Ofcom expose blog

There is already OfcomWatch, plus more relevantly there is Melonfarmers too.

I believe Melonfarmers already have the subject of sexual censorship in this country fully covered.

(18-01-2010 11:27 )elgar1uk Wrote:  There is already OfcomWatch, plus more relevantly there is Melonfarmers too.

I believe Melonfarmers already have the subject of sexual censorship in this country fully covered.

I've been a regular contributor to Melonfarmers for over a decade. Commentry on censorship in Britain is one thing however, it is a vast and diverse subject thanks to the small-minded moralising twats we have running this country. Although Dave T. has created dedicated news pages for the likes of the BBFC and Ofcom at MF, the forum is a general chat area covering any news items, law, consultations, censorial decisions etc. that people want to share their views about.

I believe Stan wants to set-up something specifically concentrating on Ofcom, their Code and their despotic rulings.

It cannot be right in a supposedly progressive liberal democratic nation for an unelected body to act as legislature, judge and jury. This is however the power seemingly bestowed upon Ofcom by this sorry excuse for a Government.

Ofcom are a behemoth outfit responsible for all things relating to communication. They are typical of the small-minded control-freak Big Government fascsim New Labour believe is right for this country. Freedom of Expression is supposed to be at the top of Ofcom's considerations when exercising their near limitless powers yet, we see precious little evidence they ever give it a second thought. As far as Ofcom are concerned, their Code is sacrosanct and woe betide anyone who dares to step over their arbitrary lines in the sand.

I don't know what OfcomWatch actually do. They were only just starting up when the Ofwatch campaing to get R18 on adult subscription channels was being given the two-finger saulte by 'Lord' Carter and his arse-licking brethern on the Ofcom Board. From what I've seen, OfcomWatch are more interested in the business and technical aspects of general communications regulation. They're not concerned about censorship - at least its not obvious in anything they report about.

The original Ofwatch R18 campaign bit the dust shortly after the new Code was published. We lost. We lost because Ofcom paid no heed to rational argument, to evidence, to the consultation results or, indeed, the legal rulings made by the High Court and the ECHR (as they are required to do by law).

The facts are quite simple, indeed, the Ofcom-commissioned LSE report on the body of research concerning the "harm of porn to children" concluded that there was no evidence to suggest pornography was a danger to persons under 18. If this material were a danger to children then the evidence would by now be overwhelming - so WHERE IS IT? Such is the lack of evidence to support Ofcom's wish to ban R18 from TV that they had to resort to a 'precautionary approach' to try and justify their abuse of our fundamental Human Rights. Oddly enough, this same evidence-less 'precautionary approach' had been imposed by the BBFC and, in 2000, declared unlawful by the High Court. You see, the BBFC presented expert testimony from over 30 child-wellfare experts from all around the world and, after reviewing the evidence, the High Court declared that the possible harm to children from seeing hardcore porn was so slight that it could not justify a ban on adults taking the material into their home on tape or DVD to watch on their TVs. Hardcore R18 material does not pose a significant risk to any children under 18 that might see it - that's the law of this land. If R18 were a danger to kids then the High Court would have allowed the BBFC to continue to censor it, simple as that.

The so-called 'status quo' ban on R18 that was introduced by the ITC following that High Court ruling was itself ILLEGAL. In 1990 the ECHR stated; "It is undisputed that a broadcast licensing system cannot be used to restrict any legally available material" (Groppera AG v Switzerland, 1990). While hardcore was supposedly 'illegal' at R18, the ITC were able to impose a "no real sex" ban - this was challenged at the time but the ECHR found in favour of the Government and ITC on the grounds of "national appreciation" (see the TVWF Directive). It might interest folks to know that throughout the 1990s, ALL material on UK adult channels was indeed R18-rated because it contained "no real sex" thanks to the BBFC's illegal censorship. However, once that "national appreciation" and illegal censorship had been overturned by the High Court, the ITC took it upon themsleves to replace the "no real sex" clause with the "no R18" clause. So, we now had the very peculiar situation where its fine for a general entertainment channel to show real sex in films like Romance, Baise Moi and 9 Songs but, its 'illegal' for a dedicated subscription-only adult channel to show proper R18 movies where people EXPECT to see adult material.

Clearly, the powers that be are a bunch of loony cretins if they believe the current situation is at all rational - it wouldn't stand up to legal scrutiniy, would it! Unfortunately for UK citizens, NONE of the adult service providers are willing to take Ofcom to court over their illegal Code (and why would they while some folks are happy to pay for softcore tripe? (I'm NOT BTW!!)). If we want things to change then I'm afraid it thus falls to us, the unhappy viewers, to try and organize enough support (i.e. ca$h) to take Ofcom to court or, force them to change their crappy Code by popular demand (the cheap and democratic way). Either way we need to get organized and a dedicated blog seems like a good place to start...

And of course, if explicit hardcore pussy pounding, cock sucking, arse gaping cum soaked sex on encrypted channels isn't a danger to kids then, naked pole dancing babes flashing the gash and pussy rubbing on FTA channels isn't either - for anyone that remembers the good old days only 5 years ago.

This is rediculous, if they aren't allowing it cos it's supposedly 'harmful' to children then they're living on a different planet. The Netherlands has the lowest teen pregnancy rate in Western Europe and they bloomin show nudity in tv ads during the day, not to mention all the stuff that's on display in corner shops.

It's all down to good parenting, or a lack of it. Children these days aren't taught to have self respect and people who don't like themselves don't care what they do to themselves and others.

I think something that has much more af an adverse affect on kids is the music they listen to. I was in the car the other day at around 4pm and a Rihanna song came on and the lyrics were like, 'boy are you big enough to handle me', ' I like it when you touch me there', 'let's do it all night' Because there were no swear words they can get away with playing it.

The person above me mentioned the stuff that's allowed to been shown on encrypted channels, well to be honest they don't show an awful lot on those either.

(19-01-2010 03:09 )IanG Wrote:  The original Ofwatch R18 campaign bit the dust shortly after the new Code was published. We lost. We lost because ...

We lost.

We lost because pro-censorship responses to the consultation outnumbered pro-liberalisation replies 100:1.

We lost because any politician who supports liberalisation will be branded a perv and hounded out of office.

We lost because the broadcasters can't be arsed to take Ofcom to the High Court. And why should they when they get exactly the same amount of money from hardcore websites?

The 4 Sky PPV adult film channels closed a few weeks ago.
Sky channel 945 SportxxxGirls closes Sunday night.
The broadcasters have given up.

DanVox, the final 'score' for and against R18 on adult channels was in fact 50:50 (despite a flood of letters (i.e. not properly completed consultaion responses) from the ultra-conservative Christian blue rinse mob at MediaMarch and MediaWatchUK). These 'letters' (actually postcards!) all tended to follow a standard pattern of: "I'm a grandparent and porn on TV would be bad for my grandchildren" - no explanation as to how or why, no evidence to back-up their claims, just a statement of unfounded opinion. What they seemed to imply was that they didn't trust their own adult children to properly monitor their grandkids' viewing habits.

Up until this organised postal barage, the response statistics were 75% in favour of R18 on subscription channels - which matched exactly the same proportion of the general public that thought hardcore should be available on TV in every ITC/BSC "The Public's View" survey from 1996 through to 2002!!

It is quite clear that the vast majority of people in Britain DO want hardcore on TV but the fascist pigs at Ofcom (aided by this Government) are determined to do everything they can to deny the public what we want (and our Right to Freedom of Expression).

It is no surprise to me that the adult-oriented service providers are dropping like flies - that was Ofcom's desired intention (I predicted this very outcome back in 2005). There is so much free porn on the internet that no channel delivering softcore could survive for very long. In fact, most of the smart one's set up hardcore websites the day Ofcom published their Code. And if you want hardcore on TV then there are far better providers on the continent that are a damn sight cheaper than $ky and, almost one in the eye for Ofcom, deliver the real thing without bloody PIN codes virtually 24/7! I've no doubt the sex shops will all bite the dust in the long run too - unless they adjust their pricing - because most people buy porn over the web these days at a fraction of the price these poor buggers have to charge to cover their extortionate sex shop license fees.

Take half a step back and you'll see its been a complete stitch-up by the right-wing religious infiltraitors we have fucking up this cuntry.

(20-01-2010 00:34 )DanVox Wrote:  

(19-01-2010 03:09 )IanG Wrote:  The original Ofwatch R18 campaign bit the dust shortly after the new Code was published. We lost. We lost because ...

We lost because the broadcasters can't be arsed to take Ofcom to the High Court. And why should they when they get exactly the same amount of money from hardcore websites?

The 4 Sky PPV adult film channels closed a few weeks ago.
Sky channel 945 SportxxxGirls closes Sunday night.
The broadcasters have given up.

If those who run the UK adult industry aren't prepared to take action, then most people on the outside will generally be wasting their time. Channel owners/producers have to be on board with any action taken...

(20-01-2010 21:10 )Winston Wolfe Wrote:  If those who run the UK adult industry aren't prepared to take action, then most people on the outside will generally be wasting their time. Channel owners/producers have to be on board with any action taken...

Indeed! The real question is why aren't they on board?

Could it be UK revenues are so insignificant in the face of the global markets that we don't matter? The UK is after all only 1% of the world's population. Compared to the US and EU porn markets we hardly matter at all - especially as the Government has placed as many hurdles on the UK porn market as is reasonably possible in a modern secular society - e.g. no advertising, no mail order, no porn on TV - you name it, if it concerns the sale of porn then its pretty much banned in Britain.

Needless to say, any potential market that did exist in the UK has long since found alternative sources and means of fulfilling its needs. The opportunity has passed, and the industry only has itself to blame, if indeed, they blame themselves at all. After all, they have the best of all worlds. They can peddle softcore versions of their products to UK TV subscribers who know no better and, still ca$h-in on the sex shop and web-based hardcore market. Indeed, the industry has got two markets at almost no extra cost to them or the existing infrastructure.

The fact remains however that UK TV regulation does nothing to protect children or respect the rights of adult viewers.

"First they came for the perverts"...and the porn producers backed them all the way to the bank.

(20-01-2010 21:10 )Winston Wolfe Wrote:  If those who run the UK adult industry aren't prepared to take action, then most people on the outside will generally be wasting their time. Channel owners/producers have to be on board with any action taken...

My point exactly.

Sorry IanG, but I can't agree that "the final 'score' for and against R18 on adult channels was in fact 50:50", at least not in the 2009 consultation. Actually I was writing about free to air Babe channels, not encrypted ones, but the same point applies to both free and encrypted.

And guys, it's no use saying or thinking "Up until this organised postal barage, the response statistics were 75% in favour" because we all know the games not over until the whistle blows (or Yazmin does).

It's all a bit pointless unless someone with serious money to see a case through the Appeal and High Courts funds a legal challenge. The final version of the Broadcast Code was almost identical to the draft published for "consultation" despite good technical points by the BBC, Channel 4, Viacom and Channel 5, where those organisations pointed out legal grey areas in the Code, like how do you proove "intent" (sex-works are "intended to cause sexual arousal"). There never was any serious intention to gauge public opinion, it was a stitchup with the result decided in advance. If Ofcom ignore reputable broadcasters like those then the rest of us are screwed. Or not.

DanVox, what 2009 consultation? And how exactly were the questions asked/phrased that resulted in a statistiacally implausible 100:1 pro-censorship response?

I absolutely agree that neither Ofcom nor this fucking Government pay any heed whatsoever to public opinion in their 'Public CONsultations'. Moreover, the CONsultation questions are biased and loaded to prompt and provoke the desired result and, when that fails to get the 'correct' result, they simply ignore the whole thing.

As for Ofcom deciding the result in advance (from the Melonfarmers Ofwatch 2006 archives):

Quote:As far as the Content Board minutes were concerned it would appear that there was considerable disagreement at Ofcom over what should have happen regarding the R18 issue:

The (non unanimous) recommendation of the executive was:

That the transmission of “R18” sex material was acceptable under Article 22(1) of the TWF Directive i.e. the transmission of such material might not ‘seriously impair the physical, mental or moral development of minors’; and

That generally accepted security standards could be applied, so that members of the public would be adequately protected from offensive and harmful material.

But that the executive had decided not to make a recommendation on the third test whether people under the age of 18 could be protected by means of adequate security mechanisms.

The Content board was divided over the first point, agreed with the second point but after considerable (sic) [debate?], the Content Board agreed that the current level of protection available would not adequately protect people under the age of 18. [Why the need to protect from something that's not going to harm them anyway?]

It was also noted that should the R18 ban be lifted that Ofcom would need to identify what level/form of protection would be required and that any such requirements would need to be potentially achievable by all broadcasters/platform providers.

On balance (although the Board was very evenly divided), the Content Board felt that there was insufficient evidence to indicate whether or not the physical, mental or moral development of minors might be seriously impaired by the transmission of such material, and therefore until such evidence was available they should take a cautious approach to this issue.

emphesis added - comments added in []

It's obvious to me that the Executive Board made no recommendation on the 'third test' because the 'second test' states without caveat "That generally accepted security standards could be applied, so that members of the public would be adequately protected from offensive and harmful material". How come the under 18s aren't going to be "adequately protected" by those same "generally accepted security standards" that both boards agree will protect the entirety of the public from any "offensive and harmful material"?

As for the legal costs of fighting Ofcom in the courts. Let's just assume that the Declaration of Human Rights had existed in 1936. Are you suggesting that those being persecuted and having their rights violated could only expect to get their rights respected if they could find substantial sums of money in order to fight their case in court? I don't think this is how the HRA is supposed to work. In fact I know the ECHR ruled a few years ago that the UK Gov. HAD to grant legal aid to people fighting civil or criminal cases (thanks to the couple being sued by McD's). The fact is Ofcom are paid for from the public purse ('Lord' Carter was on a cool £500,000 salary at Ofcom (nice price to pay for such a rights-abusing CUNT eh?!!!)). I think a letter to Viviene Reding, the EC Comms Commissioner, might get the ball rolling...(and preferably some heads at Ofcom). Ofcom are not the Government. Ofcom do not make or pass Law. They are in fact required by law to abide by the HRA and case law of the ECHR and, of course, the laws and constitution of this land - and if they don't then the police and courts have the powers, rights and means to prosecute them for breaking the law and/or violating our rights.

You keep maintaining it's all the fault of THIS government, but what government have we ever had in this country that was in favour of less restrictive broadcasting regulations?