Ofcom Broadcast Code Consultation

HenryF, I was just in touch with Paul who ran the Ofwatch R18 campaign (he's moved on to pastures new I'm sorry to say - and who can blame him...).

You're absolutely correct. All we (i.e. Ofwatch) got of the minutes from the meeting when R18 was suddenly banned were almost completely blacked out "to protect people's identities and sensitive information". In essence we (the general public that pay for Ofcom's existence) are not allowed (i.e. deemed unworthy) to know who wanted R18 banned or indeed, why or on what basis/evidence/'reasoning'. Of course, if this info is so 'sensitive' then we can only assume that there was no real reason or evidence at all but simply some little Hitler's dictatorial wish (and with so many moral guardians and God botherers in Parliament you can probably draw up quite a list of fuckwit suspects).

I forget the Prof's name that did the PIN analysis but, he wrote quite clearly in the report itself that it couldn't be used as a basis for censorship of adult material. But of course, we all know how much politicians listen to expert advice...

Curveball!...

Can anyone make any sense out of this...

"6.47 Currently the Adult Chat PTV channels that are licensed in the UK are available in the ‘Adult’ section of the EPG on the Sky satellite platform. The channels are not currently available on the Virgin Media cable platform. Three Adult Chat PTV channels broadcast between midnight and 5:30am on Freeview - Smile TV2, Smile TV3 and Babestation. These channels are not licensed in the UK, but originate from the Netherlands and are not therefore subject to the UK Broadcasting or Advertising Codes. A fourth Adult Chat PTV channel on Freeview – Partyland – broadcasts between 1am and 5:30am and is licensed in the UK."

and...

"Non-UK stakeholders
6.68 The changes to regulation envisaged in this consultation document will apply to all broadcasters licensed in the UK whether they are broadcasting to UK audiences or audiences in other Member States. However, the focus of our analysis is on channels licensed in the UK and broadcasting to UK audiences.

6.69 We are aware that there are already at least two broadcasters providing Adult Chat PTV services to UK audiences who are not licensed in the UK. We have not taken account of the impact of the proposed regulatory option on such broadcasters since, as they are not licensed in the UK, they are not subject to, and therefore would not be affected by any changes to, the Broadcasting Code or Advertising Code"

Does that mean that freeview dodges the axe if registered in Holland?


Damn, this is hard work, my brain is dribbling out of my ears. I think I caught them in an outrageous lie too.

BBL

That explains why Babestation uses the "16" logo.
admin posted some time ago in answer to my question that it was for Dutch viewers who have a lower age limit. I assumed it was just for Dutch viewers who pick up the Sky broadcasts. Its obviously got something to do with the Dutch licences as well.

It is indeed confusing.

As I have said before, if a rep from the PTBA signed up to the forum and gave a plain english translation to Ofcom's "plain english", then there is a likely hood that viewers of these channels would be inclined to respond to this consultation once they an understand what it actually means.

A rep's view would not be illegal, it would not influence any opinion to the consultation, it would simply stress the importance of the viewers voice being heard.

I have previously asked "Hofmiester" from Babe World if a PTBA rep could sign up here. Doing that would only benefit the channels and help to ensure their longevity.

Over to you Broadcasters and channel staff.

Unfortunately I doubt we'll get much response or sense from the broadcasters, most of whom are idiots and chancers who have no inclination to challenge anything.

As long as they perpetuate the bizarre dance of insanity with Ofcom in order to keep the money rolling in, that's all they care about.

Witness 'Hofmeister', a babe channel insider who didn't come across as particularly thick, yet thought it was a good idea to throw 250k at lawyers for no good reason, claiming they were 'within hours' of being closed down. Utter hogwash. I bet it was the lawyers who said that in order to maximise their fees.

Intelligence, strategic thinking and guts - that's what's required from the babe channels, but the tumbleweed will continue to scud across the landscape whilst we wait, and wait ...

Had another bash today, nearly there, I see the light at the end of the tunnel at least

I was thinking it might be best to do a group response that could be put in to Ofcom on behalf of the forum members as a whole, rather than a template that we could bombard Ofcom with. I think thousands of resonses all the same could be used against us and be self defeating. Might be best to submit it as a group thing on behalf of umpteen thousand members, so to speak.

I gonna throw something up soon, not for submission, but for debate. Some of the points I'd like to make might not be appropriate and I want to guage opinion before I run off into rants, which is oh-so easy to do almost all the time with this thing

Also, the Hofmeister needs to get someone to look at it so we can work together as well.

We got until January and we should use as much as that time as possible to fine tune this response.



Like a fat bloke once said..."This is not the end.....This is not even the beginning of the end....but it is, perhaps....the end of the beginning."

(08-11-2009 21:26 )TheDarkKnight Wrote:  Also, the Hofmeister needs to get someone to look at it so we can work together as well.

We got until January and we should use as much as that time as possible to fine tune this response.

Thanks for all the effort you are putting into this DarkKnight.

I've made a request to the members of the PTBA here:
http://www.babeshows.co.uk/showthread.php?tid=13581

The new European broadcast directive, due to come into force in December, is aimed at cross-border smut. If a channel originates in one country but is "wholly or mostly" aimed at another, the 2nd country can ask it to mend it's ways. This is a purely voluntary "consultation procedure". But if they don't co-operate, the target country can ask the originator's government to close the channel down in a "binding procedure".

So Dorcel won't be affected, as it is mostly aimed at France, but Babestation could be forced off air if they piss-off the Daily Mail enough or there's an election coming.

EU AVMS Directive Artices 3(2) to 3(5).

More importantly...

"if a country objects to the content in a foreign television broadcast which is wholly or mostly directed to it, it can use a consultation procedure (cooperation procedure) to address the country of origin. The latter shall then issue a non-binding request for the broadcaster to comply with the stricter rules of the targeted country.

if the broadcaster circumvents these national rules, the objecting country can also - with the Commission's prior approval – take binding measures (circumvention procedure). "

So, all the broadcasters have to do to get the issue into the European courts is to get naughty on freeview, then sit back as Ofcom takes the issue to the European commission at the taxpayers expense?
They risk one freeview channel to gain clarity and the possibility of a relaxation of the regulations on both satallite and freeview.

...now, where's that lone maverick when you need him...*looks towards the sunset*

I suppose we have Vivienne Reding to thank for this regulatory bullshit?

So, Ofcom's code now extends across the whole of Europe? Of course the Code isn't law - it was drawn up by a bunch of unelected moralising dipshits. I don't believe Ofcom's code would pass legal scrutiny but, its now capable of being used (or rather, abused) to close down channels operating outside Ofcom jurisdiction. Anyone get the feeling our rights are being circumvented?

Ofcom exist to regulate commnications companies operating within the UK's borders. Ofcom do not exist to regulate the British public's viewing habits. If a significant proportion of an overseas broadcasting company's customers reside in the UK then, that can only mean those customers are not happy with what's on offer within the UK. Apparently though, Ofcom can now tell you you're not going to watch anything but what they permit to be broadcast within the UK. I really don't like the sound of that, do you? Can you feel the creeping hand of fascism on your shoulder? Remember folks, Ofcom weren't elected by you, you had no real say in their code and, you may have no under 18s in your home that need Ofcom's protection yet, you're only going to be able to receive the information and ideas they (Ofcom) say you're allowed to have. Nice eh?!!!

I'm not sure when Democracy actually bit the dust in Britain. It wasn't looking too good around 1984. By the time phoney Tony got his 2nd term it was well and truly pushing up the daisies.