Ofcom Discussion

(08-02-2011 19:45 )RCTV Wrote:  

(08-02-2011 01:07 )HenryF Wrote:  Yes, but: A it was shit; B no way was it equivalent to R18; C since when has implied urination been R18.
It is as nonsensical as the ruling against Asian Babes, which claimed skin toned underwear when seen from a distance left a complainant sure that the model was not wearing underwear.

There is plenty of material on the net. If these service providers are not prepared to grow a pair and work in the interest of their customer base, they should be shunned and deprived of revenue.

And just to emphasize the hypocrisy of this investigation, I've just watched Bear Grylls pull two hand-fulls of camel shit from a dead animal and squeeze the juice into his mouth, before promptly removing his tea shirt and pissing on it - definitely not implied.

who are you to judge what the content is? that's ofcoms job, they know what is and what isn't, they've broken the rules, they should pay for it, simple as. it don't matter if it was shit it was R18 material

I'm not making a judgment on what is R18 - simply applying the rules as laid out by the BBFC. The content, which was broadcast free to air was not R18 strength it was an adult sex work as outlined in Ofcom's own guidelines.

Ofcom vs Fifa

Looks as if the Euro Courts can and do intervene sometimes. Ofcom vs Fifa, its like watching 2 ugly sisters fight and wanting both to loose. From the BBC

Quote:World Cup free-to-air television ruling due
The European Court of Justice is to make a ruling which may decide whether UK football fans can still watch major events on free-to-air TV in future.

Fifa and Uefa are challenging a decision allowing the UK government to designate the World Cup and European Championships as free to watch events.

Both are on the UK list of "protected" events of national sporting importance.

But Fifa and Uefa argue this interferes with their ability to sell their television rights at the best price.

They say there is no reason why all games at tournaments should be shown free on British television.

If the court sides with the two football authorities it could mean drastically reduced numbers of games being shown on terrestrial television, as Fifa and Uefa look to sell off packages of games to pay-TV broadcasters.

However, any games featuring England, Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland would still be shown on free TV, as would the finals and semi-finals of the tournaments.

More...

(17-02-2011 02:40 )eccles Wrote:  Ofcom vs Fifa

Looks as if the Euro Courts can and do intervene sometimes. Ofcom vs Fifa, its like watching 2 ugly sisters fight and wanting both to loose. From the BBC

aaaaaaaaaaaaawwwwwwwwwweeeeeeeeee that would really break my heart.
No more footy to knock most of a nights programing off national tv.
Boooooooofuckinghoooooooo!!!!!!
Cora` Emmerdale and all the decent programmes back on schedule,hoooooooorrraaaaaayyyyy. [only kidding]
This is really shocking news and just goes to show how gready these people have become.
It is bad enough that many, many, people that enjoy football ,can`t even go to see a live match because of the cost involved,
But now they may not even be able to watch it on tv,for the same reason.
These people don`t even know the hardship that is involved when people are either out of work or being screwed for every penny they make by government.
They are all super rich and live in a world most of us could not dream about.
This is bad,very bad news.
I`ve never been in to footy myself,but I do feel for you people that are,anyway `nough said by me on this matter.......

(08-02-2011 19:45 )RCTV Wrote:  

(08-02-2011 01:07 )HenryF Wrote:  Yes, but: A it was shit; B no way was it equivalent to R18; C since when has implied urination been R18.
It is as nonsensical as the ruling against Asian Babes, which claimed skin toned underwear when seen from a distance left a complainant sure that the model was not wearing underwear.

There is plenty of material on the net. If these service providers are not prepared to grow a pair and work in the interest of their customer base, they should be shunned and deprived of revenue.

And just to emphasize the hypocrisy of this investigation, I've just watched Bear Grylls pull two hand-fulls of camel shit from a dead animal and squeeze the juice into his mouth, before promptly removing his tea shirt and pissing on it - definitely not implied.

who are you to judge what the content is? that's ofcoms job, they know what is and what isn't, they've broken the rules, they should pay for it, simple as. it don't matter if it was shit it was R18 material

Really RCTV? Perhaps you can point to the legal clause that allows OFCOM to 'judge'/'rate'/'classify' tele-visual media?

There is ONLY ONE STATE APPOINTED BODY that is legally sanctioned and required to rate visual media and that body is the BBFC.

Whether something LEGALLY constitutes R18 material can ONLY be decided by the BBFC.

OFCOM are not legally permitted, required or qualified to make any such 'judgements' as to the legal status or age-suitability of ANY video works. Moreover, the BBFC base ALL their ratings on regular public consultation - i.e. the PUBLIC guide the BBFC in determining what type of material should be available in each age category. Furthermore, in 2000 the High Court ruled that explicit 'hardcore' sex material SHOULD be available at the R18 rating on the basis that ALL EVIDENCE PROVED IT TO BE HARMLESS to children and under 18s (and we might assume any other so-called 'vulnerable people').

OFCOM DO NOT GET TO JUDGE WHAT 'IS' or 'IS NOT' R18-type material. And they sure as fuck don't get to tell the High Court what 'is' or 'is not' harmful. OFCOM do not write the law - they must obey it. So, when the HRA 1998 states that NO MATERIAL can be banned by ANY Public Body without BLACK LETTER LAW or CONCRETE EVIDENCE OF HARM, OFCOM had better fucking listen because, they ARE BREAKING THE LAW BY BANNING LEGALLY HARMLESS R18 MATERIAL ON TV.

I actually think the babe channels would win in a court of law against ofcom if only they could be arsed to do anything about it, if I ran a babe channel I sure as hell wouldn't have some fucker telling me what I could and could not do, I would say in no uncertain terms to get to fuck and if you have a problem with it I'll see you in court. I would have them Issued with a restraining order and I would have Johnny Cochran as my Lawyer. Not only would I win but I would also financially cripple ofcom and effectively put an end to this unjust prejudice and censorship laws currently being imposed.

Indeed, Scottishbloke, OFCOM have produced no evidence whatsoever to show R18-type material is harmful and thus warrants an outright ban. And, moreover, sensitive members of the public can be adequately protected from any other supposed 'offence' they may feel by proper labelling of programmes, audio anouncements and on-screen symbols. What exactly is the point of "the adult section of the EPG" if not to warn the public of the content of the channels therein?

OFCOM are simply enforcing their own brand of religiously misguided bigotry. They insult the rights and intelligence of every adult in this land that enjoys porn in a responsible way. Indeed, they insult the rights and intelligence of every under 18 in this land that's already been exposed to porn at home or on the Internet and suffered no harm or offence as a result.

OFCOM are simply perpetuating the irrational and typically 'British' phobias with regard to sexual expression and sexual entertainment. There is not one shred of evidence to show pornography is a danger to anyone and, moreover, the only way to desensitise those who hold irrational hates and/or fears is to expose them to the thing they fear and/or find offensive and let them understand that it is they who are wrong about it.

(18-02-2011 16:11 )IanG Wrote:  Indeed, Scottishbloke, OFCOM have produced no evidence whatsoever to show R18-type material is harmful and thus warrants an outright ban. And, moreover, sensitive members of the public can be adequately protected from any other supposed 'offence' they may feel by proper labelling of programmes, audio anouncements and on-screen symbols. What exactly is the point of "the adult section of the EPG" if not to warn the public of the content of the channels therein?

OFCOM are simply enforcing their own brand of religiously misguided bigotry. They insult the rights and intelligence of every adult in this land that enjoys porn in a responsible way. Indeed, they insult the rights and intelligence of every under 18 in this land that's already been exposed to porn at home or on the Internet and suffered no harm or offence as a result.

OFCOM are simply perpetuating the irrational and typically 'British' phobias with regard to sexual expression and sexual entertainment. There is not one shred of evidence to show pornography is a danger to anyone and, moreover, the only way to desensitise those who hold irrational hates and/or fears is to expose them to the thing they fear and/or find offensive and let them understand that it is they who are wrong about it.

I agree with most of what you say. The main thing, is that there's nothing dangerous about a fully nude woman. We should at least be allowed to see that!

(18-02-2011 17:08 )mrmann Wrote:  I agree with most of what you say. The main thing, is that there's nothing dangerous about a fully nude woman. We should at least be allowed to see that!

There is nothing dangerous with R18,and the biggest court in our nation has said that!

The law is the law and it is these Ofcom bigots who are breaking it by puting there own missguided ideas and attitudes into their bloody countless `rules`.
Why isn`t the public consulted on what they think of porn on tv?.

Why doesn`t the government get rid of these quangos like promissed before they were put into parliament [by default]?

(08-02-2011 23:09 )eccles Wrote:  

(08-02-2011 02:42 )Gold Plated Pension Wrote:  The backbone of the response by the Adult Industry Trades Association back in 2004 to Ofc@m was about inadequate pin protection and that broadcasters would have an unfair advantage both financially and legislatively over licensed sex shops. ...

The sex shop owners real point was a plea for restraint of trade to protect their own sales, and should have been treated as disgraceful self interest. The bit about inadequate pin protection was just a fig leaf to give the first part respectability.

Good point about convictions for illegal postal sales of R18 DVDs. It would have been interesting to see if this trade body consisted of small independents or companies also operating babe channels. Unfortuantely the AITA seem cagy about their membership. Surprising that sex shop owners should want to hide behind the blacked out windows of anonymity.

Actually attended a licensing sub-committee hearing yesterday to listen to an application for a new sex establishment license in Soho, Westminster.

A sub-committee hearing is an administrative process with quasi legal recognition, i don't know what status Ofc@m's hearings have.

The application was opposed by the Police, a local resident and it was stated that there was a place of worship nearby (one of the stated reasons as well as schools and heavy residential area) where a licence can be refused without leave to appeal.

Police stated the premises was in the vicinity of Westminster College, a tertiary education institution. They also wanted CCTV conditions as the premises was in an improvement zone but is used by people to evade and escape the Police, stating there have been numerous offences in the area. CCTV protects staff from allegations of impropriety and the conditions requested were fair and reasonable. Police also specified that the CCTV would only need to cover entry and exit points and would only be used by Police to identify people in connection with crimes.

A Licensing Inspector stated the premises has been operating as an unlicensed sex premises for years. He confirmed the applicant is not connected with the previous owners. There have been 41 visits/raids by the inspectors since 2001. He stated a licensed premises would be subject to the Council’s Standard Conditions and that a licensed premises would be easier to govern than an unlicensed premises.

The resident stated he was in the locality of the premises and that this was in a residential block of 69 flats which were homes to single people and families with children. There were already 4 licensed sex shops in the immediate vicinity of this block and the area is saturated with sex shops, prostitute flats, peep shows and hostess bars. This saturation leads to a sleazy atmosphere and this application adds to that saturation.

The fact that the premises would be licensed rather than unlicensed did not reduce the concentration of the sex industry in that area. He stated that the need was to reduce the number of sex shops in the area rather than formalise them.

The resident also confirmed the City Gates church is a drop-in centre and acts as an outreach centre for homeless and other groups as well as holding prayer groups, therefore, it does operate as a church. The Islamic centre on Brewer Street is also very popular and busy on Fridays. There is a pre-school playgroup and kindergarten in the area and the area is highly residential.

The resident stated he believed the premises was only applying for a sex shop licence now to avoid closure by the Council.

All this evidence was given in open forum, hence why i was able to be there, before a committee of three councilors assisted by a legal adviser and a policy adviser.

All parties were given enough time to present their evidence without being harangued by the chairman.

The decision was to grant the application with a slight reduction in operating hours.

The committee stated they were mindful of the fact that the Council's policy had set the quota of 16 sex establishments for the Soho area and the actual number currently in existence is 13. The Chairman stated that the application was granted as the addition of the conditions would improve the locality.

So even with residents nearby, places of worship and a school some 200m away a sex shop would improve the locality. No mention was made of the persons using such establishment or concerns raised about children passing such premises.

I believed it was a considered and balanced decision without any mention of morality or likely harm.

Now if only Ofc@m could learn from such procedures. Their hearings are always in closed session, licensees are restricted to 15 mins to state their case, even when licenses are subject to such draconian outcomes as revocation, a cautionary approach is always taken with no evidence of harm produced even though they always state 'protection from harm' as a consideration. Full minutes of the hearings are never available on their website until at least a year from the decision announced, i was told Westminster Council publish theirs within 28 days.

Lessons to be learned by Ofc@m that if evidence cannot be produced to demonstrate a concern then that concern should not be considered.

If i was to be a bit more cynical i would state, Soho is such a dense heavy mix of residential and commercial premises that there will always be a place of worship, school, residents etc nearby. Some sort of crime is always happening nearby due to the number of people on the street, including tourists and at £30,000 a licence the council needs the money and the licensing team can now redirect their resources at other unlicensed premises.

Residents also need to understand that by living in Soho you have to embrace the sex industry, that's part of what makes Soho so vibrant and colourful, it will never be the 'normal' high street, and it's a great place to have a coffee early on a Sunday morning.

If residents do not like decisions made by the committee then they can at least invoke their rights to vote them out at the next local elections, something we cannot do with the unelected morality police that is Ofc@m.

eccles
I spoke with the licensing officer after the case and will be contacting him next week to discuss the position of the AITA in relation to the councils enforcement and sex premises policy.