Ofcom - Current Investigations

Judging by the days its something that Michelle Thorn did (more than once!)

(18-09-2010 04:40 )Gold Plated Pension Wrote:  Latest list of complaints made against the babe channels. Three of the complaints have already been investigated by Ofcom (Bulletin 165) and the broadcaster found in breach. Amazingly one complaint against Tease Me TV was found not to be in breach. Is this a turning point.

Nothing new about the odd complaint not being upheld, though publication is new. Ive tried to get info about not-upheld complaints in the past and been stonewalled because of "commercial confidentiality".

Ofcom continue to treat one complaint about a channel in a specialist part of the EPG as seriously as 50 complaints on a widely watched channel.

Ofcom continue to devote 50% of their Brodcast Bulletins to Babe channels despite these contituting less than 10% of complaints by channel/show, and less than 1% by complainant.

Ofcom continue to uphold a higher proportion of Babe channel complaints (90%) than for non-Babe channels (75%).

Ofcom have never declared a complaint against a Babe channel "Resolved" unlike some blatant breeches by other channels.

No, its not a turning point, except in the sense of turn, bend and spread.

Hows this for inconsistency?

Watched The Counterfeiters on BBC4 last night, a dubbed German docudrama about concentration camp inmates forced to produce fake pounds and dollars in WWII. At one point we get to see a Bad-Nazi humilating the head conterfeiter by pissing on him. I wasn't watching closely, and the scene was not in closeup, but even so I suspect that it might have been banned at R18.

I did console myself with the thought that the dick was probably a prosthetic, but on second thoughts it was a German production. Suddenly I need a wash.

I see club paradiso also got breached, never saw this show and doubt it will ever be repeated

n Breach
Club Paradiso
Club Paradiso, 24/25 June 2010, 00:15 to 00:45
Introduction
Club Paradiso is a daytime and adult sex chat television service broadcast under a licence held by Chat Central Limited (“Chat Central” or “the Licensee”).The service is available freely without mandatory restricted access on Sky channel number 966. This channel is situated in the 'adult' section of the Sky electronic programme guide ("EPG"). The channel broadcasts chat and teleshopping services during the daytime, and programmes after the 21:00 watershed based on interactive 'adult' sex chat services. Viewers are invited to contact onscreen female presenters via premium rate telephony services ("PRS"). The female presenters dress and behave in a flirtatious way during the day and more sexually provocative way after the watershed while encouraging viewers to contact the PRS numbers.
Ofcom received a complaint which said that this broadcast was too explicit and included sexual activity between a male and female presenter including simulated or mimed oral sex, sexual intercourse and other sexually provocative acts.
Ofcom noted that between 00:15 and 00:45, the broadcast featured a male as well as a female presenter. The male was wearing underpants and the female fishnet stockings and a black thong. During the broadcast the female presenter adopted various sexual positions for relatively prolonged periods of time, including on her back with her legs apart, on all fours with buttocks to camera and sat on top of and astride the male presenter’s chest. The male presenter also adopted various positions, which included kneeling with his crotch by the female presenter’s mouth, kneeling behind the female presenter whilst she was on all fours and lying on his back while under the female presenter. While in these positions, the female and male mimed oral sex on each other, they both gyrated their hips miming sexual intercourse, the male squirted white lotion on the female’s buttocks and rubbed it in, and the male licked the female’s breasts and nipples. Furthermore the male stroked and gently spanked the female’s body and buttocks. At times the squirted lotion was left on the female’s buttocks for a period of time. While adopting these positions or engaging in these activities, neither presenter touched the other’s genital area.
Ofcom requested formal comments from Club Paradiso in relation to the following Code rules:
Rule 1.18 ('Adult sex material' - material that contains images and/or language of a strong sexual nature which is broadcast for the primary purpose of sexual arousal or stimulation - must not be broadcast at any time other than between 2200 and 0530 on premium subscription services and pay per view/night services which operate with mandatory restricted access. In addition, measures must be in place to ensure that the subscriber is an adult);
Rule 2.1 (the broadcaster must apply generally accepted standards); and
Rule 2.3 (offensive material must be justified by context).
Response
Club Paradiso said that it decided to run a section of programming with both male and female presenters on a trial and one off basis. This trial took place midweek and well past the watershed and the presenters kept a safe distance between themselves with no sexual touching of the genital area. It said that the material was not of a strong sexual nature, did not constitute explicit material and did not go beyond generally accepted standards. Club Paradiso said it did not intend to push any boundaries of acceptability and apologised if Ofcom felt this was the case. The Licensee said it was keen to ensure that its output adhered to Ofcom’s Code Rules.

Decision
Ofcom has a duty to ensure that generally accepted standards are applied to the content of radio and television services so as to provide adequate protection from the inclusion of harmful or offensive material. In relation to generally accepted standards, including those in relation to sexual material, Ofcom recognises that what is and is not generally accepted is subject to change over time. When deciding whether or not particular broadcast content is likely to fall within generally accepted standards it is necessary to assess the character of the content itself and the context in which it is provided.
In relation to the broadcast of material of a sexual nature this normally involves assessing the strength or explicitness of the content and balancing it against the particular editorial or contextual justification for broadcasting the content. Ofcom seeks to ensure that material of a sexual nature, when broadcast, is editorially justified, appropriately scheduled and where necessary access is restricted to adults.
Broadcasters are allowed to broadcast after the watershed (and without other access restrictions) material which is of a strong sexual nature as long as it is justified by the context. However, this material must not be considered to be ‘adult sex material’ (i.e. it is not strong sexual images which are broadcast for the primary purpose of sexual arousal or stimulation), or BBFC R-18 rated films or their equivalent.
Rule 1.18 of the Code requires ‘adult sex material’ to be broadcast only between 22:00 and 05:30, and then only if mandatory restricted access is in place. In judging whether material is ‘adult sex material’, and therefore is subject to this rule, broadcasters should be guided by the definitions used by the BBFC when referring to “sex-works at ‘18’”. This guidance has been supplemented by various decisions of Ofcom through a series of published findings, and published decisions of the Content Sanctions Committee. By these means Ofcom has made clear what constitutes ‘adult sex material’ (-1-).
In considering the contents of this programme Ofcom asked itself two questions:
was the content of the programme 'adult sex material’; and
did the broadcaster ensure that the content was provided with sufficient contextual justification so as to ensure that it fell within generally accepted standards.
When setting and applying standards in its Code to provide adequate protection to members of the public from harm and offence, Ofcom must have regard to the need for standards to be applied in a manner that best guarantees an appropriate level of freedom of expression in accordance with Article 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights, as incorporated in the Human Rights Act 1998. This is the right of a broadcaster to impart information and ideas and the right of the audience to receive them. Accordingly, Ofcom must exercise its duties in light of these rights and not interfere with the exercise of these rights in broadcast services unless it is satisfied that the restrictions it seeks to apply are required by law and are necessary to achieve a legitimate aim. Ofcom notes however that a broadcaster’s right to freedom of expression, although applicable to sexual content and pornography, is more restricted in this context compared to, for example, political speech, and this right can be legitimately restricted if it is for the protection of the public, including the protection of those under 18.
Ofcom considered this broadcast in respect of Rules 1.18, 2.1 and 2.3 of the Code.
In relation to Rule 1.18, Ofcom examined the content of the broadcast and considered that it contained material of a strong sexual nature, including scenes of simulated and mimed sexual activity. For example, during the broadcast the male presenter mimed sexual intercourse with the female and they both mimicked the performance of oral sex on each other, The female presenter adopted various sexual positions including astride the male presenter’s chest near his face. In addition, the white lotion used as a prop in the performance was squirted onto and allowed to remain on the female presenter’s buttocks, and the male licked the female presenter’s breasts and nipples in sexual and intimate manner. Even though neither presenter directly touched the other’s genital area, the performance and provocative actions of both presenters were clearly suggestive of various sexual acts. Ofcom took account of the fact that the sequences were, in some cases, relatively prolonged and repeated throughout the 30 minute broadcast. In Ofcom's view, the primary purpose of broadcasting this material was clearly sexual arousal. Given the above, the material was, in Ofcom's view, of a strong sexual nature. Having assessed this programme’s content and purpose, Ofcom considered that this content constituted 'adult-sex' material. Its broadcast, without mandatory restricted access, was therefore in breach of Rule 1.18 of the Code.
Ofcom then went on to consider whether the broadcast was also in breach of Rules 2.1 and 2.3 of the Code. In light of Ofcom's view that the programme contained material that constituted 'adult sex material' and was therefore unsuitable for broadcast without mandatory restricted access, the broadcast was clearly capable of causing considerable offence. Ofcom therefore examined the extent to which there were any particular editorial or contextual factors that might have limited the potential for offence. Ofcom noted that the programme was broadcast at 00:15, therefore a long time after the watershed, and that viewers tend to expect stronger sexual material to be shown later at night. Ofcom also took account of the fact that the channel is positioned in the 'adult' section of the Sky EPG and that viewers tend to expect the broadcast of stronger sexual material on channels in this section of the EPG than would be expected to be included on other channels.
However, in this case, given the relatively prolonged and repeated scenes of intimacy and the strong sexual nature of the performance (for the purpose of sexual arousal), the time of broadcast and location of the channel were not sufficient to justify the broadcast of the material. The material shown was so strongly sexual that it would have exceeded the likely expectation of the vast majority of the audience. Ofcom concluded that the content was clearly not justified by the context and was in breach of generally accepted standards and in breach of Rules 2.1 and 2.3.
Ofcom welcomed the Licensee’s apologies and confirmation it was keen to adhere to the Code and put in place new procedures if necessary. It also noted the broadcaster’s statements that this was a trial broadcast piece which has not been repeated, and that its record of compliance until now has been good. However, in Ofcom’s opinion, the content of this programme exceeded that which should be broadcast free to air without mandatory restricted access and there was a clear breach of Rules 1.18, 2.1 and 2.3 of the Code.
Ofcom has provided a considerable amount of guidance to adult sex chat broadcasters about what constitutes ‘adult sex material’ and what is acceptable under the Code. These broadcasters need to take particular care when they feature more than one presenter on screen and the presenters are or appear to be intimate with each other in a sexual manner.
Breach of Rules 1.18, 2.1 and 2.3
Footnotes:

Breach of rules

1.18 'Adult sex material' - material that contains images and/or language of a strong sexual nature which is broadcast for the primary purpose of sexual arousal or stimulation - must not be broadcast at any time other than between 2200 and 0530 on premium subscription services and pay per view/night services which operate with mandatory restricted access.

In addition, measures must be in place to ensure that the subscriber is an adult.

Meaning of "mandatory restricted access":
Mandatory restricted access means there is a PIN protected system (or other equivalent protection) which cannot be removed by the user, that restricts access solely to those authorised to view.

Rule 2.1: “Generally accepted standards must be applied to the contents of television and radio services so as to provide adequate
protection for members of the public from the inclusion in such services of harmful and/or offensive material;”

Rule 2.3: “In applying generally accepted standards broadcasters must ensure that material which may cause offence is justified by the context

Checked the BBFC for the definition of "sex works at 18" and it says this

"Sex works at ‘18’
Sex works are works whose primary purpose is sexual arousal or stimulation. Sex works containing only material which may be simulated are generally passed ‘18’."

In other words, consenting adults are allowed to watch simulated stuff whenever they like on DVD and Video.

And yet Ofcom requires mandatory pin access to watch simulated stuff.

Another example of the tighter restrictions that are placed on TV viewing, because everyone knows it far more dangerous to show stuff at midnight on tv than have a dvd knocking about your house!!

Quote:When setting and applying standards in its Code to provide adequate protection to members of the public from harm and offence, Ofcom must have regard to the need for standards to be applied in a manner that best guarantees an appropriate level of freedom of expression in accordance with Article 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights, as incorporated in the Human Rights Act 1998. This is the right of a broadcaster to impart information and ideas and the right of the audience to receive them. Accordingly, Ofcom must exercise its duties in light of these rights and not interfere with the exercise of these rights in broadcast services unless it is satisfied that the restrictions it seeks to apply are required by law and are necessary to achieve a legitimate aim. Ofcom notes however that a broadcaster’s right to freedom of expression, although applicable to sexual content and pornography, is more restricted in this context compared to, for example, political speech, and this right can be legitimately restricted if it is for the protection of the public, including the protection of those under 18.

Oh no it isn't! All Rights are inherant, immutable and absolute. There is no reason to presume anything protected by Freedom of Expression can be "more restricted" simply because it might 'offend' some offensive religious cretin or immature wankstain.

Moreover, in balancing the rights of adults the High Court ruled in 2000 that "based on the available evidence, a reasonable person would conclude that sexually explicit R18-type material is NOT a significant risk to children" (let alone 'persons under 18').

Quote:In Ofcom's view, the primary purpose of broadcasting this material was clearly sexual arousal. Given the above, the material was, in Ofcom's view, of a strong sexual nature. Having assessed this programme’s content and purpose, Ofcom considered that this content constituted 'adult-sex' material. Its broadcast, without mandatory restricted access, was therefore in breach of Rule 1.18 of the Code.

No it wasn't! It's primary purpose was to entertain the viewing audience. Those viewers on the other end of the phone were the one's being sexually aroused by partaking in 'sex chat'.

Moreover, there is no pressing social need or necessity in any democratic society for totally harmless and innocuous 'adult sex material' to be restricted behind 'mandatory PIN access'. Rule 1.18 is a totally illegal clause that cannot be justified in either its premise or supposed purpose.

Quote:Ofcom then went on to consider whether the broadcast was also in breach of Rules 2.1 and 2.3 of the Code. In light of Ofcom's view that the programme contained material that constituted 'adult sex material' and was therefore unsuitable for broadcast without mandatory restricted access, the broadcast was clearly capable of causing considerable offence.

What a wonderfully cyclic 'argument'. It does NOT follow that simply because something was deemed to be 'adult sex material' by OFCOM, that it was "capable of causing considerable offence". It was capable of causing considerable offence to WHOM exactly? The Pope maybe? The Queen? This assumption is utter tripe. I for one do not find anything that turns me on to be 'offensive', indeed, I quite enjoy watching such material and, indeed, MOST of the poopulation of this land agree explicit sexual material SHOULD be available on TV for those that want to watch it!

OFCOM are liars, supercillious creeps, illegal censors and human rights abusers of the highest order. NEVER ONCE have they proven EXACTLY WHAT THE GENERALLY ACCPETED STANDARDS OF THIS NATION ARE! As such, they are delusional, self-serving monsters who believe they magically 'know' what the rest of us are thinking and feeling.

FUCK OFF OFCOM. OFCOM know nothing and care even less.

I'm surprised they still are allowed to make up and enforce their own rules, even though they are abusing the law! Seeing full frontal nudity has been declared LEGAL to view on unencrypted TV, so surely someone in charge must be taking notice of Offcom's shenanigans, right? Do they really find normal body parts to be offensive? Sad! We all have them and know what they look like! It's amazing the fines they impose on certain channels for doing what is actually legally allowed to be shown! One complaint from Offcom had to do with a tongue ring!!!!! WTH!!! Who runs Offcom, a group of nuns? No offense to nuns

Offcom should realise that it's much healthier to watch fully nude women on these channels, than it is to surf the web, where there is far worse content for ANYONE to view! The babe channels are sexy, and fun, and are in no way dangerous for people to view, and they are on at late at night, so there isn't a risk. You know what is more harmful than watching a beautiful nude woman late at night? Watching a beautiful nude woman being butchered with a knife or machete or being beaten to death! Yeah, I see that all the time on REGULAR TV, even before nine o'clock sometimes! Lot's of screaming, blood and graphic violence!

Offcom needs to get their priorities straight!

Is there not some legal challenge these babe channels can go down, this ofcom saga has been going on for far too long now and for as long as these restrictions are in place for the channels can never really show us the full intent in which they were designed for in the first place. Eurotic tv for example don't have these restrictions at night anymore and if a show fails to deliver its the producers and directors of the show that get lambasted by the audience as right now a poor show can be counter argued that its ofcom to blame and not themselves, so long as the watershed rule is obeyed then none of these channels should be in breach of the code. I want to see an end to ofcom and censorship and power given back to the people, afterall the sole purpose of these shows is to entertain the viewing adult audience. 21st Britain has to be more tolerant these days and no prejudice should be aimed at any group of channels adult, religious or political.

But IanG whats wrong with agents of The State deciding which areas of free speech are allowed and which ones we need protecting from? They are wise and have our interests at heart.

babefan29 - SportXXX started showing soft B/G material a few years ago and got leaned on by Ofcom to "voluntarily" agree not to show any more, ever. Since they didnt show cock and simulated lesbian sex seems to be OK (within limits), it would be interesting to know what possible pressure Ofcom could legitimately bring to bear. But they did. They probably did the same to Paradiso.

Legal challenge? Forget it, BangBabes dont even bother denying Ofcom allegations these days, some of the other big boys seem to have a cosy relationship, and might even have opposed allowing R18 on TV, and the small operators dont have the clout. A viewer challenge might work, but viewers wont sign up to a class action, and since it isnt viewers being banned from broadcasting or fined, what grounds would exist for action? No, forget a legal challenge as long as the channels are in a comfort zone. It wont happen unless someone is squirming. Forgot, BangBabes have been there.