Ofcom Consultations

Ofcom are currently carryingout two consultations with regard to reviewing their enforcement procedures and what stakeholders want to see in their annual plan.
Whilst we can comment on both consultations, and i would advise that we do, the main impact for complainants and broadcasters is the enforcement consultation.

This consultation is titled

Review of procedures for handling broadcasting complaints, investigations and sanctions

and can be found here

http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/consult...ts-review/

This review impacts on both the

Procedures for the handling of broadcasting standards or other licence-related cases

http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/broadca...standards/

and

Procedures for the consideration of statutory sanctions in broadcasting or other licence-related cases

http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/broadca...sanctions/

Now i have only had a cursory look at the impact of this review and the proposals by Ofcom mainly driven to save money, but a layer of appeal is being removed. Ofcom believe there is no need for a formal review mechanism, currently broadcasters can request this and it is heard by the Broadcast Review Committee. Ofcom want to abolish this committee to save money.

Another area is the removal of the Broadcasting Sanctions Committee with the consideration and determination of statutory sanctions carried out by any person within Ofcom with delegated authority.

Now with decisions and sanctions being watered down to officer level there is likely to be more subjective and perverse decisions being made with appropriate (disappropriate) sanctions dished out.

Add to this the removal of a layer of appeal will possibly result in even more harsh treatment being handed down to small broadcasters who do not have the funds or political clout to influence/fight decisions.

If the review was then to add an external appeal process against decisions to an independant tribunal or magistrate court then it would add more balance but this is not the case and this is purely driven by cost with the interest of stakeholders coming a poor last.

I will be reading the complete consultation documents and would urge all forum members interested in justice and a fair hearing do the same.

All broadcasters need to do the same.

The consultation on the draft annual plan is also posted and whilst with less significance will focus Ofcom for the next financial year. Content is included and again i ask you to read and comment.

http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/consult...aftap1112/

If you want to be a part of change this is your first oppurtunity don't let it pass.

I would ask that all comment on this thread is directed against content within the consultation documents and not just personal anger at Ofcom.

They really have no idea of proper legal process do they?

Local councils used to let officers, often junior, decide spying cases - improper bin use, checking addresses for school applications, dog fouling, that sort of thing - until they were widely canned and controls were tightened up.

Now Ofcom propose letting junior and sometime untrained, inexperienced and illiterate officials make legally binding decisions. Some will even be temps.

Im almost tempted to say let them do it, because it will result in Ofcom loosing a rash of Judicial Reviews in about 2 years time. Small companies cannot afford to sue, but No Win No Fee solicitors can, and sooner or later some will go for related loss of earnings. Your channel toned down its content and failed to expand because of a flawed decision by Ofcom, thats £x Million of lost business M'lud.

With less than 24 hours left before this consultation is closed i hope members have read and understood the implications of the review of broadcasting complaints, investigations and sanctions.

The reason behind the consultation is obvious, Ofc@m have to save a huge amount of money.

Whilst Ofc@m proclaim the new streamlined complaint procedure is to the benefit of stakeholders i have my doubt's.

The removal of a layer of internal appeal (review) cannot be advantageous to broadcasters initially found in breach, Ofc@m are the judge, jury and hangman in determining all complaints and sanctions without satisfactory and realistic external address.

Ofc@m state that the proposed 'Preliminary View' given at an early part of the investigation would allow broadcasters to respond to the PV. If Ofc@m as part of the PV did not find the broadcaster 'In Breach' at this stage then there would be no PV. So by issuing a PV Ofc@m have already found the broadcast 'In Breach' and are asking the broadcaster to defend their position against the Broadcasting or Advertising Code.

The broadcaster will only be issued with a summary of the complaints to respond to which might take the nature of the complaint out of context, how fair is that and with no review available to them.

Now all complaint procedures have to be robust to ensure a fair and balanced outcome is achieved so it will be interesting to see how the

Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman

will view this change of procedures that unfairly disadvantages licensee's for the sake of monetary saving.

http://www.ombudsman.org.uk/

As i have said many times, the Better Regulation Commission, through the Hampton Report followed by the Macrory Report (to which Ofc@m were a respondent) deals with regulatory sanctions (fair and effective).

http://www.bis.gov.uk/files/file44593.pdf

As you can see the report was commissioned by a co-sponsor of Ofc@m so you would expect them to abide by the recommendations.

When the HSE, the largest regulator of criminal law in workplaces looked at introducing an administrative penalty system they felt that without the protection of an appeal to an independant tribunal then it would be in breach of the European Court of Human Rights, so why do Ofc@m believe differently and refuse such an avenue of appeal.

Other reviews of regulatory sanctions have also been carried out with similar recommendations to both central and local governments.

If these changes go ahead without opposition then expect more broadcasters to be found in breach and facing uncertain penalties as both investigation and penal charges will be dealt with at officer level.

We all know how subjective the broadcasting and advertising codes are, and how contradictory the decisions made by Ofc@m are with the current system, so what confidence will we have that this will change for the better when the decisions are now at the base (officer) level.

We know that Ofc@m are targetting the babe channels so expect more sanctions come the middle of this year, if there are any babe channels left to take action against.

Make your voice heard, respond to the consultation

If prisoners can fight and win through the ECHR for the right to vote then surely the broadcasters have a right to a proper independent appeal procedure.

GPP I totally agree with you and have wrote to both Jeremy Hunt and Ofcom regarding this, as any broadcaster should have the right to appeal. I've also asked how they imposed further restrictions to the channels without prior consultation, stating their own survey from last June regarding generally accepted standards, yet despite the findings they just carry on to hound the channels regardless.

I only know of one broadcaster that is actually doing something about it, including going through the legal system regarding the ban on smoking. However, why is there only one broadcaster taking this action. It beggars belief, but like I said before if channels are still making revenue they will not care what the viewer/customer thinks, if there was a sudden drop in calls would the broadcaster then rethink their position.

GPP, parliament voted against the ECHR ruling regarding the vote for prisoners last night and I for once agree with them. Only thing now is where will it lead, will they now fight every compensation claim.

I too think that Ofcom are getting too big for their boots and blatantly defying the laws of the land.but untill we see that the channels themselves are getting involved and are willing to get together and fight Ofcom,then I can`t see the point in all our moans and groans as it will all be in futility.

Come on you babechannels people FIGHT FOR YOUR RIGHTS,and not each other,or more fools you,for it will surely be `bye bye`!!!!!!!!!!

To be honest once the channels are covering their costs and making a return they don't care about the content.They will do just enough to be competitive and compliant. Why throw money around on something they feel they cannot change without issuing restraint of trade orders against Ofcom. Which would be expensive and time consuming without any guarantee of result.

Well if one of the channels did decide to fight, I would think offcom would then be watching them like a hawk, issuing fines etc for what they consider the tiniest of breaches.

How long would a legal fight take? It is possible that whilst challenging offcom, the channel could be issued with enough fines and warnings to have their licence revoked.

So any channel fighting OFFCOM would have to have enough in the bank to pay for the legal case, and survive a period of non transmition. None of them have that kind of cash, with the exception of maybe playboy, and I can't see them wanting to be taken off air, whilst still fighting in the courts.

from my quick glance, i don't see anything wrong with it, and it's the right way as they are getting tough on stuff they shouldn't be doing.

I find a good test for proposed shortcuts is this question:

What would we say if this happened in Zimbabwe?

we'd be killed before we could say anything.