Ofcom Discussion

(21-07-2010 00:16 )IanG Wrote:  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.

eccles stated

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

Thank you Ian for that. I joined Jon's site last night and was going to contact him tonight with the info here and the links to both this and MelonFarmers websites.
I will still contact him and hopefully he will advise when the dates of the next hearing are at the Court of Appeal as i would like to attend and listen in. The courts are only up the road from me so not to much of a burden.

Eccles, this may all change in the near future as RTL Group are selling their ownership of Channel 5 and the front runner to buy is Richard Desmond. This media mogul already broadcasts under the Portland TV banner with such channels as Television X and Redhot TV through his company Northern and Shell. He also has in his stable both the Express and Daily Star papers and their sunday stablemates as well as OK magazine and a few top shelf porn mags.
Five's present Chief Executive Dawn Airey once said that the channel was more than just about film's, football and fcuking and whether Desmond will return it to this style remains to be seen but the channel is desperate for advertising revenue.
If from what is currently presented on TVX and Redhot is anything to go by i doubt he will be pushing the limits on Five to upset Ofcom but this remains to be seen.
Ofcom will be hoping that Desmond will bring Five back to the table with the likes of the BBC, ITV and Channel 4 as well as BT, TalkTalk and Arqiva with regard to Project Canvas, the venture to create an open, internet connected TV platform. Could this mean porn straight to your TV.

http://www.bing.com/reference/semhtml/?t...nvas&fwd=1

Thanks GP. Amazingly I posted an item yesterday about the possible Five takeover and the very next day the Daily Standard ran a lengthy article about it. Never under-estimate the power of cosmic wanking.

Seriously though, the suggestion was that he would not want to jeopardise Five's PSB licence and protected slot in position, er, 5.

The Five thread is at Five if anyone has comments (thanks to Skateguy for suggesing the location).

GPP, I thought we already had porn straight to our TV? Oh I see what you mean...without the $ky box and PIN bollox. Nevertheless, porn is there if you want it. Of course, it may not be the type of porn that suits all tastes but then catering to all manner of tastes and audience expectations hasn't in my view been one of Ofcom's areas of excellence, even though the law suggests catering to viewer choice and expecations is part and parcel of the reason for Ofcom's existence.

(22-07-2010 22:12 )IanG Wrote:  GPP, I thought we already had porn straight to our TV? Oh I see what you mean...without the $ky box and PIN bollox. Nevertheless, porn is there if you want it...

No, it is only there if you pay for a premium service such as Sky and are allowed to receive it. If you live in flats there is no guarantee that your landlord will permit it. If you live in a Listed Building you will be banned from putting up a dish. If you live in an area of outstanding natural beauty or a street used for historic filming you may be banned. If your South facing view is blocked you won't be able to receive a signal. If you live under a busy flightpath the signal will be interrupted 30 seconds out of every 2 minutes. If you have tied accomodation (hotel staff, residential teacher, residential social worker, care home worker, French Maid, Au Pair) your employer probably won't supply it.

But the Public Service Broadcasters on slots 1 to 5 must be supplied with any TV signal - terrestial analogue, terrestial digital, Sky, Virgin, community flat shared aerial schemes, etc.

So you have a Right to see channels 1 to 5, but no right to see anything else.

Every single one of us pays for the BBC, ITV, Channel 4 and Five through licence fees and advertising. If they systematically do not meet the needs of one demographic the they are in breech of their PSB obligations no matter how unpopular that demographic is.

(23-07-2010 00:33 )eccles Wrote:  

(22-07-2010 22:12 )IanG Wrote:  GPP, I thought we already had porn straight to our TV? Oh I see what you mean...without the $ky box and PIN bollox. Nevertheless, porn is there if you want it...

,
But the Public Service Broadcasters on slots 1 to 5 must be supplied with any TV signal - terrestial analogue, terrestial digital, Sky, Virgin, community flat shared aerial schemes, etc.

So you have a Right to see channels 1 to 5, but no right to see anything else.

Every single one of us pays for the BBC, ITV, Channel 4 and Five through licence fees and advertising. If they systematically do not meet the needs of one demographic the they are in breech of their PSB obligations no matter how unpopular that demographic is.

YES and this is the bit that really UPSETS us;frequently on the five main channels and sometimes BEFORE 10.00pm! there is nudity (full details shown!) in a feature film (shown uncut!) or play BUT Babestation being an "adult" show cant show everything even after midnight! Bad language often occurs just after the "watershed" of 9.00pm! I dont see how babeshows should be penalised as being too "adult" and likely to corrupt compared to what is shown on the "mainstream" channels! I really think OFCOM are very confused as to what is acceptable for whom and when! The sooner the quango is/are sacked the better;we might get some truly "adult" programmes on the "adult" channels then!we

Ofcom said that the Jon Gaunt "Health Nazi" interview "was undoubtedly highly offensive to Mr Stark and was well capable of offending the broadcast audience. The essential point is that the offensive and abusive nature of the broadcast was gratuitous, having no factual content or justification".

Several points arise.

1. Offensive to the person being interviewed - so far as I am aware there are no grounds for this to be actionable under the Communications Act or the Broadcasting Code, provided the content is fair, balanced and the interviewee have an opportunity to reply. If this was the case almost every episode of Rogue Traders would be banned.

2. "Capable of offending the audience" ~ perfectly valid if justified by context.

3. "No factual content or justification" ~ the heart of the matter. The councillor in question made it clear that people would be denied the opportunity of fostering children because of an entirely legal, widespread and arguably socially acceptable social habit, ie smoking. The councillor then defends a leap from banning foster parents who smoke indoors to banning ones who categorically deny smoking indoors, accusing all smokers of being liars. The councillor seems to want to impose his views on all foster parents. Parenting is a fundamental human right, protected under the Human Rights Charter, at least for one's own fleash and blood. Now the term "nazi" is sometimes used to refer to people who seek to control others, particularly through governmental powers, such as traffic wardens, park wardens, licencing authorities, etc. This of course is a different use from the original, but is widely used and widely understood. Therefore calling someone who seemingly wants to impose their views on outdoor smokers by banning them from fostering children is arguably rooted in fact and justified.

The broadcast sounds nasty. Unpleasant. Offensive even.

But "no factual content or justification" ? No.

eccles and BigBoobies, you make some excellent points.

I think we're all aware of the blatant double standards Ofcom have invented and implemented with reguard to 'adult sex material' designed to give people sexual excitement. NO explanation of Ofcom's bigoted stance has EVER been put forward. NO proof exists that sexually explicit and/or exciting material is any more, or quite possibly LESS, harmful to vulnerable members of society. All statistical analysis of sexual offences vs. availability of sexually explicit and exciting material shows a socially positive reduction in, often devastating, sex crimes.

Ofcom are acting without properly investigating the real social impact of pornography and are assuming they know something the rest of the sexually liberated and liberal world don't and, indeed, such places have proven over the course of 40 years that the availability of such material to be HARMLESS and, indeed, its suppression to be DANGEROUS. Ofcom's actions are quite blatantly discriminatory and, moreover, based entirely on highly offensive, dangerous and illegal religious beliefs, distaste and ignorance.

eccles, I think you've shown too that the courts have been corrupted and depraved by Ofcom's monsterous pile of shit that is the Broadcasting Code. There is absolutley no way the Comms Act was designed to allow Ofcom to implement such a regime of ignorance, bias, discrimination and censorship.

Ofcom are SPECIFICALLY tasked to ensure religious programming is kept under close scrutiny (clause 319(2)(e)). This obviously points to the fact that Parliament believe religious programming is a danger to impressionable and vulnerable people far more than 'adult sex material'.

Indeed, the only place where pornography and gratuitously violent material are suggested to be a danger to children is...the Television Without Frontiers Directive clause 22. And needless to say, Ofcom openly admitted on several occasions prior to publishig their illegal Code that they had no reason or evidence to support a ban or biased restriction on access upto and including R18-type material under the TVWF terms.

Ofcom have been breaking the law since day one. I've been saying Ofcom have been breaking the law since day one. But as I don't have the funds to take these fuckers to court and the police/CPS/Government/national press et fucking alia don't seem to give a toss about the law and our Human Rights, we've simply been marginalised, abused, misrepresented and conned without any protection from the PROPER AUTHORITIES whatsoever.

From day one it was hard for me to contain my disgust and anger, which I've expressed frequently almost everyday since. After five years of such blatant abuse of our rights, lives and liberties my anger and disgust have only been reinforced and set in concrete.

I think between us we've exposed almost every aspect of the rights abuse being perpetrated not only by Ofcom but the very people we elect and pay for to look after our lives, rights and liberties. The State has failed us, the Crown has failed, the Law has failed us - and all because the fucks that run this cuntry believe-in the religious shite that oozes from every mindless quango this shithole of a cuntry creates in order to give the government 'plausible deniability' and to wash its hands of the truly evil and illegal decisions their monsterous creations implement.

(24-07-2010 22:52 )eccles Wrote:  Ofcom said that the Jon Gaunt "Health Nazi" interview "was undoubtedly highly offensive to Mr Stark and was well capable of offending the broadcast audience. The essential point is that the offensive and abusive nature of the broadcast was gratuitous, having no factual content or justification".

Several points arise.

1. Offensive to the person being interviewed - so far as I am aware there are no grounds for this to be actionable under the Communications Act or the Broadcasting Code, provided the content is fair, balanced and the interviewee have an opportunity to reply. If this was the case almost every episode of Rogue Traders would be banned.

2. "Capable of offending the audience" ~ perfectly valid if justified by context.

3. "No factual content or justification" ~ the heart of the matter. The councillor in question made it clear that people would be denied the opportunity of fostering children because of an entirely legal, widespread and arguably socially acceptable social habit, ie smoking. The councillor then defends a leap from banning foster parents who smoke indoors to banning ones who categorically deny smoking indoors, accusing all smokers of being liars. The councillor seems to want to impose his views on all foster parents. Parenting is a fundamental human right, protected under the Human Rights Charter, at least for one's own fleash and blood. Now the term "nazi" is sometimes used to refer to people who seek to control others, particularly through governmental powers, such as traffic wardens, park wardens, licencing authorities, etc. This of course is a different use from the original, but is widely used and widely understood. Therefore calling someone who seemingly wants to impose their views on outdoor smokers by banning them from fostering children is arguably rooted in fact and justified.

The broadcast sounds nasty. Unpleasant. Offensive even.

But "no factual content or justification" ? No.

Have to agree Eccles. I abhor the repulsive gaunt and the fact that we no longer have him polluting our airwaves is all for the good. however, having heard the interview live at the time, it was no more than an extremely unpleasant individual being extremely unpleasant as is his wont. It is a dreadful interview because, as ever, Gaunt had no interest in hearing what the interviewee had to say because he is far too much in love with the sound of his own voice to want to listen to anybody else's. Good riddance to extremely bad rubbish, but hardly worthy of censure by Offcom because, like them or not, Mr. Gaunt is entitled to express his own views. I wonder how Offcom would get on with Fox News in the States if they had to deal with those two Goebbels clones Bill O'Reilly and Glenn Beck. The mind boggles.

TW

Tonywauk, do you think I'm right in interpreting the Comms Act and Ofcom's Code to mean the provision of 'adequate protection to the public from offensive and harmful material' belongs with the broadcaster? I can see you might have had Talksport release Mr Gaunt sooner in order to provide this protection and, obviously, this highlights who's really responsible for the broadcast of that 'extremely offensive material' (as described by Sir Anthony May).

The thing I don't get about all this is what right does Mr Stark believe he has discriminating against smokers? My mom is 79. She grew up in a home with two smoking parents. She has never smoked in her life. Her father died aged 76 from lung cancer after qutting smoking at 65 (he also worked as a bricklayer most of his life and was frequently exposed to cement dust). Her mother quit smoking in her mid 70s and died aged 82 from a massive stroke while in a home for the elderly suffering from progressive dementia.

Now may be my family is unique - in a sense it is - but, surely we're not so different we're a different species? Is there anything truly strange or odd about the diseases and ages my grandparents passed away? My father's side lived to ripe old ages too. My dad however died aged 52 from his 4th or 5th heart attack and he smoked about 40 cigs a day. However, his job ranked as one of those most prone to stress-induced illness and, based on average age, an early death.

From my own experience I can see no evidence that smokers or smoking unduly 'harms those around you'. Anyone may choose to start smoking or not. Every smoker I know, including myself, warns youngsters not to start because it does damage your health and your pocket. Some may heed the warnings, others do not. I know I did not start smoking because my father did. By the time I was old enough to start smoking he had been dead almost 10 years and, as I said, my mother has never smoked. I know, 'cos I was there, that I started smoking in the 6th form common room in some ritualistic 'coming of age' act of 'studenthood'. 'Peer pressure' I feel is too strong a word for it but, conformance and normalisation in order to fit-in with a 'like-minded' group that I wanted to be accepted by played a part. That was my choice, my interpretation, my invention, my excuse to start smoking. All in that group smoked, drank, played with other mind-altering substances. Some people have these inquisitive personality traits - they tend to be the traits of science students, drop outs, drug abusers, alcoholics, risk takers, high rollers, psychotics, neurotics, the stressed, the dispossessed, the under privileged and so forth. There are a cart load of 'reasons' that lead some people into the smoking habit (and worse). At the bottom of this trait however is the simple fact that it is indeed a personality trait - some people are born addicts, indeed, we're predisposed to addiction via an inherant need to find food, water or mommy's milk every day of our lives else face certain death within a matter of days.

Shortly before my grandfather became too ill to speak, he told my mother he'd craved a smoke every day since he'd quit - that was over 10 years locked in a constant battle between his craving and his will power. Oh you could say he should never have started but, as the rest of his family had almost all been carried off by the demon drink, I reckon smoking was the lesser of the common 'evils' he was likely prone to fall victim to. Psychology studies and behavioural science has revealed that around 30% of animals (including humans) have addictive personalities and traits. Whatever this trait exists for, it is inherant and it affects far more people as a percentage of total popuation than homosexuality yet, governments, doctors and so-called health advisors all seem to treat it like a curable disease or, something that can be supressed, over-come, repressed, indeed, it is treated by such 'scientists' in today's society in the same manner as the religious look upon homosexuality.

Taking all the evidence and my personal experience into account, it appears to me that Mr Stark is indeed a Nazi, a health Nazi and an ignorant pig.

I hope this counts as a reasonable argument, indeed, reasonable justification for my comments and, I would suggest, those of Mr Gaunt. I'd like to add Sir Anthony May to the list of ignorant and arrogant sods perverting the course of Justice in our Courts. He has shown little consideration for the law, the science or the rights of those involved when reaching his sweeping conclusions.

The fact is, Ofcom's Code has been in urgent need of Judicial Review since it came into being. And I hope Gaunty forces this to happen if and when his appeal to the Court of Appeal is granted. Whether or not Mr Gaunt is a self-important, opinionated, loud-mouth is I think neither here nor there - and I think even you believe that.

Jon Gaunt sounds like a thoroughly unpleasant little shit, but that's not the point. The law should not be different depending on whether or not you like someone. (Canoe Man's wife springs to mind - looked mean, got a hard sentence for basically not turning in her dipstick of a husband after he had dug himself in deep).

And the law on freedom of expression should not depend on scientific evidence, no matter how persausive IanG's arguments. New ideas sometimes go completely against established science (evolution, heliocentric planetary system, quantum mechanics, relativity, radio activity...). No, freedom of expression is a personal thing.

Jon Gaunt used the term "health nazi" in it's correct usage, one who seeks to force their views on others and punish those who go against them. Ofcom was plain wrong to claim the phrase was "unjustified". It is a concise shorthand that effectively communicates an overly controlling and punative nature. To claim that it "belittled the sacrifice that was made in World War II" is arrant nonsense. Today the smokers. Tomorrow the meat eaters and people who watch daytime TV. The day after, the gays and Jews.

Some complainants found the way the term "nazi" was used was offensive because they were Jewish. How? Can Ofcom please explain how using "nazi" as a term of abuse is offensive to Jews?

Now Ofcom might be correct in claiming that the nature of the broadcast was offensive, intimidating and a rant, or not depending on your opinion (go away lawyer), but that was not the tack it took. Instead it found "there was no justification for the offensive material" eg use of the word "nazi", rather than the tone, and that it was a "breech of generally accepted standards".

In m'humble opinion, the mistake Gaunt made in the High Court was to fight Ofcom on their own grounds by claiming freedom of expression. A better tack would have been - the phrase WAS justified, and what published Generally Accepted Standards did it breech? He could then produce a sheaf of newspaper and magazine articles describing people as "nazi" (try the Socialist W**kers Party).

Wrong legal argument, wrong turf.