of Human Rights.

The Ofcom Broadcasting Code simply a set of guidelines to current broadcasting law and nothing more as it is not on the Statute Books and has not been laid before Parliament.

Even so, Appendix 2, Article 22 of The Ofcom Broadcast code incorporates the following Television Without Frontiers Directive:

Article 22 of TVWF:

1. Member States shall take appropriate measures to ensure that television broadcasts by broadcasters under their jurisdiction do not include any programmes which might seriously impair the physical, mental or moral development of minors, in particular programmes that involve pornography or gratuitous violence.

2. The measures provided for in paragraph 1 shall also extend to other programmes which are likely to impair the physical, mental or moral development of minors, except where it is ensured, by selecting the time of the broadcast (post watershed adult sexual content, as is the case) by any technical measure (the ability for parents to remove all 900 channels from the Sky Digital EPG and the ability to delete seleted channels from freeview, as the case is) that minors in the area of transmission will not normally hear or see such broadcasts.

3. Furthermore, when such programmes are broadcast in unencoded/Un-encrypted form Member States shall ensure that they are preceded by an acoustic warning or are identified by the presence of a visual symbol throughout their duration.


If Broadcasters follow the rules under the “EU Television Without Frontiers directives they comply with the law. The Law (as recognised by the DCMS and the ECHR supersedes Ofcom “Guidance”. And Ofcom’s very own Broadcast code incorporates the above TVWF Directive. So no justified and legal reasons for Broadcasters to be fined for showing “Adult Sex Material”.

The Department of Culture Media and Sport states that “In order to encourage free movement of broadcasts, all broadcasting must comply with the European Directive: “Television Without Frontiers” or TVWF.


So, the way I see it by explicit instruction from the Department of Culture Media and Sport, the above, from the TVWF Directive, must comply with the Ofcom Broadcast Code and current Broadcast Law.

It follows then that Ofcom cannot have applied the TVWF rules correctly. This quite obviously goes against the stated objectives of TVWF to create a single market and, affects those `fundamental public interests` such as Freedom of Expression with regard to TV broadcasting.

So if Broadcasters were to show a warning message (as has already been done with the PTBA advert), and show a small “18” certificate after 10pm then the broadcast would be compatible with TVWF Directives as recognised by The Department of Culture Media and Sport.

You quoted Rule 1.24 of the Ofcom Broadcast code:

"1.24 Premium subscription services and pay per view/night services may broadcast ‘adult–sex’ material between 2200 and 0530 provided that in addition to other protections mentioned above:
there is a mandatory PIN protected encryption system, or other equivalent protection, that seeks satisfactorily to restrict access solely to those authorised to view;
and there are measures in place that ensure that the subscriber is an adult."

Although frequently cited in complaints and sanctions cases, the wording does not actually restrict or ban anything, on any channel, at any time.
The section that says: or other equivalent protection is covered by section 22, part 3 of the TVWF directive; (3. Furthermore, when such programmes are broadcast in unencoded/Un-encrypted form Member States shall ensure that they are preceded by an acoustic warning or are identified by the presence of a visual symbol throughout their duration.) which is incorporated into the Ofcom Broadcast Code.


Ofcom’s stance on sexual language comes from focus group research conducted in 2005. The result was:
“Language and Sexual Imagery in Broadcasting: A Contextual Investigation” (http://www.ofcom.org.uk/research/radio/r...nguage.pdf)

The report states in the foreword “results cannot be extrapolated to represent the views of the wider population”
Ofcom does have any other research to base it’s Broadcast Code and Legal judgements on.

The Methodology section states on page 11 that “Participants were recruited to reflect the core range of sub-group variables, including life stage, age and ethnicity.”

The researchers clearly state that “the sample included a large proportion of British Asian women” (page 27).

173 people took part in the main survey. The researchers say that 73 were male and 85 female, a total of 158. 42% were male, 56% female, 2% unknown gender. Which gives 4 women for every 3 men, a statistical bias towards women.

Office of National Statistics (ONS) population estimates for 2005 (http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/t...VS2005.pdf) put the 15+ male-female ratio at 48.5% to 51.5%, nearly 1:1.
Clearly the Ofcom sample will bias the results against male orientated programming.

Appendix II gives the ethnic breakdown of the study group as 49% White, 14% Afro-Caribbean and 21% British Asian.
ONS statistics for the same period: (http://www.statistics.gov.uk/StatBase/Pr...vlnk=14238) state that the UK was 89% White, 5% Asian and just 1.2% Caribbean.
In other words the Ofcom researchers had a survey group which over-represented Asians by a factor of 5 and Afro-Caribbeans a massive 25 times.
These are two groups known for strong religious beliefs. It can hardly have been a surprise when they told the researchers what Ofcom may have wanted to hear – sexually explicit programmes and strong language should be banned.

Ofcom appear to be basing judgements resulting in fines on flawed research.

Highlights of the research:











Now, if the Broadcasters and viewers of the Babe Shows are content with the above research as being a definitive representation of public opinion, then there is not a great deal more to be said on the matter.

(13-10-2009 07:53 )admin Wrote:  Ofcom have said repeatedly that sexually explicit language is classed as adult sex material. Read all the quotes from them I have posted above and then read their broadcasting code, in particular Rule 1.24.

* Rule 1.24 - ‘adult-sex’ material may be broadcast only on premium subscription services and pay-per view/night services that have mandatory protection systems in place between 22:00 and 05:30.

So why are all the major tv channels not the subject of daily sanctions/fines by Ofcom? If words such as those quoted in the examples above are sexually explicit language then I hear sexually explicit language on mainstream tv every night. As this is classed as ‘adult sex material' and is not encrypted, then Rule 1.24 is being contravened repeatedly in almost every area of tv broadcasting, including feature films, tv drama, documentaries, sitcoms, stand-up comedy and satirical panel shows like Have I Got News for You, QI, Never Mind the Buzzcocks etc, in fact, just about everywhere except children’s shows.

(13-10-2009 17:24 )vila Wrote:  So why are all the major tv channels not the subject of daily sanctions/fines by Ofcom? If words such as those quoted in the examples above are sexually explicit language then I hear sexually explicit language on mainstream tv every night. As this is classed as ‘adult sex material' and is not encrypted, then Rule 1.24 is being contravened repeatedly in almost every area of tv broadcasting, including feature films, tv drama, documentaries, sitcoms, stand-up comedy and satirical panel shows like Have I Got News for You, QI, Never Mind the Buzzcocks etc, in fact, just about everywhere except children’s shows.

Do people on 'Have I Got News For You' really say things like 'spunk on my tits you f****** c***'? If so, that programme must have been spiced up a lot since I last watched it.

(13-10-2009 17:54 )elgar1uk Wrote:  Do people on 'Have I Got News For You' really say things like 'spunk on my tits you f****** c***'? If so, that programme must have been spiced up a lot since I last watched it.

I don't think viewers get off to those shows, either, although if these channels have taught me anything it's that there's no accounting for taste

I wonder what would happen if channels were allowed to use proper explicit language on-mic? It'd be less restrictive for the girls, for sure, but there's surely something to be said for keeping it clean(ish) on the mic, and saving the stronger stuff for the phones; first-time viewers might call in out of curiosity, for example. Are people more or less likely to ring in if they can 'get it for free' when viewing, I wonder?

Also, given the amount of discussion here, I wonder how clear the channels are themselves on what exactly is allowed at any point in time. Frequently, it seems like the channels only discover what's allowed under these regulations by pushing against the boundaries themselves...