Playboy Fine

Now on the positive side of things if there is any shred of comfort to be taken from all this is that this is alleged offences that happened way back in April and not anything recently, it's a very small comfort but RLC are still on tha air and have survived the awful fate that Bangbabes suffered, this would probably also go into some way of explaining why they have somewhat toned down their show's in recent months, they have expanded their monopoly of the SKY EPG however and have recruited some of this countries top models, so they are not likely to go down without a fight and I hope are willing to take Ofcom on along with the rest of the channels for all their worth, we have no idea what goes on behind the scenes but the day will come when Ofcom meet their maker, it's just a question of when and how many channels will come out of this still in existence, it's also bearing in mind that Playboy TV are the licensee and are a massive company who out of most of them could realistically challenge Ofcom with the vast amount of money at their disposal.

(09-11-2011 23:20 )Scottishbloke Wrote:  Now on the positive side of things if there is any shred of comfort to be taken from all this is that this is alleged offences that happened way back in April and not anything recently, it's a very small comfort but RLC are still on tha air and have survived the awful fate that Bangbabes suffered, this would probably also go into some way of explaining why they have somewhat toned down their show's in recent months, they have expanded their monopoly of the SKY EPG however and have recruited some of this countries top models, so they are not likely to go down without a fight and I hope are willing to take Ofcom on along with the rest of the channels for all their worth, we have no idea what goes on behind the scenes but the day will come when Ofcom meet their maker, it's just a question of when and how many channels will come out of this still in existence, it's also bearing in mind that Playboy TV are the licensee and are a massive company who out of most of them could realistically challenge Ofcom with the vast amount of money at their disposal.

As far as I remember, Playboy have never taken on Ofcon. I can't see them starting now too.

They'll take their punishment and just shrug their shoulders and carry on with the poor output.

Its stupid that rlc/playboy keep getting abuse and attack from rivals and ofcom its supposed to be adult entertainment its all very childish.

The massive fine shows the sheer stupidity of Ofcom both writing and enforcing the rules. A decent lawyer in a proper indepenent court would blow a hole in the case in about 5 minutes.

The rule states that broadcasts must not cause serious and widespread offence. Cause. Thats unambiguous. But Ofcom have found against the shows on the grounds that there is potential to cause serious and widespread offence.

My car has the potential to break the speed limit. Your probably does. Every day. But how many speeding tickets do we get?

Playboy supposedly has a poor compliance record because they have been fined twice before. Once in 2009 and 2005.

To put this into context, the BBC was fined £150,000 on 03/04/09 (Radio 2), £25,000 on 18/12/08 (BBC radio London), £400,000 on 30/07/08 (8 shows on various channels including Comic Relief, Comic Relief, Children in Need), £zero on 09/04/08, £50,000 on 09/07/07 (Blue Peter). Thats 12 separate sanctions on 5 separate dates against the BBC with just 6 channels of mostly recorded material, compared with 3 sanctions against 7 live channels for Playboy.

If this were a traffic offence, drunk and disorderly, shoplifting or even assault, 3 fines in 6 years would be considered good behaviour with long periods between offences serious enough to attract a fine.

Ofcom state the offences were repeated. Of course they were. Its like driving with a defective speedo or thinking a particular road had a 40 mph limit instead of 30. If you think something is legal and your business depends on delivering the fastest/strongest legal content of course you get as close to, but just inside the limit of legality, every day, not just once.

The fine itself is out of all proportion to the degree of harm (actual or potential). Para 74 makes no attempt to quantify the number of children watching or the degree of harm caused. Ofcom note that there was no discernable financial gain (para 76).

14 people have lost their jobs and 3 were suspended because of this garbage: "nine camera operators/producers were dismissed, five presenters were dismissed and three presenters were suspended"

Ofcom refer to research in 2005 and 2009. They conveniently fail to point out that there was no record of ejaculate being ruled offensive before a finding against a babe channel earlier this year. Neither piece of research mentioned spitting/ambiguous liquid/ejacuate. A BCAP rule was introduced out of thin air without historic justification. The same applies to oil applied to backs/bums/thighs.

Ofcom also says its 2005 research "showed that audiences considered „adult chat‟ material, particularly of a strong sexual nature, had the potential to cause offence" (para 59). The survey group did not view samples of adult chat and any mention was brief and in passing.

By the way, link 14 does not work. Good one Ofcom.

While on the subject, the 2009 research points to large audiences and participation for adult chat services: "Claimed viewing ever of such services was relatively low (approximately one in four participants said they had ever viewed) as was interaction with such services (around one in fourteen participants had ever called or texted)." (page 7).

The survey 2009 clearly found that "most participants supported the continuation of long form promotion in its current form on dedicated channels" while "A small proportion of participants (around one in 20), were offended by the nature of the product to such an extent that they were opposed to any promotion of the product on television" (page 8) and "Overall, most viewed the product [long form adult chat advert shows]as „harmless‟," (page 36).

The same section found "the product must not be carried on Freeview" unless the entire genre could be locked out. Ofcom has never provided a rational explanation for completely disregarding this. It picks and chooses what it wants to misquote and what it ignores.

In similar vein, most participants felt that Psychic shows "Must only be on a dedicated psychic PTV channel in the Specialist section of the EPG;". For no rational reason Ofcom ignored this.

Ofcom say 44% of homes with multichannel systems have set PIN controls, then says this means many homes have not set access controls therefore children are at risk (sanction para 62). If fails to consider that this might be a conscious decision by parents who consider the risk to be acceptable or who have alternative controls. How many of these households have no children? Unquantified. How many have young children who are in bed by 9pm? Unquantified. How many judge the channels to pose no risk? Unquantified. How many only have TVs in the family area so children/teens cannot select channels? Unquantified.

The rank amateurs at Ofcom confuse the absence of a finding with data that supports their case.

The fines are out of all proportion. Businesses have been fined less for cases of accidental death.

I think this latest fine will probably make RLC go for a Dutch licence sooner rather than wait later to protect all their channels whether they be on freeview or SKY, this would however mean a lot of paperwork and upheaval but I think this in the long run might be the best possible avenue for most channels to go down in order to avoid the same fate as Bangbabes. It won't fix the Ofcom problem but it'll certainly give them more breathing space and make Ofcom's job increasingly difficult.

Yeah they clearly disagree Eccles:

Quote:57. Ofcom considered that it is not necessary for broadcast material to have in any particular case or in general actually caused widespread offence or for Ofcom to have proof of such offence, but rather that the material risked doing so... Rule 2.3 specifically refers to “material which may [emphasis added] cause offence”.

I suppose to continue your traffic violation analogy, we do get fines for not wearing seatbelts, despite that not actually causing harm at the time, only the potential to cause harm. But still, major sympathies for your point in that it seems crazy to have such a rule to try to protect against offence. The kind of material they think is a risk is surely incompatible with sex chat broadcasting in general.

For example the bit I find most worrying is the following:

Quote:8. With regards to two broadcasts on 9 and 13 April 2011 between 21:00 and 21:45, Ofcom noted that on a number of occasions between 21:00 and 21:30 the female presenters adopted sexually provocative positions, sometimes for prolonged periods and regularly stroked and massaged their breasts and mimicked sexual intercourse.
9. In Ofcom‟s opinion, viewers (and in particular parents) would not expect such material to be broadcast so soon after 21:00. Further, the broadcast of such relatively strong sexualised content was inappropriate to advertise adult sex chat so soon after the 21:00 watershed.

Now they emphasise that it is the closeness to the watershed that raises the 'seriousness' at this time. But in the actual guidelines these kinds of acts appear to be generally restricted as follows:

Quote: at no time broadcast invasive shots of presenters‟ bodies. Ofcom cautions against physically intrusive, intimate shots of any duration; and against less intrusive shots that may become unacceptable by virtue of their being prolonged;
 at no time broadcast images of any real or simulated sex acts (these include vaginal or anal intercourse, masturbation, fellatio or cunnilingus);

Sexually provocative positions? Simulated sex acts? Surely that is the name of the game!

(10-11-2011 01:09 )Roquentin Wrote:  

Quote: at no time broadcast invasive shots of presenters‟ bodies. Ofcom cautions against physically intrusive, intimate shots of any duration; and against less intrusive shots that may become unacceptable by virtue of their being prolonged;

Why?? I mean.... WHY??

I hope the cocks of every single Ofcom board member fall off!

(10-11-2011 03:17 )StanTheMan Wrote:  I hope the cocks of every single Ofcom board member fall off!

including the female members!

(09-11-2011 20:40 )MARCCE Wrote:  The big clue is in the repeated statement that channels broadcasting as advertisement channels have "less latitude" than channels broadcasting editorial content.

It's worth highlighting this point because it seems to be something that a lot of people here overlook.

(10-11-2011 20:45 )BarrieBF Wrote:  

(09-11-2011 20:40 )MARCCE Wrote:  The big clue is in the repeated statement that channels broadcasting as advertisement channels have "less latitude" than channels broadcasting editorial content.

It's worth highlighting this point because it seems to be something that a lot of people here overlook.

It's also worth pointing out that it was Ofcom them selves that re categorised the babe channels last year and branded them as "teleshopping/advertisement channels , the babe channels had been going for years without being classed as advertisement channels . In the last few years even before being reclassified the babe channel were still given "less latitude" than channels broadcasting editorial content , this reclassification of the babe channels just gives Ofcom a excuse to use the "less latitude" crap to hammer the channels , the rules for the babe channels are largely the same as they were before being reclassified apart from the non topless rule before 10pm and no nakedness until 11pm .


Moderator Notice : A number of posts, spanning several pages, discussing licencing and Ofcom/regulations in general terms, have been moved to the main Ofcom thread, here.