Are Bangmedia being victimised by Ofcom?

(28-05-2010 00:03 )eccles Wrote:  Sighs heavily. Vostok 1, I take it you are not a shareholder in BangBabes and it's not your money (or job) on the line. (Neither am I before anyone asks). To be technical it is Common Law. And that is just as real as Statute Law.

Parliament gave Ofcom the power to - actually it required it to - draw up and operate a Broadcasting Code.

I'm well aware that The Communications Act of 2003 gave Ofcom its full powers. That same act also requires Ofcom to revise its codes from time to time. Including incorporating the European Commission Audio Visual Media Services (AVMS) Directive which should have been implemented into UK legislation by 19 December 2009. Ofcom certainly seem to ignore this piece of legislation in the current Bang Media case.

As for the "Common Law" part:
I thought Common Law is the same as "Case Law", which is different from statutory law which are the statutes and codes enacted by legislative bodies; regulatory law which are regulations established by governmental agencies based on statutes.

Quote:The only procedural way to challenge this is for a broadcaster who has been through the sanctions business to apply to the High Court for a Judicial Review. They would have to prove irrationality, bias or departure from legislation. It could take 1-2 years to get a hearing during which Ofcom would seem an emergency injunction banning disputed content. No bank would risk loaning money to BangBabes in the meantime and any lines of credit would be switched off. They could eventually win a court case and still loose.

Bang Babes have contributed 1000's of pounds to the legal fund of the PTVBA, its a shame those lawyers couldn't have confronted this situation sooner. Perhaps Bang should hire lawyers to sue their lawyers?

Vostok1, I appreciate what you're saying and the thing is, we both actually want the same end result. As to law/legislation/guide lines, short of having a law degree to decipher all of that rubbish, I do take your point that there may be ambiguity.

One thing strikes me however and that is if the broadcasting of sexually explicit material is allowed under certain directives/guidelines, then we would be watching it as opposed to discussing the subject on this forum. That of itself cannot be disputed.

Somewhere, ordained by someone, is some kind of prohibitive order that does not allow this material to be shown - end of story. The fact that Ofcom have the power to fine broadcasters for doing otherwise, would only seem to confirm that is the case.

Thank you very much for my nomination in
Best Cap or Cap Set Of The Year 2013
for Dannii Harwood Posts 781 & 782

(28-05-2010 00:19 )amandasnumerounofan Wrote:  If Ofcom are being fair, then why was I able to see a woman inhaling a gas lighter canister at the time kids are getting home from school on a well known daytime tv show and i've not heard of them getting a fine.

I for one have said nothing about Ofcom being fair. Ofcom have acted within their mandate and as long as that mandate is unchallenged, then they will continue to do so. If Ofcom can prove a programme has breeched its code, then they will take action against the broadcaster of such a programme. Again, I make no claims that the code is fair, only that they are able to successfully demonstrate a breech.

Very early on in the thread, Bluebird mentioned that programmes of a violent nature could be shown 'in context', which adult material lacked. Maybe the programme you speak of was also deemed to be in context or quite simply, nobody has complained about it.

Thank you very much for my nomination in
Best Cap or Cap Set Of The Year 2013
for Dannii Harwood Posts 781 & 782

(28-05-2010 00:37 )Shady Cee Wrote:  One thing strikes me however and that is if the broadcasting of sexually explicit material is allowed under certain directives/guidelines, then we would be watching it as opposed to discussing the subject on this forum. That of itself cannot be disputed.

Quote:Somewhere, ordained by someone, is some kind of prohibitive order that does not allow this material to be shown - end of story. The fact that Ofcom have the power to fine broadcasters for doing otherwise, would only seem to confirm that is the case.

Indeed. A gentleman's agreement between Benelux Ltd and Northern and Shell. Both Broadcasters agreed to stick to a fair game and not show hardcore. Northern and Shell did play dirty and briefly show hardcore, Benelux Ltd cried to Ofcom: a record fine.
The biggest critic of allowing Hardcore subscription TV? Not the religious nutters or the Mary Whitehouse brigade but the AITA, the trade body that represents licensed sex shops. They were the ones that told the old ITC that sex on TV is harmful, yet a hardcore DVD from a sex shop is safe.

I would say if they are being done for their night-time shows then yes they are. If it is for the daytime shows then it probably is fair given some of the stuff I've seen lately!!

(28-05-2010 01:02 )vostok 1 Wrote:  The biggest critic of allowing Hardcore subscription TV? Not the religious nutters or the Mary Whitehouse brigade but the AITA, the trade body that represents licensed sex shops. They were the ones that told the old ITC that sex on TV is harmful, yet a hardcore DVD from a sex shop is safe.

Well, with fewer boroughs granting, or renewing sex shop licenses, maybe we'll hear less from AITA in future. Licensing aside, the net is signalling the death of these establishments in a big way too. Why pay for what is available on demand and free of charge?

My mate has a newsagent and he made more money from porn mags and latterly, DVD's, than he did from anything else in his shop. DVD's of course were under the counter. Now though, the DVD's are gone and even the mag sales are floundering as the net becomes the #1 porn provider.

Anyway, I really, really need to sleep.

Cheers.

Thank you very much for my nomination in
Best Cap or Cap Set Of The Year 2013
for Dannii Harwood Posts 781 & 782

The problem for bangbabes media at the moment with ofcom is Unfortunately through no fault of there own I fear for the future of the bangbabes channel as they are not on a level playing field now as the other channels such as babestation, sportxxx or elite tv and are simpy being swept aside unless they are also given the freedom to show stronger material and with predictably now tame, softy shows it does nothing to encourage anybody to watch it, nevermind phone the channel such as are the ridiculous restrictions currently in place. I think the time now is right for Jeremy Hunt to step in and give ofcom the boot and simply liberate this country from facist govenment qangos.

(28-05-2010 17:49 )Scottishbloke Wrote:  The problem for bangbabes media at the moment with ofcom is Unfortunately through no fault of there own I fear for the future of the bangbabes channel as they are not on a level playing field now as the other channels such as babestation, sportxxx or elite tv and are simpy being swept aside unless they are also given the freedom to show stronger material and with predictably now tame, softy shows it does nothing to encourage anybody to watch it, nevermind phone the channel such as are the ridiculous restrictions currently in place. I think the time now is right for Jeremy Hunt to step in and give ofcom the boot and simply liberate this country from facist govenment qangos.

Gene, not Jeremy, Hunt is needed.

I never thought of him, good one mate, nice to see a humourous take on all of this

Quote:Bang Babes have contributed 1000's of pounds to the legal fund of the PTVBA, its a shame those lawyers couldn't have confronted this situation sooner. Perhaps Bang should hire lawyers to sue their lawyers?

Actually BangBabe's response to the latest Ofcom investigation was very robust. Ofcom doesn't like it when a broadcaster doesn't admit guilt and bend over to be spanked - they have made it clear in the past that admitting guilt results in a reduced penalty, while honestly believing that the rules allow something is punished more harshly. Clearly a conflict of interest as Ofcom write the rules, sometimes initiate a complaint, select it for investigation, investigate it, adjudicate it, and even hear appeals. It's as if Parliament, Trading Standards, Police, Crown Prosecution Service, Courts and the Appeal Court were all rolled together in one organisation with one Chief Exec hiring, firing, setting pay and bonuses, one set of policies, and all the people working on different stages have the opportunity to work, lunch, train and socialise together. Not good.

BangBabes "said that when balanced with the need to protect viewers from harm and offence in a multi-channel environment, the viewer could exercise his choice simply not to view material which was not to his taste. It said that Sky viewers, for example, could block all adult content should they choose. The broadcaster considered that if it was to be found in breach of the Code in this case, Ofcom would find it difficult to justify its position in light of the broadcasters rights under Article 10 of the Human Rights Act." and "Bang Channels stated that this material was in line with audience expectation for a channel of this nature at this time of night. It said it was satisfied that the nature of the broadcast provided sufficient context for the type of material shown. Adequate controls were in place to protect the public in the form of warnings as to the nature of the content, the channel type and position, and the ability of all set top boxes on sale in the UK to restrict access to any channel. It asserted its right that freedom of expression outweighed the potential for offence as individuals could exercise their right to simply not view the material in the first place."

Might be wrong, but sounds as if BB aren't going to take this lying down.

Common Law / Case Law - doesn't really matter which, both are enforceable. The Obsence Publications Act is an interesting example. Statute says obscence material is illegal, but the definition of what is obscene is up to the Courts. Parliament has not defined this, lower courts (with juries) can make their own decisions, but only if consistent with Appeal Court decisions. Messy but ultimately enforceable.

Euro AVCS rules vs Ofcom - UK Governments have always been good at ensuring that the UK has morality get out exclusions from EU law. I'm sure Irish Governments aren't unhappy about this either. And Turkey could soon be a full member. Anyway the AVCS prevents unencrypted porn, which is why many of the free Euro babe channels went tame 1-2 years ago, thought there seems to have been some relaxation.

So I am hoping BB will challenge Ofcom but it won't be an easy ride.

And ultimately any babe channel that is happy with soft content is loosing out massively. Given reliable hardcore they would easily get 10 times more subscribers. Yes, they might loose some web customers, but that would not be an overall loss, and they would gain all the people buying content from French, German, American sites.