Ofcom Discussion

Can we have the title of this thread updated to OFCOM STUFFED! please?

What would you think chaps if the police said we had to put bars on all our windows because they couldn't do their job?

What would you think chaps if the jumped-up TV bobby said we had to have PIN and content restrictions because they're not only FAILING to do what they're supposed to be doing ACCORDING TO LAW BUT, they'd twisted what THE LAW said and engineered that way!?

YOU ARE SO EVIL, OFCOM, THERE'S NO WORD OTHER THAN TRAITOR THAT SUMS YOU UP AND EVEN THAT'S NO WHERE NEAR STRONG ENOUGH.

Fuck Off and DIE, OFCOM.

(08-07-2010 23:34 )RRROGER Wrote:  who appoints these fuckin' Ofcom retards to decree what & when is something suitable for broadcasting???

Errr, well, unless I'm mistaken, they're a Government run organisation, which, sadly, would mean that we are partly responsible as we voted for whichever government set them up!

Totally off topic.

Rogerbee, I'm afraid the 'first past the post' system doesn't function correctly if there are more than two parties or candidates on your ballot paper. The fact is none of the governments of the past 100 years or so has actually secured more than a 50% share of the public vote yet, they've enjoyed the dictatorial privillege of a majority in Parliament. The current coallition government is as close to proper representative government as we've seen since the failed LibLab pact of the mid '70s. That said, there are deep divisions in fundamental areas of policy between the Tories and the LibDems (that may actually be a good thing as both sides of the argument get aired in Cabinet).

Parliament as a whole is supposed to hold the government to account but, they cannot do so if the government holds the balance of power in Parliament. When that government has only secured little more than 36% of the national vote then that actually means 64% of voters didn't want these fuckers anywhere near government. I hope folks can see just how fucked our present 'democratic' electoral system is...?

My personal feeling is that the government should reflect the voting via some form of PR. That is there's no one party 'in charge' at all but, instead, a coallition that reflects the country as a whole. Now that's real democracy, at least to my mind, with no dictatorial powers for any one party either in Cabinet, Committee or Parliament. The whole country doesn't go all-Labour or all-Tory every four or five years but, that's what the present system seems to deliver. Of course many MPs would argue they'd never be able to get anything done in such a PR government, to wit I say, "GOOD!" - Parliament should only ever pass laws that we (or our Parliamentary reps) virtually ALL agree with.

As a bare minimum I think we should adopt a 75% minimum majority on the passing of any Bills onto the Statute. If the government can't convince 75% of Parliament a Bill is actually worthwhile and necessary then my gut tells me it very likely isn't worthwhile or necessary. It just cannot be safe to allow one or two votes to permit the passage of what is clearly highly contested legislation onto the Statute.

[quote='Gold Plated Pension' pid='545736' dateline='1276633648']
Ofcom today find themselves in the High Court to defend their 'Generally Accepted Standards' and 'Offensive Material' policy following a ruling they made against an interview carried out by radio presenter John Gaunt.

Gaunt was presenting TalkSport in November 2008 when during a live interview with councillor Michael Stark about Redbridge Council's decision to prevent smokers from becoming foster parents accused him of being a "Nazi", a "health Nazi" and an "ignorant pig".

A total of 53 complaints were received by Ofcom who decided in May 2009 that Gaunt had breached Generally Accepted Standards.

The ruling is in Ofcom Broadcast Bulliten number 133 dated 11th May 2009.

http://www.ofcom.org.uk/tv/obb/prog_cb/o...sue133.pdf

Following this ruling Gaunt lost his job at TalkSport but won the right in January 2010 to judicial review the Ofcom decision with the backing of Liberty, a human rights and civil liberties organisation.





John Gaunt lost the judicial review against Ofcom following their decision in May 2009 that he had breached 'Generally Accepted Standards'.

The decision was published yesterday and does not allow Gaunt leave to appeal. Gaunt has stated he will take the case direct to the Court of Appeal in what will primarily be a new hearing of the case rather than a review of the JR decision.

I'm still searching for a link to the full decision to post on this forum so that we can view the details of evidence Ofcom presented to defend their 'Generally Accepted Standards'.

Both sides are claiming some success from the decision which has been reported on several sites as below.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/jul...high-court

http://www.mediaweek.co.uk/News/MostEmai...cks-Ofcom/

http://www.ofcomwatch.co.uk/2010/01/john...om-issues/

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/greensla...aunt-ofcom

Gaunt has stated he will take this issue all the way to the European Court of Appeal if necessary. Good luck to the guy.

(14-07-2010 22:33 )Gold Plated Pension Wrote:  [quote='Gold Plated Pension' pid='545736' dateline='1276633648']
Ofcom today find themselves in the High Court to defend their 'Generally Accepted Standards' and 'Offensive Material' policy following a ruling they made against an interview carried out by radio presenter John Gaunt.

Following this ruling Gaunt lost his job at TalkSport but won the right in January 2010 to judicial review the Ofcom decision with the backing of Liberty, a human rights and civil liberties organisation.


John Gaunt lost the judicial review against Ofcom following their decision in May 2009 that he had breached 'Generally Accepted Standards'.

I'm still searching for a link to the full decision to post on this forum so that we can view the details of evidence Ofcom presented to defend their 'Generally Accepted Standards'.

Gaunt has stated he will take this issue all the way to the European Court of Appeal if necessary. Good luck to the guy.

Whilst the full decision is published trying to get an electronic copy of it proves difficult. Have been on the phone all day to different sections of the RCofJ who each pass me on to someone else. Typical.

The case was heard at the Royal Courts of Justice (Queen’s Bench Division) on 15 and 16 June 2010. The case number is CO/9919/2009 and the decision was released on Tuesday 13th July. If anyone can locate the document and post a link it would be appreciated. I will continue trying.

The case was heard before Sir Anthony May and Justice Blair.

One interesting point is that John Gaunt was supported by Liberty.

GPP, there's a bit more here http://www.melonfarmers.co.uk/ow.htm#Naz...s_Win_6589

And from that I found this at the BBC News http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10611110

Quote:Sir Anthony said Ofcom was justified in its conclusion.

"The broadcast was undoubtedly highly offensive to Mr Stark and was well capable of offending the broadcast audience," he said

"The essential point is that the offensive and abusive nature of the broadcast was gratuitous, having no factual content or justification."

Well, that may be Sir Anthony's opinion according to the piffle in Ofcom's Code, but, that's not exactly what the law says on the subject.

I actually agree with Gaunt. Mr Stark wants to ban smokers from fostering any of the 84,000 kids the State has taken into 'care'. Mr Stark is in my opinion stark raving mad, a borderline Nazi, a 'health Nazi' (that's common parlance isn't it?) and an arrogant and ignorant pig. That's my opinion of him - so will he sue me now? As a smoker I can assure Sir Anthony and Mr Stark that I feel I'm being ostracised, scapegoated, discriminated against and excluded from social activities by New Labour's fascistic attitude toward smokers. I am not a fucking lepper and my smoking does NOT "seriously harm those around me" - more deadly, noxious and cancerous crap comes out of a car exhaust in a minute than my smoking creates in an entire day.

However, let's cut to the chase. The High Court OUGHT to read the fucking LAW. As I've been pointing out for some considerable time, 319(2)(f) of the Comms Act 2003 states that Ofcom are "to ensure generally accepted standards are applied to the content of TV and radio services to provide adequate protection to members of the public from the inclusion in those services of offensive and harmful material".

Jon Gaunt isn't supposed to provide adequate protection. Talksport perhaps is, IF Ofcom's Code explains EXACTLY WHAT and HOW brodcasters are to apply some relevant generally accepted standards in order to provide adequate protection to the public against the inclusion of offensive and harmful material in their programmes. OFCOM ARE SUPPOSED TO ENSURE THEIR CODE TELLS BROADCASTERS TO APPLY SOME RELEVANT GENERALLY ACCEPTED STANDARDS TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE PROTECTION TO THE PUBLIC FROM THE INCLUSION OF OFFENSIVE AND HARMFUL MATERIAL IN THEIR PROGRAMMES - its the law! Sacking someone after the fact sure as fuck doesn't sound like providing adequate protection to me!

Just to illustrate: If the Comms Act said that Ofcom "are to provide adequate protection to prevent people being shot" and then someone got shot, who could and should be held accountable?

Here's another example. This is even better because its real and it illustrates perfectly, I think, what's actually WRONG with Ofcom's Code with regard to 'offensive and harmful material'. In their stakeholder section 1 guidance for "Protection of the Under Eighteens", Ofcom state that news broadcasts should not give out information in respect of child abuse cases that could lead to the identification of the child via the 'jigsaw effect' of people piecing together different snippets of information. In effect then, such news items give out the same blanket statement according to what the law/police/authorities allow to be revealed in order to inform the public and still conceal the people's identities. I hope you can see how a generally accepeted standard makes all the difference to clear and concise regulation?

Now, I wonder, why doesn't Sir Anthony read the law? Ofcom's Code sure as hell has not received Royal Assent, and the Courts of Law are supposed to be upholding and applying the Law aren't they?

I despair sometimes, but, now and then there's a glimmer of hope. When the BBFC went to the High Court, they didn't get away with spouting their guidelines, oh no, they had to prove what they were doing in their guidelines was actually correct ACCORDING to the letter of the law - and they were found seriously wanting...as I KNOW Ofcom are too.

Does Sir Anthony actually believe that Parliament intended to prevent people expressing their thoughts and feelings on air? Does Sir Anthony believe Freedom of Expression allows Ofcom to censure anyone? I think it is clear to all reasonable and rational people that 319(2)(f) is aimed firmly at banning OBSCENITY - i.e. that which IS by Law "offensive and harmful material" - NOT in stifling someone expressing their thoughts and feelings on a particular subject or person's opinions/actions. Don't you folks?

To provide adequate protection from the inclusion of offensive and harmful material in their transmissions, broadcasters usually employ a delay in the transmission of live programmes such that an operator can bleep or silence offensive language (or blank images) from the station's output. Big Brother frequently switches the audio signal to some random background noise whenever anyone in the house starts mentioning external events and names of people. They don't however tend to obscure offensive and harmful language after the watershed - although racist remarks may now be on the hush list (I don't know 'cos I haven't watched it for years but I do know Jade did cause a stink on a return 'celeb' visit a while before she died).

So, like I said, its not Gaunt's fault Talksport broadcast his offensive comments. Ofcom are responsible for ensuring Talksport know what and how they're supposed to stop anything like this leaving their aerial - I know that 'cos its what the FUCKING LAW SAYS is one of Ofcom's STANDARDS OBJECTIVES in section 319(2) of the Comms Act.

Now when I wonder will some fucker DO SOMETHING about fucking Ofcom's total INCOMPETENCE in this area?

If anyone knows how to get hold of Jon Gaunt please tell him his defense, line of attack, right of appeal and reason for demanding a Judicial Review of Ofcom's Code...and the rapid demise of the Ofcom Content Board/Committee...is all in the Comms Act.

Tell me folks, did BangBabes sack Amanda or Jemma after lollygate? They did the offending act didn't they? But, it was Bang Media took the wrap and the producer got the chop for allowing/instructing them to go that far and pointing the camera at the action and broadcasting it! Clearly, it was his fault and, the channel's fault and, that's OFCOM's fault because THEY'RE supposed to make sure the CODE explains WHAT and HOW some relevant generally accepted standards are to be APPLIED by broadcasters to provide adequate protection to members of the public from the inclusion of offensive and harmful material in their programmes. It is never the host's/performer's/guest's fault EVER! It's the law - and that's OFCOM's fucking JOB DESCRIPTION!

Ofcom are SHIT at protecting the public from the inclusion of offensive and harmful material in the output of their licensees programmes - I know that 'cos their fortnightly Bullshittings are full of complaints from offended members of the public.

As I've said before. Either Ofcom's Content Board are shite at what they're supposed to be doing or, they've set the bar so low you can't say boo to a goose without getting a complaint from some offended goose hugger. And actually, Ofcom are offenders on BOTH counts.

For anyone who's interested, I've been in contact with Jon Gaunt and he says he is appealing to the Court of Appeal against the High Court decision to dismiss his application for a Judicial Review.

I've pointed out much of the above to Jon, who's passed it on to his legal team (whom I believe are backed by Liberty). Whether its legally useful or not remains to be seen however, I also pointed out that the High Court had no business quoting Ofcom's Code or the Comms Act to Jon in dismissing his application and denying him leave to appeal.

The Comms Act applies only to Ofcom. Their Code applies only to their licensees. Jon is no more responsible for Talksport's output under Ofcom's Code than any other presenter/guest/performer/member of the public on the phone is.

It is Ofcom's job to ensure Talksport "ensure generally accepted standards are applied to the contents of their radio services to provide adequate protection to members of the public from the inclusion in such services of offensive and/or harmful material" according to Rule 2.1 of their Code. It is thus Ofcom's FAULT Talksport broadcast Jon Gaunt's "highly offensive comments without any contextual justification" according to the High Court decision. Why the High Court didn't grant the Judicial Review on the basis of this blatant dereliction of Ofcom's responsibilities according to the law and their Code is unclear.

As Sir Anthony appeared to say Jon's comments had no 'contextual justification' and, the only place this appears is in Ofcom's Code then, it seems to me the High Court were applying Ofcom's Code rather than the Comms Act, which is after all the law and should be top of the list in a court of law shouldn't it? It certainly should not come second to Ofcom's incompetence and possibly illegal Code.

Clearly, there's a major contradiction in Ofcom's Code in supposedly allowing licensees to justify offensive material by 'the context', against providing adequate protection to the public from the inclusion of such hideous stuff in their licensee's programmes. The point is Ofcom created a Code which allows offensive material to be broadcast and this is only ever checked for compliance IF someone complains after they've been inadequately protected from it...because that's what Ofcom DECIDED TO ALLOW their licensees to do. Of course, Ofcom get the final say as to whether the material WAS or WASN'T justified by their definition of 'the context' (which by the way is mostly 'defined' by the section 319(4) Code Review Criteria in the Comms Act and really only applies to Ofcom as and when they bring their Standards Code upto date with the generally accepted standards according to current social values and opinions).

You may also note I called Ofcom's Code the "Standards Code" because this is in fact what the Comms Act calls it and indeed, tells us all we need to know about where those generally accepted standards according to current social values and opinions SHOULD BE DEFINED.

Ofcom's Code is an absolute travesty. You really do have to read it, and the law pertaining to its creation and up keep (section 319), to believe it. They've simply copied whole chunks of the law which THEY are supposed to FOLLOW in CREATING and MAINTAINING the Standards Code and expect their licensees to interpret and abide by Ofcom's BASTARDISED version of it.

Ofcom really have had it this time.

No - REALLY!

I've now found proof that Ofcom are indeed blatantly discriminating against everyone who does not feel harmed or offended by explicit material designed to turn people on.

This is from clause 1.18 of Ofcom's Section 1 stakeholder guidance 'Protecting the under 18s'

Quote:Ofcom considers that ‘adult sex material’ is material that includes strong images and/or language of a sexual nature, which is broadcast for the primary purpose of sexual arousal or stimulation. For example, if the narrative of a drama or documentary is principally a vehicle for material whose primary purpose is sexual arousal or stimulation, it is likely to be ‘adult sex material’ because the strength of the material is unlikely to be editorially justified by context.

Now, folks like me (and perhaps all here) who do not feel harmed or offended by sexually arousing material are being actively discriminated against because Ofcom seem to believe, against all evidence and legal precedent, that this material is harmful and offensive and cannot/will not ever be justified by them if anyone complains about it. Which is why whenever someone complains about sexual material Ofcom always but always fail themselves in that most important task to provide adequate protection to the public according to a breach of Rule 2.3, which in itself is not required, suggested or mentioned in the Comms Act - no one in Parliament ever thought justifying offensive and/or harmful material according to 'the context' was a good idea, indeed, the Comms Act demands the public are adequately protected from such nasty stuff at all times.

Ofcom are well and truly buggered - and all by their own incompetent hand.

Ofcom has two tools that it uses against Babe channels, protection of children and generally accepted standards (GAS). They tend not to follow the protection of children line for late night broadcasts, leaving just GAS.

Clearly GAS should be reflected in complaints as most broadcasters like to push boundaries. If the complaints do not align with Ofcom's own definition then GAS is NOT a measure of what is "Generally" accepted. In terms of sample size it is difficult to do better than expose the entire population of the UK to a weeks TV, and that has to beat showning 100-200 people 12 six minute clips hands down.

So what have the great British public complained about over 2 weeks? The latest Broadcast Bulletin 162 lists 4 1/2 pages of shows attracting complaints. There were 56 complaints against various Big Brother shows. 3 against the BBC News. 1 against Bewitched (honestly). 6 against Dr Who for offenses against Generally Accepted Standards (must have missed to topless mud wrestling scene). 2 against Emmerdale for GAS and one for Sexual Material (heard they had spiced it up, but didn't realise how much). Hostel II and Hollyoaks both attracted standards complaints - lost track of the number of times I have said torture porn is more offensive than nude birds. The ITV News and Weather managed to offend 2 people (how? Ulrika's moved on). Loose Women faced one allegation of Nudity (please, not Denise Welch). The Weakest Link was accused of Sexual Orientation Discrimination, presumably for disciminating against domatrixes, and Generally Accepted Standards the next day. Same complaint or a different one? And loads of complaints against various World Cup (football) coverage.

So that's what actually bothers real people in real homes, not focus groups been spoon fed selected porn. Yup, ordinary everyday TV put out by reputable broadcasters like the BBC, ITV and Channel 4.

(Very few complaints against Five, presumably because no-one watches it).

There were even 3 complainsts against Midsome Murders, 1 for Sexual Material and 2 for Offensive Language.

Some of this might seem tame and even to justify banning Babe shows, but the reality is that people do not like a surprise shock from the box in corner of their comfortable front room while relaxing during the day or evening. Very few complaints were against specialist channels that people actually have to make an effort to tune into. And that's the point. We expect beer and drunks in the pub, but not on the bus or beach. But Ofcom's rules are the equivalent of applying the same standards to people in pubs, busses and on the beach.

eccles, Ofcom have not printed any generally accepted standards. Rule 2.1 says broadcasters must "ensure generally accepted standards are applied to the contents of radio and TV services to provide adequate protection to members of the public from the inclusion in such services of offensive and/or harmful material".

Rule 2.1 is not a generally accepted standard - it calls for these standards to be applied...so where are they, what are they, who defines them?

Section 319 of the Comms Act requires Ofcom to produce a Standards Code NOT a Broadcasting Code. This Standards Code is quite obviously where these generally accepted standards are supposed to be defined. Indeed, the Comms Act clause 319(2)(f) requires OFCOM to "ensure generally accepted standards are applied to the contents of radio and TV services to provide adequate protection to members of the public from the inclusion in such services of offensive and harmful material" WHEN CREATING their Standards Code - they're not supposed to pass the buck to their licensees.

The CODE is supposed to state EXACTLY HOW broadacsters are to achieve this ADEQUATE PROTECTION but, Ofcom have ensured it says no such thing and have simply CHOSEN to restate the law with a stupid amendment (i.e. 'and' to 'and/or'). That amendment actually means that 'offensive' material that may also be 'harmful' CAN be broadcast if MISTAKENLY deemed to be 'justified by the context' according to Ofcom's licensees - only after complaints and possible harm has been done do Ofcom ever decide the broadcaster was 'wrong' according to their poxy fucked-up opinion. Ofcom offer NO PROTECTION for the PUBLIC...only sanctions, warnings and fines for the offending licensee, meanwhile some kid is in therapy because they were shocked, disturbed and traumatised because OFCOM failed to do their LEGAL duty.

As I've said above, NOWHERE in section 319 of the Act is there ANY indication Ofcom should, can or must override the provision to adequately protect the public from offensive and harmful material mentioned in claue 319(2)(f). Ofcom have decided to allow offensive (and/or harmful) material to be broadcast according to some non-existent 'contextual justification' without any authority or authorisation to do so. Ofcom MUST obey the law like the rest of us or go to jail, do community service, be fined, sacked, ridiculed and have their name smeared in the press like any other CRIMINAL who doesn't give a shit what the law says.

OFCOM are the source of every breach of their own pathetic excuse for a Standards Code. They are incompetent, law-breaking CROOKS, pure and simple.

It's easy to understand. If I called a phone-in on Talksport and said "Ofcom are a bunch of twatish shit-for-brains Nazi fuckwit censors", could Talksport sack me? Could Ofcom fine me? I may be the source of the 'highly offensive and contextually unjustified' comments BUT, that's NOT what Ofcom were told to consider when protecting the public. They were told quite clearly to ensure their licensees NEVER let such material leave their transmitters. And as I also said above, the generally accepted standard method of providing this type of adequate protection is via a delay in the output signal during live and potentially offensive broadcasts so that an operator can intercept and censor the offending material BEFORE it leaves the transmitter. Simply fining people after harm and/or offence has been CAUSED and complained about (and even that's not guaranteed...esp. if the affected people are 'vulnerable' sorts that need special care or are too young or, perhaps cannot speak, move or even know how to complain) is NO protection whatsoever.

Ofcom are totally fucked. Liberty (the human rights folks) and Jon Gaunt are taking them to one of the highest courts in the land and, I predict Ofcom are going to be right royally SHAFTED for their TOTAL incompetence, ignoance and blatant dereliction of their duties and responsibilities according to THE LAW.