Is Ofcom Fit For Purpose

All true, but who's going to stump up the cash for the test case? I still hold that all of the TV broadcasters are in a cosy little cartel here and none of them are ready to rock the boat yet.

The problem is that it's going to have to take one broadcaster with deep pockets to prove the point that stronger material is permitted on UK TV. But as soon as that point is confirmed in law, all the other broadcasters will rush in and take advantage of the law change.

The trouble is that it's not in anyone's own advantage to rock the boat over this, and consequently no broadcaster ever does.

Sorry to rain on your parade IanG but the Television Without Frontiers Directive has been amended.

Here goes

The Audiovisual Media Services Directive covers all EU audiovisual media services (including on-demand services) in the digital age. It amends and renames the Television without Frontiers Directive, providing less detailed but more flexible regulation. And it modernises TV advertising rules to better finance audiovisual content.

The directive had to be transposed into national law by the 19th December 2009.

Article 12 states, "Content which might seriously impair children’s development may be made available only in ways that ensure children will not normally have access – e.g. with access codes or other means."

A suitably ambiguous point as to what 'might' impair a child's development.

However, unfortunately, Article 4(7) states "The new rules require governments to encourage self-regulation in certain fields, sometimes combined with government intervention (“co-regulation”) - where their legal systems allow. Such regimes must be broadly accepted by the main stakeholders and provide for effective enforcement."

Is this the loop hole for the jobsworths at OFCOM?

The Department of Culture, Media and Sport ran a public consultation in 2009, from the 25th July to 31st October.

The consultation focuses on three specific issues which are expected to require legislation. These are 'co-regulating' video-on-demand services; product placement; and, regulating satellite TV channels from outside the EU which uplink from the UK.

From this statement it would appear not.

Quote:Article 12 states, "Content which might seriously impair children’s development may be made available only in ways that ensure children will not normally have access – e.g. with access codes or other means."

A loophole perhaps, but a flimsy one. I for one think that Hostel or Horror 101 would be more likely to impair a child's development than oiled up babes mud-wrestling.

I should know, from the age of 14 I used to go to Scout camps where strong porn would be circulated.

(25-03-2010 22:12 )CaptainVimes Wrote:  Article 12 states, "Content which might seriously impair children’s development may be made available only in ways that ensure children will not normally have access – e.g. with access codes or other means."

CaptainV, well that might be what Art. 12 says. It's not half as broad as "any harm which may be caused" is it? 'Serious harm' is something more significant than 'any' old harm isn't it. Yet, under the VRA and its requirement to "prevent any harm which may be caused" with "special regard to viewing in the home where children may come into contact with the material", the High Court ruled that hardcore R18 did not pose a significant risk to children, minors or persons under 18.

So, we are apparently suposed to take it as read that R18 is not a significant risk when people take it home to watch on DVD but, it magically transforms itself into something 'seriously harmful' in order to require an outright ban on TV channels even with access codes and other means of minimising child exposure/contact.

You don't mind if I say Ofcom are talking utter bullshit do you? Ofcom are ignoring a fundamental principle and precedent in UK law set by the High Court.

Let me try and clarify a few things about the Judicial Review.
The BBFC's argument was that the VAC had not looked at the evidence and understood the law correctly and reached a reasonable conclusion.

The VAC had concluded that "the risk to children and young persons from the material in question was, on present evidence, insignificant".

Lord Hooper concluded that the VAC had indeed considered all of the evidence (from over 30 child wellfare experts around the world iirc) the BBFC had supplied. He concluded that the VAC had understood the law and considered the evidence and that they had reached a conclusion "any reasonable decision-maker" would have reached. That is the High Court agreed that with the evidence at hand and according to the letter of the law the VAC were correct.

So, if the VAC made a reasonable decision based on the evidence of child wellfare experts, why didn't Ofcom reach the same conclusion? All this ground-breaking legal precedent took place 3 full years before Ofcom ever came to be, so surely they can't claim ignorance of the law can they?

One last thing, although I know I've said this elsewhere, that which "might cause serious impairment" cannot be that "which does not cause serious impairment". The serious impairment has to be real for the risk of serious impariment to be real. This is HOW 'might' must be read in a legal, truthful manner. It does not mean that "which cannot, does not, will not, might do if martians exist, if pigs fly etc. etc. etc.".

And serious impairment surely means something quite serious - something we'd know about if it really did exist...if it really, really happened that lots of children that saw this 'stuff' all turned into serial rapists, or murderers, or went mad, or blind - we'd know wouldn't we if it was SERIOUS and it was REAL?

I would. I'd know if it was real and it was serious. You know what, I know that it isn't, it isn't real and its not serious. It is in fact simply an embarrassment...like FUCKING OFCOM.

OK, let's get down to brass tacks, gentlemen...

As I have plans for a new style adult show, OFCOM's regulations for free-to-view, and pay-per-view adult content in particular, have been a priority. Clearly, as many people have stated in this section of the forum, there is too much "gibberish" from OFCOM and not enough "clarity".

Like the Football Association, OFCOM is full of old gits who are out of touch with modern life. Regulation for TV is necessary, but they need to be replaced with younger staff who are more in tune with modern thinking. This is the most realistic and logical solution to the problem in my opinion.

However, there is always a flip side to the coin... I have generally found people in the UK adult industry to be very much "set in their ways" as well for several reasons. There is a "jaded" vibe to the industry, and it's basically been a "stalemate" for some time. Without any form of compromise, it just becomes a "vicious circle".

Fortunately, I don't believe it will affect my plans that much (if they come to fruition). OFCOM are bad enough, but let's not have people on the other side of the fence getting in the way either...

(25-03-2010 22:38 )H-H Wrote:  

Quote:Article 12 states, "Content which might seriously impair children’s development may be made available only in ways that ensure children will not normally have access – e.g. with access codes or other means."

A loophole perhaps, but a flimsy one. I for one think that Hostel or Horror 101 would be more likely to impair a child's development than oiled up babes mud-wrestling.

I should know, from the age of 14 I used to go to Scout camps where strong porn would be circulated.

And what are we after? Girls on during the daytime who would be dressed exactly the same as topless shots in many newspapers or anyone could see on a beach.

No actually we are after less than that, they are in family newspapers and family beaches. All we want is the same thing on adult only channels which could easily be pin protected. This is totally and utterly hypocritical of OFCOM.

(25-03-2010 04:16 )mrmann Wrote:  

(24-03-2010 23:44 )Sootbag1 Wrote:  I agree with what everyone is saying on this thread, but I suppose that we also have to accept that Ofcom is largely responding to complaints that they receive.

It therefore begs the question why is it that Joe Public seems very keen to
complain about comparatively minor sexual matters on a adult channel, but is quite happy to say nothing about the examples that H-H gives?

Well said.


Why does Ofcom feel the need to appease the complainers? I think it's very unlikely that anyone offended by these channels would pursue legal action against them, so why would Ofcom buckle to their complaints? Can't they just tell the people not to watch if they are offended, or to keep a better eye on their children so that they aren't staying up late and watching the show? I can't believe Ofcom are afraid of a small group of uptight people, when they really shouldn't be complaining at all! This is supposed to be an 18 rated channel, and 18 rated means that full frontal nudity is allowed! The complainers are OK with seeing two women lick each others breasts, smack their asses, kiss each other, but can't bare the site of a woman's vagina or anus. Everybody knows what they look like, and anyone can go online and see whatever the hell they want, so this is very tame in comparison.

These complainers should Put a block on these channels, make sure their kids are in bed, be better parents, and if these channels offend them, then they should STOP watching them!!!

This world is crazy

Oh, dear, with that kind of sane, rational, logical outlook on life, you would never get a job at Ofcon

You miss the point, though, Ofcon are enthusiastic censors, and they have to be.
The UK is a fundamentally censorial, repressive state, where the moral minority, tabloid media, misandrists etc. rule the roost, and to which politicians pander.
The mindset is, adult entertainment (AE) is fundamentally bad (evil?) and must be censored as much as the UK authorities think they can get away with, and when the adult industry does nothing to challenge, censorship reigns. Ofcon was set up to fulfil that censorial role for broadcasting, and if they did not do a ‘good job’, either individually, in terms of particular staff, or as an organisation, they would soon be replaced by someone/something that would do the job.
Ultimately, it’s self-preservation, though it is possible, perhaps likely, that the type of person that would want to work for Ofcon is going to be pro-censorship; otherwise, why do the job in the first place?

BTW, didn’t Stephen Carter (I think that was the former Head of Ofcon) do such a good job, that he was rewarded by a Westminster Government post, or peerage, or something?

If censorship & state nannying were not to the fore, then surely, any sane, rational human being would accept that the presence of the watershed, to separate material that is/might not be suitable for family viewing, along with freewill, parental responsibility etc. would be more than sufficient to allow adults to make their own decisions as to what they wish to watch, or what they allow their children to see? And that’s before you consider pin protection, encryption etc.

Throughout most (all?) of the mainland EU, they would laugh at censoring broadcasting post-watershed, if they even bothered with such a concept; In the Netherlands, Switzerland (non- EU), to name but 2, they don’t even censor strong language, nudity etc. during the day, let alone at night! I remember seeing a promo for “The Osbournes”, around midday, with ‘fuck’, ‘motherfucker’ and ‘c**t’ (not my censorship, but a respsonse to the 'muffin' nonsense on this site - What the fuck? ) broadcast for all to hear; did Dutch society collapse? Did the Government put the broadcaster out of business? Did Dutch children run amuck? Did the Government of the day fall, as the citizens revolted? ? Of course not, it is a different world from the UK, I’m afraid. The world is not crazy, the UK is.

I always feel uneasy about comparisons with other material, e.g. they allow violence, or whatever it might be, so why not AE? Yes, it does expose they hypocrisy of Ofcon, but their censorship is not exclusive to AE, and if people bang on about it enough, they may well increase the levels of censorship suffered by other material, even more than at present. You only have to look at complaints that have been upheld against pre-watershed broadcasts of seemingly innocuous programmes, such as “The Simpsons”, or “Monk”, to see that. This explains why C4, for example, censors much of their pre-watershed American output, even things like “Everybody Loves Raymond”, for fuck’s sake!!!

Enough rambling…for now.

This is the result of the UK's censorial attitude.

The Dutch especially have a relaxed and tolerant position whereby I suspect their teenagers are having the same amount of sex as UK teenagers yet because they are informed and educated, well you can see for yourself.

Interesting Court ruling on Friday. Lord Justice Thomas, deputy head of criminal justice, sitting at Southwark Crown Court, gave the Serious Fraud Office a serious slapping down in a case against Innospec.

Innospec, the SFO and regulators in the USA had agreed a fine of $12.7 million.

Lord Justice Thomas said that under English law it is the sole right of judges to impose sentences. He said "This has always been the position under the law of England and Wales. Agreements and submissions of the type put forward in this case can have no effect."

Not directly applicable to Ofcom fines as the Communications Act specifically allows them to levy fines, but interesting all the same.

Some more guidance from Ofcom about time as a mitigating factor can be found in the Sanctions Committee ruling against Babeworld dated 12 Feb 2007, though it is not clear cut. This is a curiosity – the only recorded case in 5 years where a complaint has been made about children watching babe channels, though the broadcaster disputed the veracity of the complaint. A woman complained that at 9:15pm she found her teenage son and his friends watching Babeworld and dialing or texting in. (Babeworld said they had no record of calls from the geographic area and said it must have been another channel).

Here is what the Sanctions Committee said: “Ofcom also advised that not all under eighteens stop viewing at 21:00 and informed the Licensee that Rules 1.2 and 1.3 of the Code may continue to apply in programmes broadcast after this time, particularly with respect to material so close to the watershed.” And – “The Committee recognised that unencrypted channels in this section of the EPG had a certain amount of extra latitude to show more sexual material. However, this latitude was restricted, and certainly did not extend to content which due to a combination of imagery and language could be regarded as ‘adult-sex’ material. This restriction was principally because of the requirement to protect under 18s.”

Restrictive as this may sound, this is the Sanctions Committee – the final arbiter – clearly saying two things on record – material CAN be stronger (within limits) if it is not close to watershed, and – officially allowing channels in the Adult section “extra latitude to show more sexual material”.