Ofcom Broadcast Code Consultation

Having been all quiet since around July, I see that various channels have come in for stick from Ofcom this month - and with a specific warning:

Note to Adult Sex Chat Broadcasters
Broadcasters of adult sex chat services without mandatory access restrictions
must take care to ensure that intrusive or detailed shots of presenters’ anal
and genital areas are not broadcast.

Full PDF document here - skip to page 47:

http://www.ofcom.org.uk/tv/obb/prog_cb/o...sue144.pdf

I'm sorry, but in what way is it intrusive if the presenters are consenting? And all this guff about exceeding viewer's expectations - who would tune in to such a show for any length of time and be offended by it being overly explicit?? These people truly live in a curious bubble to justify their own jobs - really boils my piss sometimes!

I feel a little sorrrow for those people who are tasked with watching the babechannels (possibly against their own religious code), in the hope of seeing one of the presenters of an 18 rated late night show expose too much of themselves, for they clearly feel they will be rewarded in some biblical manner.... Why should they need to watch what clearly offends them, the minority. I wouldn't watch anything I didn't feel comfortable with, and regularly change channels when I see something that offends me, nothing on the 900's is offensive to me, so I'll watch it. In fact, I enjoy the 900 channels, does that mean I have a problem Ofcom? Am I going to hell ? Who the F*@K are you to say !

May they burn in hell for making a misery of life for so many people !

(27-10-2009 00:16 )Cobblers Wrote:  Having been all quiet since around July, I see that various channels have come in for stick from Ofcom this month...

3 Channels, 3 breaches, 2 of which are perfectly justified.

1) Elite were advertising an adult website during the daytime. A clear violation of the BCAP code and the fact that TVX had received a sanction for this just a couple of months ago should have registered in the mind of who ever was responsible for compliance issues at Elite TV.

2) Live 960 failed to keep recordings of previously broadcast transmissions, which they are required to do as part of their licence conditions.

On the issue of Bang Babes:

Their response to the investigation was that "it did not consider the content of either of the broadcasts to exceed generally accepted standards or cause offence. That the broadcasts were justified by factors such as the time of transmission, the position of the channels in the adult section of the EPG and the context of the broadcasts."

So Bang Babes consider what they broadcast to be justified.

It has been established in this and other threads that OFCOM are choosing to ignore TVWF and DCMS regulations as recognised by the European Court of Human Rights.
If senior people at Tease Me TV read these forums then perhaps they should ask themselves if the services that the lawyers of the PBTA have given provide value for money.

This was a couple of questions that I had previously asked one of the channels producers if they could pass on to their lawyers:

Quote:1) Is it correct to say that the Ofcom Code has never been laid before Parliament and therefore is not law and can only be used as a guide and should comply to current legislation, specifically the EU Television Without Frontiers directive?

2) Is the Ofcom Code simply a set of guidelines to current broadcasting law and nothing more as it is not on the Statute Books and has not been laid before Parliament?

3) If you follow the guidance under the Television Without Frontiers directives you would comply with the law, so why have you been fined for broadcasting what Ofcom call "Adult sex material"?

Since The Department of Culture Media and Sport states that “In order to encourage free movement of broadcasts, all broadcasting must comply with the European Directive, “Television Without Frontiers” or TVWF.

Broadcasting matters covered by the Directive include sports rights, right of reply, advertising, sponsorship and protection of minors.” The key word there is MUST. All broadcasting MUST be compatible with the TVWF 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 topless 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 is the case) 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.
________________________________________________________________​________________________________________________________________​__________


So, the way I see it by explicit instruction from the Department of Culture Media and Sport, the above, from the TVWF Directive, must comply with the Ofcom Broadcast Code and current Broadcast Law.

It follows then that Ofcom cannot have applied the TVWF rules correctly. This quite obviously goes against the stated objectives of TVWF to create a single market and, affects those `fundamental public interests` such as Freedom of Expression with regard to TV broadcasting.

So if the Babe Channels were to continue to show a warning message (as has already been done with the PTBA advert), and show a small “18” certificate after 10pm then the broadcast would be compatible with TVWF Directives as recognised by The Department of Culture Media and Sport.

as ive posted b4 ofcom only realy rule when breaches occure b4 10pm.
if its a legit case to answer then fair enough but they have to follow the eu rules and not invent there own.

(27-10-2009 03:11 )vostok 1 Wrote:  3 Channels, 3 breaches, 2 of which are perfectly justified.

Indeed, although haven't Ofcom ruled this year sometime that websites linking to R18 material are unacceptable at *any* time of the day? Seems like control freakery of the highest order...

Anyways, yes, my main beef is that post-10pm or so, why are there still these ridiculous restrictions in this day and age when pretty much anything is available at the click of a mouse?

It's an oft-used argument by Ofcom that the positioning of both the day and night shows in the adult section of the EPG does not justify the material currently being shown - so I have to wonder, just what is the point of the adult section of the EPG then??

I'm not saying that we should have unencrypted hardcore at 3pm or anything like that, but I do wish one of the channels had the cajones and the funds to challenge one of these rulings as far as legally possible - same goes for the encrypted broadcasters on the no R18 material rule.

It boggles the mind to think that there are still wee men in dark rooms counting swear words and examining shows for any unexpected "anal detail"....

This whole thing makes me sick to the stomach.

Forget about getting your jollies off on sex shows, this goes straight into the very nature of how our country is run...and its pretty disgusting if you ask me. Its verging on being fascist.

The thing is though, none of this situation need be. All it takes is for one guy to push back and OFCOM will disintegrate.

It's the babe channels atm, but the adult services have been (not) fighting the same fight for years. NONE of them have had the balls to step up to the plate a blow the whole thing sky-high. Those guys need to take some critisism for this farce. It's all well and good saying the customers should write to OFCOM but how about a little help here please? They have websites and a TV presence they could use to inform their ordience of the situation and organise a press for change, letters to fire off to your MP, petitions to sign, etc etc. Yet, we all sit in the dark over what's happening and the status-quo continues.

The glorious status-quo. So wrong and yet, for everyone actually concerned except the customer, so right.

I'm willing to put my shift in on this issue to help get it resolved, if I can do anything...

for me the most annoying thing is ofcom are attacking the babechannels yet far more explciit material is shown on some of the movie channels with the "erotic" movies like the emmanuel in space films which are pretty much one sex scene after another with full frontal shots of the women revealing their pubic hair which wouldnt happen on the babechannels

(27-10-2009 12:24 )TheDarkKnight Wrote:  This whole thing makes me sick to the stomach.

Forget about getting your jollies off on sex shows, this goes straight into the very nature of how our country is run...and its pretty disgusting if you ask me. Its verging on being fascist.

The thing is though, none of this situation need be. All it takes is for one guy to push back and OFCOM will disintegrate.

It's the babe channels atm, but the adult services have been (not) fighting the same fight for years. NONE of them have had the balls to step up to the plate a blow the whole thing sky-high. Those guys need to take some critisism for this farce. It's all well and good saying the customers should write to OFCOM but how about a little help here please? They have websites and a TV presence they could use to inform their ordience of the situation and organise a press for change, letters to fire off to your MP, petitions to sign, etc etc. Yet, we all sit in the dark over what's happening and the status-quo continues.

The glorious status-quo. So wrong and yet, for everyone actually concerned except the customer, so right.

I'm willing to put my shift in on this issue to help get it resolved, if I can do anything...

I've said before that I'm surprised that the channels don't do a lot more to drum up support for their cause.

Having said that, I don't think it's a case of someone pushing back and Ofcom disintegrating as a result. I've read the various comments on this thread with interest over the past few weeks and I get the feeling that it's a lot more complicated than the picture being drawn here. Given what is allowed on just about any channel after the watershed, how on earth can Ofcom be justified in not allowing full frontal nudity on channels broadcasting under the adult section? BBC 1 wouldn't be fined for showing a fanny at midnight but you sure as hell know the babe channels would be.

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? There is the argument that they may prefer to operate things as they are without getting Ofcom on their backs too often but the fact is that some of these channels have had some fairly hefty fines along the way. Are you really going to put up with a potentially very damaging fine if you're almost certain any kind of legal challenge would find in your favour?

The latest Ofcom report concerning Bangbabes suggests that channel is going to be in more hot water before too much longer. Why would they put up with that if they felt Ofcom's regulations were built on sand?

As for Ofcom, they sicken me. This hideous nannying is what appals me the most I think. They refer to the offence that could be caused to someone tuning in unaware, which completely ignores that every single person has access to the best known form of self censorship known to man i.e. the off button.

Are we really to believe that someone taking great offence watches sections of these shows for 20 minutes a time whilst earnestly detailing exactly what is going on in front of them?

The whole concept of X Factor offends me. I wonder if I would be taken as seriously as the 1 complainant who they have taken so seriously in this instance, if I were to detail the reasons for my offence to Ofcom? And while we're at it, just what kind of harm does seeing a seemingly wired Robbie Williams on primetime tv do to minors then?

I truly do hope that Ofcom's regulations when it comes to the babe channels are really as weak sa has been made out and wouldn't stand a chance of standing up against legal challenge. Unfortunately, I don't think it's quite that simple though.

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?

IIRC (feel free to clarify/correct), In the case of R18 being made legal, the publisher appealed through a recognised procedure. (They had sunk all their cash into pre-release publicity after making a deal with the powers that be to test the water, before Jack Straw got wind of it, jumped in and said "NO!")
They won the appeal and (I think it was the BBFC?) then asked for clarification through the high courts which subsequently found there to be no reason to ban 'R18' porn, from any broadcast media.
(But then Jack Straw, the clever twat, set up OFCOM and the Mary Whitehouse brigade were happy again.) Everybody expected there to be a flood of HC porn on the encrypted adult channels, but this flood was stopped dead in its tracks by OFCOMs arbitrary code, which Jack the twat and his church posse made up on the spot.

So, is there a fair appeals system that doesn't cost an arm and a leg or do broadcasters have to go directly to the high court? Are the financial costs of fighting the system too prohibitive to be a reality to most parties affected by it? Can the babestation broadcasters copy the pron publishers?


As I mentioned earlier, this is not a new thing, the adult broadcasters have had this noose around their necks for nearly a decade now, yet they haven't done a thing to fight it, even meekly paying off their fines when they've broken the 'code'. Why?

Because it's simply not worth it. These people run cross-border companies that make cash across the world/europe, why the hell are they going to get involve in a costly fight when they can get our cash anyway? I have a subscription card to a hard core porn channel that shows English porn. I have porn on my tele now, broadcast straight into my house. It's content shoved straight at me that directly contravenes the OFCOM code and they don't do poop about it. Why?

Because OFCOM would lose a fight in Europe and they know it.

...the beautiful status-quo.

Everybodies happy except the customer.

I think the only way to break the stranglehold is to, at the very least, form official statistics of actual viewers 'expectations' of these kinds of shows. As 'viewers expectations' seems to be the big stick OFCOM are using to bash people about with atm. I suggest a viewers poll, on a nuetral website run by an official, recognised and impartial statistics gathering body. The poll to be advertised on the shows and viewers encouraged to take 5 minutes to go and fill in the brief questionaire.

Then, at least, if a broadcaster is cencored, it can use the poll findings to appeal the case.

It's not going to smash OFCOM, but its a start and it will at least clue more people in to the subject. Get the ball rolling, so to speak.

Is not the easy solution to go to a non-subscription encrypted service?

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?