(19-02-2013 16:54 )Scottishbloke Wrote: <SNIP> questions you asked
Do you know how committees work as I said I was co-opted which isn't unusual in committees, most companies have co-opted board members who can't vote. The members listed on ofcom's site are the ex-officio, elected and nominated. Co-opted's aren't put on due to the amount the change.
Co-opted members are on a committee are on a committee for a reason. For me it varied depending what board I was asked to sit in. It varied from being co-opted as a youth member, parent, production specialist or someone in the industry on an issue that is being looked at, at that time a mixture of news broadcasting and the babe channels, as well as theatre work.
Can you prove that Ed Richard's was the cause? or you are speculating because of the amount that are becoming aware?
Maybe, just maybe look at that there are more complaints about the babe channels and similar complaints, ofcom can't just sit there and let it happen, there would be tonnes of people complaining saying that ofcom aren't doing anything. Ofcom have to do something and this has increased. Remember that children have more access to sky/freeview and internet than ever and parents are the most likely people to complain about this sort of channel, as well as the channels.
My view from what I remember of the case, was several years ago. (Taken from Notice of Revocation)
Rule 4.2.3 (Treatments unsuitable for Children) - There were several times that this occurred and they were warned for this several times.
Rule 5.1 (Misleading Information) and Rule 5.4.2 (Superimposed text) - Think if they had worked with ofcom that could have been sorted
Rule 6.1 (Harm and Offence) and Rule 7.3.1 (Mental harm) Rule 7.3.7 (Use of scheduling restrictions) - Adverts could have been pulled, and these could have been done.
Rule 11.1.2 (Premium rate services) - pull the adverts.
in breach of its Television Licensable Content Service licence, Condition 17.1: Failure to comply with a direction from the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) that the offending advertising be removed from the service, despite repeated requests and despite that direction being subsequently reinforced by Ofcom.
I would of agreed and revoked, as there were changes that they could of done, which they failed to do and it would of been fairly easy to do the changes. They were warned several times. However I do think that there was to much emphasis on children, but at the end of the day they broke rules and failed to comply with ofcom, and do things that are easy to do and could of saved them.