Ofcom & Licence Revocation – Empty Threat?

(26-01-2011 02:48 )SYBORG666 Wrote:  I hope now that they are messing with a giant of an international company (PlayboyTV) Ofcom will get put in their place and start to focus on REAL offensive material, such as why SkyArts can get away with showing in a programme that I saw a couple of nights ago, 2 clips from a banned movie of a 12yr old Brooke Shields in a full frontal nude pose uncensored. Now, as far as i'm aware, showing any uncensored pictures of a naked child in an adult context on any format is illegal. So, what have any of the adult section channels (ftv or ppv) done that is so wrong, that they have initiated this onslaught of fines, warnings and license revocations. Come on PlayboyTV, take Ofcunt to court and give Britain back our freedom to see naked women on our tv's in all their glory.

Playboy I am afraid has already once payed a huge fine and never bothered about fighting Ofcom.


Consideration of Playboy TV UK/Benelux Limited
For Programme Code breaches in showing R18 version
material in breach of sections 1.1 and 1.4(d) of
Ofcom’s Programme Code (and taking into account
breaches of section 1.4 © of the Programme Code
in relation to encrypted and unencrypted
promotional material transmitted before 21:00 on
30 April and 2 May 2004 respectively)
On 1 May 2004
Decision to Fine £25,000

So can`t really see them contesting this one either.
I think myself that ultimately it is we the public who pay the fines,because we have been paying for,a load of second class garbage that is potrayed as porn.
All the stuff that we in the uk watch on our adult channels,would only be classed as [14] or [16] in most other civilised countries within the european community,
So why is this?

Back in the 80's we never ever had such organisations such as ofcom, instead we had Mary Whitehouse who was nothing more than a running joke at the time as the politicians were only interested in discussing real everyday politics, they couldn't give 2 fucks about what was broadcast after the 9pm watershed. In fact the only thing at the time that was subject to government censorship was Gerry Adams and sinn fein such was the political situation and connection with the IRA at the time and that was fair enough and could be justified in many ways. However ever since New Labour came into power in 1997 under which we all thought at the time was a bright new era with Tony Blair even mixing around with the celebrities such as the Gallagher brothers at the time and coming across as a man in touch with the modern world and was seen as many at the time as a liberator and oh how we were fooled. It was under Labour that all these restrictions which we have in place today which they are responsible for such as the creation of ofcom in 2003, one of many government quango's introduced under the Labour Government. Now under Cameron and Clegg and things could even get worse with even the internet being up for discussion to be censored. We need a change of attitude coming from the politicians as we the general public who voted these parties into power have been deceived with empty promises. Democracy has to be changed. I call for a vote for every single debate that is up for discussion rather than letting parliament decide for us what they think is best. Our democracy at present only allows us to vote these politicians in but have no say whatsoever on the running of this country. War in Iraq once again we had no say in the matter. Democracy in many ways is no better than dictatorship.

(25-01-2011 03:01 )Gold Plated Pension Wrote:  Empty threat, we now know that it happens. If you read the latest bulletin you will see other broadcasters now under threat. Playboy and Just4Us are being called in by Ofc@m for a final warning.

In light of the above and Ofcom‟s recent concerns with Just4Us and Playboy‟s compliance, Ofcom is now requiring the licensees to attend a meeting at Ofcom to discuss its compliance procedures. Ofcom also puts Just4Us and Playboy on notice that it must take all necessary and appropriate measures to ensure its channels comply with the BCAP Code in the future. Ofcom will not expect further breaches of this nature to occur again.

Expect about 6 channels to go down if Ofc@m receive further complaints and starts revocation procedures again. It's been said before Ofc@m wants rid of these ftv channels.

http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binarie...sue174.pdf

Well further investigations are being carried out on Playboy by Ofc@m following three more alleged breaches. Whether these are complaint based or compliance monitoring is not clear, i suspect the latter. Ofc@m have already seen off one broadcaster (4 licenses) and Playboy hold many more.
Playboy have been called to a meeting with the regulator and no doubt these further investigations will be discussed, albeit not in detail so as not to prejudice any outcome.
These are compliance issues and as such would in effect give Ofc@m the green light, if they are not already doing so, to pro-actively monitor compliance of all Playboy licenses.
As with Bang Media etc this would then raise the 'fit and proper' issue with a financial penalty, Notice of Direction or even licence suspension. Suspension of all license's could be for a period of time determined by Ofc@m to enable Playboy to train up their compliance teams, producers/cameramen, presenters etc and have written procedures in place to include disiplinary arrangements to satisfy the regulator.I have seen alcohol licenses suspended for up to 3 months with similar requirements but that has been for selling alcohol to 12 year old's. A bit more serious that a presenter simulating a blow job.
Either way a negative outcome will fall on Playboy within the next 6-8 weeks, so don't expect to much from their broadcasts.
Fight or flight it will be in Playboy's hands.


EDIT
From researching Ofc@m's procedures for consideration of statutory sanctions they do not have the authorisation to suspend a licence. They can shorten a licence, but only under certain cases or revocation. So as Bang went, expect a financial penalty and then revocation.

Mixed messages from Playboy. A while back Ofcom found them in breach and fined them, but it was for a show broadcast 2 years earlier. They had been quietly fighting through the appeals procedure all that time.

On another(?) occasion Playboy accepted that it had broken the rules with content on unencrypted Playboy One, but said it had since gone encrypted and the new rules helped sales of its encrypted channels.

And they are in a difficult position when they let someone else supply content but retain editorial responsibility for a channel. As Ofcom point out, they have one shared Compliance Team, so it makes them look incompetent.

Not being able to supply recordings - on multiple occasions - is even worse.

My own feeling is that Playboy will bend over and take it when they think they have no strong defence, but will fight if they think Ofcom are wrong. And at the moment they are vulnerable, so they may play safe for the next 6 months until they can claim problems are well in the past.

(26-01-2011 13:10 )HEX!T Wrote:  the film your on about has been classified by the bbfc and because of this the channel could show it in context. the film isnt actually banned in the uk and never was. it concerns the plight of a 12 year old gilr living and working in a brothel among other things. thus the nudity in the bbfc's eyes is justified and in context. as would the clips show in the context of discussing the said movie.
there was an uproar about the movie when it first came out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pretty_Baby_(film) with slurs of child pornography and so on.
but because it is a film and has already been vetted by the bbfc ofcom cant say squat about it. and here lies the conjecture. the bbfc cant rate the babeshows as 18/r18 because they are the british board of film classification, and ofcom have nothing to do with them. they did try 1s to over turn a ruling but were beaten to a pulp in court.

http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binarie...s/BBFC.pdf ,... even the bbfc agree that ofcom use vague terms in the above pdf and ask for clarification. so like i have said in the past the bbfc ratings has no bearing on ofcoms draconian stance on censorship, after all it was the bbfc that passed the r18 video act which snubbed ofcom.

HEXiT
From reading between the lines of the BBFC consultation response they do not appear to be adverse to the idea of showing R18 material on an encrypted channel.

17. We note, however, that the Ofcom statement ‘R18 Material and its equivalent’, issued at the time of publication of the current code, concluded that while ‘R18’ or ‘R18’-equivalent material might impair the development of minors, it would not be likely to seriously impair their development . The current prohibition depends not on a judgement that any transmission of ‘R18’ or ‘R18’-equivalent material would be incompatible with the relevant European Directive, but on a judgement that the access control systems available at that time were insufficiently robust. It seems likely to the BBFC that some may argue that the access control systems available in 2009 are sufficient to meet any reasonable test of robustness.

The BBFC also state that pornography certified R18 falls outside of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 with regard to extreme pornography.

[b][b]22. The Home Office recognised the BBFC’s expertise in this area as it considered introducing a new offence relating to possession of extreme pornographic material – now in force under the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008. In light of the concerns expressed by the BBFC and others, the Act excludes video works classified by the BBFC from the scope of the offence. This exclusion was deemed necessary due to the difficulties of defining the unacceptable material in a manner which would allow for consistent interpretation by the various enforcement agencies and, indeed, by the courts. However carefully crafted the definition, the scope of the offence is inevitably dependent on a series of difficult judgements, and this is true of the range of criteria and legal restrictions that form the upper boundary of the ‘R18’ category. Such judgements can be made consistently by a single, independent, expert body, but are likely to result in wide disparities of interpretation if left to a variety of broadcaster compliance departments.

Whilst stating that R18 is unlikely to seriously impair the developement of children or be harmful to adults or society.

With ‘hardcore’ sex works the consequence of an incorrect compliance department judgement is highly likely to be the transmission of material which is likely to seriously impair the development of children and /or be harmful to adults or to society and/or be illegal.

But would be guarded against any other regulatory authority making a decision about R18 content other than themselves.

23. The BBFC makes no comment on the efficiency and effectiveness of broadcaster compliance departments, but notes that, in its considerable experience, many DVD distributors involved in the distribution of ‘hardcore’ sex works have shown evidence of consistently failing to understand the difference between what is acceptable and unacceptable.

24. We would therefore strongly recommend that if the prohibition on such material is removed or relaxed, the new rule should require that all such content is subject to thorough pre-broadcast approval by independent experts in the field of regulation of hardcore pornography (and not just by the compliance department of the entity that is broadcasting it). One way of doing this would be to require that only ‘hardcore’ material classified by the BBFC could be broadcast (ie ‘actual R18’ rather than ‘R18 equivalent’). If such a position was adopted, the BBFC has in place well established and cost effective procedures for confirming whether an individual piece of content does, or does not, have an R18 classification, and it would be open to both broadcasters and Ofcom to make use of that service for compliance purposes.

From reading the full response it is clear that the BBFC are looking to diversify into other area's of compliance and consultation whilst maximising their income stream. Getting R18 material on encrypted TV would enable this.

Perhaps Ofcom should consider this when they re-issue their Broadcasting Code on the 28th February.

(27-01-2011 00:45 )eccles Wrote:  Mixed messages from Playboy. A while back Ofcom found them in breach and fined them, but it was for a show broadcast 2 years earlier. They had been quietly fighting through the appeals procedure all that time.

On another(?) occasion Playboy accepted that it had broken the rules with content on unencrypted Playboy One, but said it had since gone encrypted and the new rules helped sales of its encrypted channels.

And they are in a difficult position when they let someone else supply content but retain editorial responsibility for a channel. As Ofcom point out, they have one shared Compliance Team, so it makes them look incompetent.

Not being able to supply recordings - on multiple occasions - is even worse.

My own feeling is that Playboy will bend over and take it when they think they have no strong defence, but will fight if they think Ofcom are wrong. And at the moment they are vulnerable, so they may play safe for the next 6 months until they can claim problems are well in the past.

I believe they will initially attract a large fine, but with their legal knowledge have written such legal terms into the contracts with the content providers that any penalty imposed would allow them to remove the content providers from the screen. So expect 4 or more blank screens in 8 weeks time. Playboy need to protect their license's and by removing RLL/Excite from their channels would satisfy Ofc@m who are determined to remove all traces of Bang Media (London) Ltd and Bang Channels Ltd London from the Sky EPG. Who says their enforcement is impartial. They are on a witch hunt.