RIP Bang Babes : Gone Bust...

(08-12-2010 22:03 )eccles Wrote:  

(08-12-2010 01:44 )Gold Plated Pension Wrote:  As for the right to appeal, Ofcom don't allow this as part of their enforcement protocols so Human Rights abusers too.

There is a right of appeal. But it is to ... Ofcom.

Could you explain that, please?

(10-12-2010 23:01 )vila Wrote:  

(08-12-2010 22:03 )eccles Wrote:  

(08-12-2010 01:44 )Gold Plated Pension Wrote:  As for the right to appeal, Ofcom don't allow this as part of their enforcement protocols so Human Rights abusers too.

There is a right of appeal. But it is to ... Ofcom.

Could you explain that, please?

Yeah. Ofcom have an Appeals Committee. Never really bothered reading the rules, but I think appeals are hear by more senior members and they must not have sat on the original decision.

But they are still part of the same organisation that wrote the rules, investigated the channel, "prosecuted" the channel and passed judgement. All under the same Board of Directors and Chief Exec. All subject the same corporate Vision and Mission Statement. The senior staff might be on temporary 3 year contracts - happens elsewhere - and while this should not cloud their judgement, it could be argued that following the rules but rocking the boat by not doing what the real highups want could be a bad career move if done too often.

Since Appeals get heard by more senior staff they might be heard by managers of the people who made the original decision. Although not involved in the original decision, they might be the very people who told the "junior" staff where the goal posts were and if they should target a channel.

Under the European Charter of Human Rights, Judgement and appeal should be independent of investigation and prosectution, and that has to mean being in a separate organisation.

Interesting by the way that guidance for Rule 1.21 says: "1.21 Nudity before the watershed must be justified by the context."
which strongly implies that after the watershed (and a gentle transition) nudity does NOT need any context. Generally Accepted Standards might still apply - a separate Rule - but Context is not an issue.

Actually "imply" is the wrong word. Under the British legal system something is legal unless banned. Rule 1.21 says banned before 9pm, no rule anywhere says banned after 10pm, so nudity at night is legal without any messing about with context.

Seems Ofcom do not know their own Rules and may have made a mistake or two when fining and banning BangBabes.

I believe you can appeal twice to Ofcom (unless the rules have changed) - as the bbc did in relation to a judgement against them re: screening Pulp Fiction at 9:10pm:

Quote:The case refers to when 'Pulp Fiction' was aired on BBC Two on Saturday August 7 2004. Ofcom's decision that the broadcast had contravened its code of practice was made by the Content Board following the BBC's third and final appeal.

http://www.mediaweek.co.uk/news/523894/B...ILC-SEARCH

Eccles:

Quote:Interesting by the way that guidance for Rule 1.21 says: "1.21 Nudity before the watershed must be justified by the context."
which strongly implies that after the watershed (and a gentle transition) nudity does NOT need any context. Generally Accepted Standards might still apply - a separate Rule - but Context is not an issue.

Apologies I forget the specifics but didn't a babe channel have an Ofcom judgement against them saying in effect what they had screened was unsuitable for transmission before 10pm. They screened something similar after 10 and when charged argued the judgement had implied it was acceptable at this later time. Ofcom stated it implied no such thing.

Given this I wouldn't put it past them to argue just because it has to be justified by context before the watershed doesn't therefore mean it does not have to be justified by context after the watershed. It feels like heads you win tails I lose when it comes to Ofcom.

(11-12-2010 13:11 )phil33 Wrote:  Apologies I forget the specifics but didn't a babe channel have an Ofcom judgement against them saying in effect what they had screened was unsuitable for transmission before 10pm. They screened something similar after 10 and when charged argued the judgement had implied it was acceptable at this later time. Ofcom stated it implied no such thing.

Given this I wouldn't put it past them to argue just because it has to be justified by context before the watershed doesn't therefore mean it does not have to be justified by context after the watershed. It feels like heads you win tails I lose when it comes to Ofcom.

The argument might apply to individual judgements, on the grounds that they only relate to one specific complaint and are not meant to be definitive, but the argument cannot be applied to the Rules themselves. Unless the Rules say its banned, its legal.

(12-12-2010 02:47 )eccles Wrote:  

(11-12-2010 13:11 )phil33 Wrote:  Apologies I forget the specifics but didn't a babe channel have an Ofcom judgement against them saying in effect what they had screened was unsuitable for transmission before 10pm. They screened something similar after 10 and when charged argued the judgement had implied it was acceptable at this later time. Ofcom stated it implied no such thing.

Given this I wouldn't put it past them to argue just because it has to be justified by context before the watershed doesn't therefore mean it does not have to be justified by context after the watershed. It feels like heads you win tails I lose when it comes to Ofcom.

The argument might apply to individual judgements, on the grounds that they only relate to one specific complaint and are not meant to be definitive, but the argument cannot be applied to the Rules themselves. Unless the Rules say its banned, its legal.

I agree with eccles. If Ofcom wants something known, then they should make it known and not be vague on purpose to try and trip the channels up.

its such a shame i'd only just discovered kim gordonj lol, really they shouldn't of fucked us about like its been said its the best channel without the pussy slips so why risk it?. anyone know where lilly's going?

i have watched 18 rated films before i was 18 and they did not disturb me. nine people out of 250000+ complained about pulp fiction. the drug scene which might disturb people would be when uma's character snots herion thinking it was coke and has a needle injected into her heart. there are only a few scenes of violence through out the film. yet its ok for eastenders, corrie to show people punching each other, getting pissed and taking drugs before 9pm.

(12-12-2010 20:11 )bigguy01 Wrote:  i have watched 18 rated films before i was 18 and they did disturb me. nine people out of 250000+ complained about pulp fiction. the drug scene which might disturb people would be when uma's character snots herion thinking it was coke and has a needle injected into her heart. there are only a few scenes of violence through out the film. yet its ok for eastenders, corrie to show people punching each other, getting pissed and taking drugs before 9pm.

I think you meant to say "did NOT disturb me"

my bt internet connection has been playing up all day so could not edit it until now