Ofcom Broadcast Code Consultation

(27-10-2009 21:00 )brummie Wrote:  Is not the easy solution to go to a non-subscription encrypted service?

I'm not sure who exactly is going to be offended if they seek out a channel in the adult section of the sky system and minors should not be able to access them if parents take responiblity and use the safeguards built into the skybox.

A couple of questions for people with more knowledge of the subject than me:

1. Has the TVWF document been published online or elsewhere in this country?
2. Is there a different set of rules for Freeview and Sky broadcasts?
3. Would an encryption service requiring a pin number mean a different set of rules?
   

I don't think the majority of the channels would want to go encrypted. I would guess they pick up a lot of callers from floating viewers who flick across the channels and that wouldn't be possible if they were encrypted.

Sky could easily encrypt these channels without affecting sky viewers. The only people who would be affected would be none-sky subscribers who would no longer be able to recieve those channels, but could still pickup any non-encrypted channels, such as those that would probably still be broadcast for the freeview terrestrial audiences. (Like me, and I'm all for it, BTW)

To use Skys own example, Channel 5 is encrypted. The babe channels could be the same, there wouldn't be a need to charge any extra for them, nor for a pin number and it wouldn't affect your surfing abilities at all.

Incidently, if they were, there would be absolutely NOTHING to stop them broadcasting full on hard-core boy-girl-girl-boy-donkey sex. (ok, maybe not the donkey, but, you get the idea).

Nothing, that is, except the Church of OFCOM.

(27-10-2009 20:54 )TheDarkKnight Wrote:  The way I understand it is the reason broadcasters don't fight the regulations is purely financial. It costs a lot of money to go to the hight court.

But that begs the question...what is the appeals procedure? Who does a broadcaster appeal to?

Which brings it back to the channels needing to utilise the people they do have on their side better than they do.

What do they do to argue their case? Do they go beyond Ofcom to do that? Who can we, as viewers, put pressure on to state the case.

I don't know what the nightly viewing figures are for these channels but just say they're 50,000 per channel. On the night in question mentioned in that Ofcom report, that's 49,999 people who weren't offended by what they were seeing compared to 1 that was. Why should that one voice hold so much more power than the 49,999 others?

I could maybe see slight justification if this was a terrestrial channel where someone could have been taken unaware by it but on an adult channel where everyone knows what they're getting? It's a joke.

Then we get to the "intrusive" argument. The model in question clearly didn't feel it was intrusive, the vast majority of viewers whose "expectations" seem so important didn't regard it as intrusive, yet one complainant and whoever run the rule over it for Ofcom make the decision for everyone else including the girl herself.

It's just another nonsensical attempt by Ofcom to justify their position. The other month we had complaints about that life art programme shown at dinner time on Channel 4. This was deemed to be acceptable by Ofcom despite them having used the minors argument against the babe channels for years. A programme showing full frontal nudity, on a terrestrial channel, at a time when a lot of children could have been watching was deemed to be acceptable but a channel showing topless nudity in an adult section after the watershed is always walking along a tightrope. That programme also generated a lot more complaints over a week than the combined babe channels do over a year.

Now we have this "viewer expectation" argument when the majority of viewers would actually expect something a lot harder from an adult channel at that time of night.

Maybe it is a question of expense for the channels taking it to higher legal authorities but going on every Ofcom argument and stance so far, I'd say any court hearing would be over in 20 minutes with Ofcom's arguments being torn to pieces.

Regarding nudity and swearing ...

According to OFCOM, it's all to do with context. You can show people having sex in a film, as long as the film has a story in which the sex is an integral part. I believe you can also show nudity in a non-sexual context if its for educational reasons.
The regulations state however, that sexual content cannot be shown for purely gratuitous purposes, except by broadcasters showing 'adult sex shows' broadcast over encrypted channels. (The adult channel, Playboy, Television X, etc)

Thus, we have this truly bizarre situation where OFCOM have the babe stations well and truly by the short and curlies. Everyone knows these shows are broadcast for sexual gratification purposes and OFCOM could wipe the floor with them at anytime, if they really wanted to. They won't, because if they went around smacking everyone with the ban stick, the chance that one of them runs off, appeals, wins and destroys the party is too great.

The perfect status-quo. The viewers are kept tightly under 1950s regulations and the broadcasters don't get uppity and rock the incredibly fragile boat.

All the babe channels and Sky need to do is ship Sky boxes with the adult channels (900s) locked out. People who want to watch babe channels (us) would just need to tap the PIN in once you get unlimited access to free babe channels.

At the moment they are shipped with them unlocked, allowing OfCom to argue that children could tune in to channels their parents don't even know exist.

Simples.

(27-10-2009 20:16 )MARCCE Wrote:  Let's be honest, if Ofcom's case is as flimsy as has been made out, how come none of these channels have challenged it?

This above sentence summarises every Ofcom related thread on this forum.

The channels have spent a combined £250,000 in recent months in "challenging" Ofcom. (Details in the links below)

http://www.babeshows.co.uk/showthread.ph...#pid224046

http://www.babeshows.co.uk/showthread.ph...#pid243051

However, as the recent Ofcom broadcast bulletin documents, none of that money has made any difference to Ofcoms position on how they view the Babe Shows. And that £250,000 has done nothing to guarantee the channels longevity.

If any executives do happen to read this, then I wonder if they think that their lawyers have delivered value for money?

(27-10-2009 22:38 )DanVox Wrote:  All the babe channels and Sky need to do is ship Sky boxes with the adult channels (900s) locked out. People who want to watch babe channels (us) would just need to tap the PIN in once you get unlimited access to free babe channels.

At the moment they are shipped with them unlocked, allowing OfCom to argue that children could tune in to channels their parents don't even know exist.

Simples.

well skyboxes do let you remove all these channels from the EPG.but you can also put them back to.

(27-10-2009 21:00 )brummie Wrote:  

A couple of questions for people with more knowledge of the subject than me:

1. Has the TVWF document been published online or elsewhere in this country?

TVWF rules are even incorporated into the Ofcom broadcast code. However Ofcom chooses to ignore them:

Appendix 2, Article 22 of The Ofcom Broadcast code incorporates the following Television Without Frontiers Directive:

Article 22 of TVWF:

1. Member States shall take appropriate measures to ensure that television broadcasts by broadcasters under their jurisdiction do not include any programmes which might seriously impair the physical, mental or moral development of minors, in particular programmes that involve pornography or gratuitous violence.

2. The measures provided for in paragraph 1 shall also extend to other programmes which are likely to impair the physical, mental or moral development of minors, except where it is ensured, by selecting the time of the broadcast (post watershed adult sexual content, as is the case) by any technical measure (the ability for parents to remove all 900 channels from the Sky Digital EPG and the ability to delete seleted channels from freeview, as the case is) that minors in the area of transmission will not normally hear or see such broadcasts.

3. Furthermore, when such programmes are broadcast in unencoded/Un-encrypted form Member States shall ensure that they are preceded by an acoustic warning or are identified by the presence of a visual symbol throughout their duration.

Quote:

Is there a different set of rules for Freeview and Sky broadcasts?

Would an encryption service requiring a pin number mean a different set of rules?

See points 2 and 3 above.

More reading for you in the following thread brummie:

http://www.babeshows.co.uk/showthread.ph...#pid247401

(27-10-2009 23:08 )dave34 Wrote:  well skyboxes do let you remove all these channels from the EPG.but you can also put them back to.

And the current protections for both Sky and Freeview are more than sufficient according to Appendix 2, Article 22 of The Ofcom Broadcast code.
However Ofcom chooses to ignore this, or they haven't bothered to read their own code.

£250,000 ?

Really ?

Then stop sodding about with OfCom's own biassed process. Commission a fair unbiased poll from a respected organisation like Mori. Choose clips that won't immediately get women's backs up (they seem to dislike clinical lighting and anything that gets straight to the point). Don't conduct the survey among Asian and Afro-Caribbean women with strong religious belief (like the 2005 one).

Ensure that the survey is not just limited to sex. The legislation does not mention sex - just "harm" and "general standards" - both of which apply equally to gangster movies (I'm watching Exiled on BBC4 right now. Large numbers of random gun killings. What's this years major crise ? Random gun killings by teens), horror, gambling and the occult. And when did predatory money grabbing American type preachers get legalised ?

Anyway - any survey about acceptable standards and harm should determine comparable levels of offence for ALL broadcast categories. The law simply does not single out sex.

Then serve notices on the directors of OfCom personally informing them that they are pursuing illegal policies and will be personally liable if they loose a court case.

They should then get advice from OfCom's lawyers. If they lawyers tell them that they can block adult content, then they are in the clear. But if the lawyers say otherwise they risk being personally surcharged, as does any senior public official who knowingly goes against legal advice.

If they don't see reason go to the High Court.

It was the High Court that legalised explicit R18 material, not the BBFC.

They only did it because a film maker used the High Court having exhausted BBFC procedures.

Cost of a survey £10,000
Cost of a High Court case £20,000+
Look on their faces - priceless

That's a lot less than more legal fees every few months.