Ofcom Broadcast Code Consultation

(27-10-2009 13:24 )TheDarkKnight Wrote:  It's the babe channels atm, but the adult services have been (not) fighting the same fight for years. NONE of them have had the balls to step up to the plate a blow the whole thing sky-high. Those guys need to take some critisism for this farce.

My sentiments exactly... And many others share this view.
Thanks for highlighting this DarkKnight.

As I recall, the BBFC case relied on the concept of harm, and the introduction of harder material was also helped by James Ferman at the BBFC, a chap otherwise not known for his particularly liberal ways!

Ferman allowed brief clips of hardcore in R18s under the theory that it would help stymie the uncontrolled black market for stronger material. Jack Straw intervened and the experiment was stopped. By then, however, the floodgates were open and a group of distributors took the BBFC to the Video Appeals Committee. It was the good people of the VCA who allowed hardcore at R18, although if I recall rightly, the BBFC appealed the decision by way of a judicial review, which they lost, appealed and lost again. Ferman had left by the time this was all sorted out.

The judicial review was sought because the BBFC decided that the VAC had misinterpreted the definition of harm, but this was all thrown out because research had shown that no child had ever been particularly traumatised by coming into accidental contact with hardcore (as most of us who raided father's secret video stash could confirm!) and that a total ban on such work as a result was disproportionate and incompatible with the recently or soon-to-be- introduced Human Rights Act.

This is where I think adult broadcasters should be concentrating. Ofcom still have the view that the various protections in place are not enough to overcome potential harm of allowing harder material. That definition of harm, and the subsequent ban on material because of it, is just as flawed as the BBFC's decisions were back in 2000.

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 ?

Big up to all the posters on this thread. A lot of good information has been provided here, but there is too much focus on "why" instead of "how"...

You're not gonna change why OFCOM think as they do - especially under the current "Nanny State". To stay one step ahead of the game you gotta figure out "how they think" first, then you can beat them...

The flip side of the coin is, as others have mentioned on this thread, UK adult channel operators have been too slack in dealing with the problem(s)... Probably because if they're raking in enough cash money, then most won't be bothered and will continue to offer substandard services that are generally poor value for money.

That won't be good enough for "The Wolfe"... I had plans for a channel, but with all the rules & restrictions in the UK I might have to "up sticks", as time is a factor as far as I'm concerned...

Winston Wolfe

(29-10-2009 02:29 )DanVox Wrote:  SNIP

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 ?

What's wrong with uncensored adult entertainment from the ‘Free World’, that involves consenting adults? As for age of consent, most producers will, ultimately, target the US market, so will have to adhere to '18 U.S.C 2257', including a minimum age of 18. The question, I would suggest, is why some consensual adult entertainment is still illegal in the UK?

So, how is 'Europorn' unregulated? Unless you mean allowing the state, producers etc. to treat adults like adults, and allow them to exercise their own freewill, not to mention their fundamental right of Free Expression, and decide for themselves what consensual adult material they wish to view in, what should be, the privacy of their own homes?

All EU states have to adhere to the TWF (I forget what the TWF replacement is called), and citizens throughout the EU are legally entitled to view any content (that they have legitimate access to) that has been licensed from any member state. It’s just that as well as ignoring the ECHR, Ofcon also ignores the TWF, because nobody, in particular the broadcasters, have challenged their potentially illegal, certainly censorial regime.

At least, that is my understanding of the situation; I’m sure others will correct, as necessary

Is part of the problem with OFCOM and the likes, that they pander to the minority.The stuck up people who cannot deal with the whole issue of sex. The religious nuts who crawl out of their holes in the ground to protest the slightest hint of anything sexual. The likes of that old hag Mary Whitehouse who constantly badgered the TV stations over any sexual content and had it in for Kenny Everet big time. These people will pick up the phone and complain at the drop of a hat and that is where the rest of us fall down. If everyone who is a fan of the babe channels was to do likewise everytime they slapped a ban or a fine on one of the stations they would be swamped or every time they showed a pub scene on Eastenders or Corrie promoting drink or under-age drinking or drug taking they would have their hands full. But we dont and WHY? because we have the ability to change the channel if we dont like whats on. No one says you have to watch anything

Well maybe in a way the channels are allready challenging ofcom. a lot of people on the forum are sayin how certain channels, Elite Bb etc seem to be getting a bit more raunchy than usual. maybe this is the channels saying to Ofcom this is how we see the rules as laid down in uk and euro laws fine us or ban us if yu dare and we will see you in court. now if ofcom wernt totaly confident in those laws to back themselves wouldnt they just back off and let it happen?

No, they wont sit back and let it happen, at all. It's the entire reason they've been set up, to stop us seeing porn on the tele. (Probably why they're so shit at actually regulating the rest of the telecomms industry)

It's hard to tell what's going on when you're watching from the sidelines. What we're seeing now might be the producers pushing the ofcom regulations to their very limits, or it might be them deliberately breaking them to provoke a responce.

If I look at an example from last night...We saw Amanda doing something we shouldn't have seen. The way I read it was that the producers wanted us to see that she was doing it, but not to actually see her doing it. (Initially, one of her other fingers covered the point of view) As the camera panned down, Amanda shifted position to give us the full monty and I think that part wasn't meant to happen from the producers point of view. (obviously, thats just a guess)

So, the producers wanted to show us a shot of a girl having sex with herself, but not to show the actual point of entry. That to me is 'Adult sex show' material. The sort of thing you get on the adult channel, television X and playboy. By ofcom regs, that sort of material should only be shown on an encrypted channel. This would lead you to believe they were pushing past the boundries.

...but for one thing. The curious use of time in the explanation of complaints and decisions that ofcom have made. It seems, to them, that some things are OK to be shown, but only for so long. The length of time thats OK seems to be pulled out of someones ass though, as are so many of the ofcom regulations. So, maybe what we're seeing is not so much a breaking of the boundries, but a blind man going down different paths and feeling in the dark as to where the bloody boundries are.

Just another pathetic, unfathomable situation created by a bunch of pathetic, unfathomable mini dictators whos useful time on this planet has long since past. I don't know who they are, but they should be ashamed of themselves for acting like something Stalin himself would be proud of. They are not the voice of the people of this country. They have no right to impose their views upon us. They lie and decieve to achieve their aims. They are so set upon keeping porn off the tele they they will deliberately hurt the economy of their own country in order to keep this percieved menace from people who can make their own minds up anyway. Pornography to them is so vile, so disgusting, they they will even break the law to keep it from us.

If I were to say one thing to them it would be this...Resign. Go home to your cosy little home with your cosy little slippers, your pipe and your puppy dog. Put the tele on, find a channel with endless 'last of the summer wine' repeats to make you all comfortable like. Then, pick up the phone and book yourselves an appointment with a sexual counselor and start to enjoy the rest of your bloody lives.

Leave us in peace and let this country grow.

Censorship :-( asked what I meant by "how is 'Europorn' unregulated". Just that the rules abroad are different to UK rules. Go into your local TV dealer, buy a non-Sky satellite dish, decoder and dish, totally legally and over the counter, and you can have access to film of any sex act that is legal to do in France/Germany/Italy. Group sex. P*ssing. F*sting. If it's legal to do there are channels that show it. So the transmitting country is not really regulating it, apart from asking 2 simple questions - is it encrypted, is it legal to do ?

Here's an odd thing by the way. Public sex is LEGAL in the UK. Oral sex, masturbation, exhibitionism, group sex, multiple entry, p*ssing, f*sting are all LEGAL in public places. Unless a passer by is offended. Subtle difference, but important to note that public sex is not automatically illegal.

And as Deputy Prime Minister Harriet Harman pointed out, nudism is legal.

But on PIN protected payment only channels with no chance of accidental viewing, these sex acts cannot legally be shown.

Perverse ? Yes, OfCom are.

(01-11-2009 00:02 )DanVox Wrote:  Censorship :-( asked what I meant by "how is 'Europorn' unregulated". Just that the rules abroad are different to UK rules. Go into your local TV dealer, buy a non-Sky satellite dish, decoder and dish, totally legally and over the counter, and you can have access to film of any sex act that is legal to do in France/Germany/Italy. Group sex. P*ssing. F*sting. If it's legal to do there are channels that show it. So the transmitting country is not really regulating it, apart from asking 2 simple questions - is it encrypted, is it legal to do ?

SNIP

That is actual regulation; they apply the TWF, then license the broadcaster. In the UK, sadly, 'regulation', more often than not, means censorship.

(01-11-2009 00:02 )DanVox Wrote:  And as Deputy Prime Minister Harriet Harman pointed out, nudism is legal.

SNIP

OT, I know, but Harriet Hatesmen is not Deputy Prime Minister, she is merely deputy leader of the Labour Party.