Is Ofcom Fit For Purpose

The title seemed a bit kinder than my first thought "Has Ofcom Gone Insane" and "Fit For Purpose" says it all really. Unless readers get bored and tell me to sling my hook Ill be publicising Ofcom inconsistencies and oddities when I find the time. If this results in them getting a much deserved kick up the arse from the government or loosing a court case it will have been worth the effort - feel free to lift content and make complaints.

What Is Obscene ?

There are somethings I do not want to see on British television at any time regardless of who the audience is. Ofcom Broadcast Bulletin 152 found several shows in breech:
ARY Digital showed "a contestant came on stage with a live snake and proceeded to bite the live snake's head off, and then skin the snake with his hands and teeth while continuing to eat it" in a talent show on 3 December 2009 at 11am when children could have been watching. This was a repeat of a show broadcast at 10pm the previous evening - not a one off.

Tease Me TV accidentally broadcast one sexually explicit phone call at 5am on 3 November 2009. The broadcaster accepted there had been a mistake and said 'the language had been picked up by a "distant microphone" by accident. In addition, whilst acknowledging the language was audible, the broadcaster said "it would have been apparent only to a viewer who was listening intently with their television at high volume".'

One of these channels has been warned that it may face a statutory sanction - a fine or even being closed down. The other has not.

Ask yourself which of these is more offensive in any sane and rational society. Multilation of live animals particularly when children could be wartching, or bedroom language late at night on a channel clearly labebelled as having adult content? Which activity is strictly illegal in the UK - causing suffering to animals or rude language?

Now turn your answer on it's head - Ofcom being obsessed with sex instead of protecting children has threatened Tease Me TV with a sanction.

Are these fit and proper people to be controlling UK broadcasting?

Hey there, H-H, welcome aboard. I'm sure many here will be dying to hear your thoughts.

You may want to read the BACVA blog http://www.bacva.blogspot.com (if you haven't already). We're just getting under way as you can see but we seem to be on the same wavelength. I hope we might see you there too...?

Anyway, fire away...!!!

In Broadcast Bulletin 151 Ofcom states that “Ofcom recognises that what is and isn't generally accepted is subject to change over time” in it’s Decision regarding a BangBabes/Tease Me broadcast on 20 June 2009. Ironically Ofcom then quote really old findings and research in a footnote.

It’s difficult to see how Ofcom can claim to recognise change over time AND quote decisions going back years. So how old are these decisions Ofcom quotes?

Here’s a summary of the 13 links they rely on in footnote 3:
a) Bulletin #137: re a BangBabes show from 18 March 2009
b) #118: re LiveXXXBabes 18 June 2008
c) Sanctions decision re Smile TV show 22 May 2007
This in turn referred to warning letters sent back in June and Sept 2006 and standards set out in the Broadcasting Code published 25 June 2005. So holding this up as an example of the rules is really a reference right back to 2005.
d) #119: report Sanctions re SportXXX 19 & 20 Nov 2007
This report harks back to Bulletin #95 published 22 Oct 2007 which gave a vague and unspecific warning about possible future sanctions, and reported several investigations for sexual content: Star Bazaar 7/8 May 2007, LiveXXXBabes 17 and 18 April 2007.
e) Sanctions decision re SportXXX shows 26 Feb, 13 March and 17 March 2007.
f) This link duplicates link e above.
g) 115: Sex Station / Lucky Star shows 11 and 26 July 2007
h) This link duplicates link c above.
i) Sanctions re Babeworld show 12 Feb 2007
j) Note To Broadcasters re BangBabes/Tease Me breech in Bulletin 120, show broadcast 17 March 2008
k) Sanctions re TVX 4 Sept 2008 (also website promotion on Red Hot channels).
l) 138: Not relevant – breech is for advertising
m) Sanctions re Playboy shows 26 Sept – 9 Dec 2007

So while recognising “change over time” Ofcom looks up it’s decisions mostly made 2 years ago (2007), quotes letters from 3 years ago (2006) and harks back to a 4 year old Broadcasting code (2005) itself based on research in 2004. Perhaps Ofcom would like to say exactly how referring back years to its own decisions reflects “change over time” in public attitudes.

H-H, this is also supposed to be "clear published guidence" according to Ofcom...!!! It is in fact a stream of incomprehensible, contradictory bull - its a bit like the Bible in that respect.

What should be under consideration is whether or not Ofcom have powers to start rewriting certain content and classification standards - i.e. those registered with the EC under the VRA are the only legally recognised content/classification standards in the UK. In fact it was the Tory Government's failure to register these with the EC in 1984 that got the VRA suspended last year.

The BBFC guidelines refer to "'sex works' at 18", where 'sex works' means material intended to cause sexual arousal (i.e. the current legal definition of 'pornography'). This material falls into two distinct categories: 18-rated softcore (inexplicit/simulated sex) 'sex works' and, R18-rated hardcore (explicit real sex) 'sex works'. The BBFC know what they're doing and what categories they've got to work to in the VRA - their guidelines are simple, succinct, uncomplicated and thus, perfectly clear.

Ofcom however have invented a completely new term, namely 'adult sex' material. They ban 'adult sex' material from anything but encrypted channels but NEVER detail what 'adult sex' material includes (except that its not 'R18-type'). Of course, 'adult sex' material isn't 'teen sex' material or, dare I say, 'animal sex' material. According to their Code such non-'adult sex' material could be broadcast at anytime anywhere. Ofcom have yet again left the barn door wide open to other interpretations of what they actually intended because they are quite simply not qualified to be writing such psuedo 'laws'/rules in their precious Code.

Ofcom are patently incompetent. They are clearly not fit for purpose. They have completely overstepped their remit. They have not published any clear guidence EVER - its all burried, as you so clearly demonstrate, in a string of other ajudications relating to specific incidents reported by certain members of the public. As such it is neither clear nor comprehensive, it is at best piecemeal and, moreover, completely incompatible with the legal classifications registered with the EC under the VRA 2010.

It's pathetic really and I'm certain its totally illegal esp. when the claims they make have no foundation in reality or fact.

(03-03-2010 05:31 )IanG Wrote:  H-H, this is also supposed to be "clear published guidence" according to Ofcom...!!! It is in fact a stream of incomprehensible, contradictory bull - its a bit like the Bible in that respect.

Ian, thanks, I'm building up to a post about "clear" published guidance. Problem's going to be keeping it short.

Thought for the day. A Decision - by a Government body established by law and exercising Court-type powers over an entire industry - about BangBabes in Broadcast Bulletin 137 - refers to "oral masturbation".

What's that?

Come on, what is a legal definition of the thing this statutory body is telling the industry to avoid?

That's enough for today, back to watching reruns of Smack The Pony on G-O-L-D. Doon Mackichan has just had a man feel up her breasts and stick his head between them in a sketch about buying bras, followed by Sally Phillips in a video dating booth looking for a man with a large penis who doesn't use all of it. I blinked but think the following sketch featured breast-feeding. But it's OK, it's comedy so it's justified by context.

.....That would be a NO then

(04-03-2010 01:11 )H-H Wrote:  Thought for the day. A Decision - by a Government body established by law and exercising Court-type powers over an entire industry - about BangBabes in Broadcast Bulletin 137 - refers to "oral masturbation".

What's that?

Come on, what is a legal definition of the thing this statutory body is telling the industry to avoid?

That's an over active imagination I believe. Or simply a total misuse of the English language.

There was a similar instance on C4 news the other day - some ex Iranian henchman had to flee the country after he refused to rape and torture protesters - they arrested him and some of his collegues and tortured them too. He said they made him watch as "They sexually assaulted one of the men with a baton". Think about it. They shoved a baton up some guy's arse and somehow this is "sexual assault"? If they'd arse raped him maybe. However, as a man's arse isn't his sexual organ nor is a baton a sexual organ then there's no way shoving a baton up someone's arse is sexual assualt. If they'd shoved the baton down his throat would that be oral masturbation? Clearly not. Orally sexually assualting someone needs a cock. Anally sexually assualting somone also needs a cock.

So, oral masturbation needs a mouth and either a cock or a fanny - and this act has got a proper name, either fellatio or cunnilingus respectively.

So which form of oral masturbation was going on on-screen? I'll hazzard a guess it was neither. In fact I'll hazzard a guess someone was either sucking their fingers or jesturing the motion used to provoke the gag (and vomit) reflex.

Ofcom seem to have some pretty sick and twisted imaginations if they think this type of action constitutes oral masturbation. Moreover, the BBFC cut any such gagging/vomitting type fellation from all R18-rated films so it's hardly something Ofcom have seen in R18-type material.

Is Ofcom Fit For Purpose ???
is broken glass fit to wipe your arse???

More Porn Equals Less Crime is the conclusion of studies by Dr Milton Diamond of the University of Hawaii
http://www.xbiz.com/news/news_piece.php?...on+diamond

Ofcom have no evidence to support their position. Ofcom are also in clear contempt of the High Court ruling of 2000, which basically states that any risk from porn to children is so insignificant it cannot justify and outright ban.