RE: Ofcom Broadcast Code Consultation
Cobblers, your details are correct, but they don't invalidate what I'm saying. If anything they strengthen the point. The VAC was a committee of laymen/women rather than BBFC staffers, and when they gave the "wrong" result the BBFC took their own standards board to court ! OK, the BBFC brought the court action, not the other way round, but point is the courts were asked to rule on a decision made by a statutory body exercising it's lawful authority.
Home Secretary Jack Straw was strongly opposed to the VRA decision, but the court upheld it.
It's a pretty regular event for the Home Office to be taken to Judicial Review over matters it considers really important - deportation, terrorist home detention orders - and loose. The courts aren't worried about popularity, they apply the law as they see it.
Councils up and down the land are passing planning applications that they dislike, because their officials tell them that if they refuse it will go to appeal, and they will be personally surcharged the cost of the appeal. Present Ofcom with a clear well argued legal case. If it's a strong enough case Ofcom solicitors may throw in the towel. If not, go to Judicial Review and let the court decide. There's nothing to loose. If a babe channel looses the case it can save money by no longer employing expensive lawyers to argue with Ofcom.
Here's what a Judicial Review can consider:
Does the organisation have the legal authority to do what it did ?
Is it breaking any laws ?
But it doesn't stop there. Oh no. The law must also be applied in a "rational" way. That means what an ordinary, impartial, rational (sane) person would do.
That rules out any hint of bias, favouritism or victimisation. Why are there one set of rules for Movies24 and Film4, and tighter rules for babe channels ?
Have the public surveys been interpreted in a wierd way ?
Have biassed surveys been commissioned ?
Is it rational to say that someone tuning into an adult channel at 1am, even by accident, might be shocked by adult content ?
Is it rational to take seriously complaints from people who go out of their way to find obscure late night channels ?
Is it consistent to say that daytime shows with large audiences can be let off foul language because "audience surveys show that few children will be watching" (I'm thinking about live music festival interviews), but take into account a theoretical risk of children watching adult TV at 3am?
The latest Ofcom public attitudes survey clearly states that the public have greater tolerance of late night adult channels. They understand that a show in the adult section called "Late Night Dildo Action" on the FuckBabesXXX channel might be a bit naugty. But they don't expect a comparative study of didlos on the Alan Titchmarsh Show at lunchtime. (One of these shows is made up. Guess which).
The court might also ask why one set of standards is applied to the risk of harm from sex, but not to violent easily copied films like SAW, Audition, etc. Or the drinking culture in Eastenders. Or the apparent promotion of drug use as a good thing in Crank. (Don't tell Jason Statham I said that. I like his films and would hate to have to take him out if he came after me.)
Also - final point then I'll shut up - is it Rational or Fair that non-adult channels with large audiences are let off repeated violations, when small niche adult channels which have 3 slipups a year are threatened with fines or closure ?
Sky blatantly advertised Specsavers on an electronic scoreboard, which must have been worth tens of thousands of £s in hard cash, but was let off with a warning. Virgin advertised it's Virgin+ HDD boxes during StarTrek trailers, again worth £000 in sales or advertising, and got off with a "nice try don't do it again" warning. Bangbabes slips up 3 times in a year and gets threats.
Rational ? No.
Fair ? No, there are dual standards.
Unbiassed ? No, Ofcom have made up their minds before any offence has even been committed.
AND - this really is the last point - it is rational to take account of the adverse effects of NOT permitting adult content. Will this encourage unregulated foreign TV, where content banned in the UK is legal and widely available. F**ting. P***ing. Donkeys and dogs on Spanish clips. What is the age of consent in foreign porn ? Do Ofcom really want people accessing that kind of content because they find UK content too tame ? And what about male depression and marital breakup in families where the woman is unwell, menopausal or just plain not interested, and the man doesn't want to shag around and doesn't have access to a sex shop. Ofcom rules mean more unregulated Euro porn and more marital breakdown. Is that rational ?
(This post was last modified: 29-10-2009 01:37 by DanVox.)
|