Ofcom - Financial Penalty For SEL

(21-12-2011 02:32 )swimmer1 Wrote:  Now time for the channels to spend some money on a top class lawyer and take ofcom to the high court where I suspect they would not have a leg to stand on.

Unfortunatley, the babechannels are full of cowards/lazy fucks who can't/won't be arsed to take Ofcom to court and I think that it will be at least another 10yrs before we get the same content level of the babechannels during the Babestar era.

This really is a joke. You see far more sex, nudity etc in even R15 films - The Black Swan & The American are 2 recent examples.

OFCON is one BIG junket. Jobs for the boys. The babe channels are soft targets. The babe channels need to get innovative to get around 'the rules'...

FUCK OFCON.

They may as well stop producing babe shows it seems like sex on regular tv is fine but content in the adult area of the programme guide is offensive - go figure

(21-12-2011 02:55 )SYBORG666 Wrote:  Unfortunatley, the babechannels are full of cowards/lazy fucks who can't/won't be arsed to take Ofcom to court

But you are also a coward/lazy fuck who can't/won't be arsed to take Ofcom to court.

A case of the pot calling the kettle black?

It is very unlikely that this fine will be paid,meanng that 3 more licences will be revoked,which is a further worrying development in the history of Babeshows. However, a company which prevents frank and fair discussion of its product is not deserving of any support in a fight against state imposed censorship.

(21-12-2011 21:39 )admiral decker Wrote:  

(21-12-2011 02:55 )SYBORG666 Wrote:  Unfortunatley, the babechannels are full of cowards/lazy fucks who can't/won't be arsed to take Ofcom to court

But you are also a coward/lazy fuck who can't/won't be arsed to take Ofcom to court.

A case of the pot calling the kettle black?

If I had the money that the babechannels had then I would take them to court because if they can afford to pay £70,000+ fines, then I can't see why they can't afford to take Ofcom to court. I've sent letters to Ofcom HQ and 10 Downing Street plus signed the petition, which is alot more than what the bosses of the babechannels seem to be doing.

(20-12-2011 22:43 )mrmann Wrote:  I have faith that these channels will find a way around this censorship. Now, we might not see this on our TV's, but perhaps online, while the women are doing their sessions, meaning an uncensored camera for web only. If the quality is the equivalent to that of the channel webstreams, then that would be good enough for me!

Well you know you and I agree on most things, mrmann, but this wouldn't achieve anything at all in terms of us beating Ofcom. Hardcore porn has been available online since the internet was invented, so we wouldn't be making any steps whatsoever.

Most people out there who are happy with the way things are, automatically presume all this whinging we do about Ofcom is because we can't see pussy, and yes, that's the core of it, but it's their reasoning behind that decision rather than the decision itself that we need to change.

If the Babe channels move to internet only, Ofcom have won the war.

its never been about seeing pussy for me. its about them removing the choice to see pussy.
i couldnt give two ticks about there so called reasoning because there is no reasoning. they plainly state that they enforce these rules to stop potential offense not actual offense... going by that logic they should ban motor racing in-case some 1 crashes a car...

they are actually removing the viewers choice and this is a breach of our human rights to make free informed decisions..
by doing so they are treating the general public as idiots that cannot be trusted to make up there own minds as to what they find offensive. which in itself is offensive.

fair play to the guy that made the petition but i think the reason it has stagnated is because he didnt push the fact that people are having there rights ridden roughshod over by a none elected quango...
like i say its not about seeing pussy, its about having the choice to see pussy made for me.

(21-12-2011 01:36 )Grawth Wrote:  “Advertisements must not cause serious or widespread offence against generally accepted moral, social or cultural standards.”

Note the word "CAUSE". Where is Ofcom's evidence that any of these shows CAUSED serious or widespread offence?

One of many things that annoys me about Ofcom is their sheer illiteracy. The imedciles just done understand their own rules. One reason the channels get caught out time and time again is that even when Ofcom attempt to give clear guidance, a channel that follows the guidance of the letter still gets warned they may face a sanction.

"CAUSE" means something that actually happened, but in all these cases Ofcom says the shows had "POTENTIAL" to cause...

Looking at the Sanction decision, they refer to Guidelines (para 6) but these are not Rules. Time and time again Ofcom say that decisions depend on the exact content and circumstances. Rules are Rules, Guidelines are, well, non binding. If they must be followed to the letter then either they change the published Rules in which case Ofcom is legally obliged to go through a consultation, or they simply provide examples and clarifications of the Rules, in which case there is no point in quoting the Guidance.

Para 11 "thrust their hips to mime sexual intercourse" is NOT against the Rules or Guidelines.

Recordings were supplied, but in poor quality. So what? The recordings were good enough for Ofcom to decide the Rules were broken, so in what way is punishing SEL for poor quality recordings "proportionate" as required by law? (para 23). SEL didnt know good recordings werent supplied (para 64). How did that happen? Did Ofcom fail to communicate?

A new offence is created - emphasising sexual anatomy in para 44: "a liquid – saliva or oil – was used around the vagina and mons pubis to further emphasise the sexual anatomy". Yes, emphasising.

Then we find that white creme "resembled seminal fluid" (para 45). Really? The quantity would be wildly different and seminal fluid isnt white. Perhaps Ofcom is run by virgins who have never seen seminal fluid.

When determining the fine Ofcom took account of 10 previous breeches by SEL. Can we expect the BBCs multiple breeches to result in a similar fine next time the BBC broadcasts Fuck live from a music festival on daytime TV, or Clarkson?

Proportionate regulation would suggest taking account of turmoil caused by the abortive sale of the business and loss of experienced staff (paras 59 to 61).

The fine should reflect the degree of harm, actual or potential (para 74 on). The fines go way beyond any theoretical harm. More on than in another thread.

Ofcom whine that SEL took "no further steps" to prevent repeated breeches after being notified by Ofcom (para 91 on). Hang on. SEL had been recovering from an abortive sale. It had lost experienced staff. Quite obviously initial chaos, confusion and staff issues would have improved quickly and certainly after a balling out from the bosses after Ofcoms phone call. Improvements can happen without new layers of written compliance procedures.

Ofcom love accusing broadcasters of "repeated" breeches. If a broadcaster is not aware it is breaking the rules of course it will repeat. That is not the same as repeatedly driving at 60 knowing full well the limit is 30mph, or knowingly and deliberately flashing (para 94).

Does any oter genre get accused of repeated breeches? No. Does it happen? It would be amazing if not.

Apparently the shows were capable of causing "profound" offence to people who came across that channels unawares (para 108). Ofcom makes no attempt to quantify this despite being legally obliged to assess this at some point:
Para 319.4 of the Communications Act 2003 (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/21/section/319) states
"In setting or revising any standards under this section, OFCOM must have regard, in particular and to such extent as appears to them to be relevant to the securing of the standards objectives, to ... (b)the likely size and composition of the potential audience for programmes included in television and radio services generally"
and
"the likelihood of persons who are unaware of the nature of a programme’s content being unintentionally exposed, by their own actions, to that content".
These have never been assessed either when drawing up the Broadcasting Code or when investigating a complaint. Ofcom cannot claim to be acting proprtionately if they have no idea how many people might have been affected.

Ofcom also makes a big deal about the risk to children due to some of the content being right after the watershed. Superficially this point seems valid, however it only makes sense if the TV is already tuned to an adult chat channel that suddenly changes. How many kids are likely to be in homes where they or Dad is watching LivexxxBabes? If someone is watching that while the kids are around they probably dont have any inhibitions about leaving porn mags, Page 3, and porn videos lying around, and some mild TV porn will be the least of their worries. Realistic non airbrushed women might even help bring their expectations back to reality.

Ofcom dont understand their own rules.