Ofcom - Current Investigations

(12-05-2011 17:32 )blackjaques Wrote:  

(12-05-2011 12:24 )beller Wrote:  Wouldn't it be wonderful if all the lazy, ineffectual whingers on these Ofcom threads actually shut up farting in the wind on here and maybe did something useful like lobbying Ofcom and their MPs instead?

As long as only a couple of people actually do something official in the appropriate direction, then you won't be surprised if Ofcom falls over laughing when they read these threads in here.

How do you know that people have or haven't lobbied Ofcon?

Because beller is not farting he is doing

Let's not forget we are talking about a government that makes cuts in the Armed Forces, whilst we're still at war in Afghanistan and supporting the rebels in Libya, yet still keep useless quangos like Ofcom in power.
The reality is, some of us on here have or are trying to get our point a cross to Ofcom but they won't listen to anything that goes against them.
The only way they will pay attention is if everyone on this forum got involved.

Freedom of expression is flavour of the day. This week the papers have been full of stories about UK and foreign censorship.

Should MPs ban super injunctions and cosy up to Jemima Khan or should they support the rule of law? What is happening in Syria? Should respected historian Somak Jeamteerasakul, professor at Thammasat University, face a 15 year jail sentence for calling for reform of the Thai monarchy? Camilla, Dutchess of Cornwall, warns that freedom of the press is being put at risk by political correctness. Channel 4 plans to show people taking class A Drugs Live (to show the effects). The BBC broadcasts an actual death in a documentary Inside The Human Body. The Government Al-Seady Inquiry looks into treatment of Iraqi civilians by British troops. Artist Ai Weiwei is being held in a secret jail for criticising the Chinese government. The secretary of the TSSA calls for a public inquiry into allegations that documents relating to the deaths of two teenage girls on a level crossing in Elsenham have been withheld. Anthony Burgesses supressed original script for Clockwork Orange is found. American government officials openly say they did not trust the Pakistani government to keep a military secret. Donald Trump admits using Head and Shoulders. Experts say talk of Greek goernment debt default could trigger a financial crisis, but talk about it anyway. The Foreign Office plans to publish 700 yards of highly secret and deeply damaging files about the use of torture in former colonies.

All but one of these freedom of speech/information stories are from todays paper, and the other is current.

Right now both Conservatives and Labour control freaks are calling for freedom of speech across the world.

They ought to be worried about the arbitrary exercise of power on their own doorstep.

Today sex, tomorrow a news story that could embarrass the government. A history of faults in military aircraft perhaps. The existence of an exministers lovechild. Disputed expert evidence in cot death/murder court cases. 7/7 intelligence. Who knows what it could be next.

(12-05-2011 18:55 )SYBORG666 Wrote:  The reality is, some of us on here have or are trying to get our point a cross to Ofcom but they won't listen to anything that goes against them.
The only way they will pay attention is if everyone on this forum got involved.

Yes - actually lobbying your MP is quite useful. If you can provide a bit of evidence of Ofcom's apparent lack of transparency etc (not difficult), he/she will write on your behalf to Ed Richards (Head of Ofcom). He then gets a minion to reply in detail (pretty insulting to the sitting MP).

So lots of MPs writing to ask him to explain himself annoys Ofcom who have to provide the justifications, and the MPs get annoyed with Ofcom when they get a letter back from only a minion.

I've actually gone 1 step further and sent a letter to 10 Downing Street basically saying, why make cuts in the M.O.D, the N.H.S and Police force when you could save more money by axing quangos like Ofcom etc, that are nowhere near needed as much as the services mentioned above. I sent it approximatley 1 month ago and surprise surprise all I got was an acknowledgement card from them, but at least I got a reply.

(14-05-2011 00:43 )SYBORG666 Wrote:  I've actually gone 1 step further and sent a letter to 10 Downing Street basically saying, why make cuts in the M.O.D, the N.H.S and Police force when you could save more money by axing quangos like Ofcom etc, that are nowhere near needed as much as the services mentioned above. I sent it approximatley 1 month ago and surprise surprise all I got was an acknowledgement card from them, but at least I got a reply.

I bet you won't get a detailed response

(14-05-2011 00:43 )SYBORG666 Wrote:  ..why make cuts in the M.O.D, the N.H.S and Police force when you could save more money by axing quangos like Ofcom etc, that..

Axing Ofcom won't save any money.. More likely we'll get an Ofcom v2.0

(14-05-2011 16:48 )billyboy1963 Wrote:  

(14-05-2011 00:43 )SYBORG666 Wrote:  I've actually gone 1 step further and sent a letter to 10 Downing Street basically saying, why make cuts in the M.O.D, the N.H.S and Police force when you could save more money by axing quangos like Ofcom etc, that are nowhere near needed as much as the services mentioned above. I sent it approximatley 1 month ago and surprise surprise all I got was an acknowledgement card from them, but at least I got a reply.

I bet you won't get a detailed response

I'm surprised they even responded, so be it an acknowledgment card. IF they send a detailed response, then this forum will the first to know but i'm not going to hold breath.

(13-05-2011 06:03 )beller Wrote:  

(12-05-2011 18:55 )SYBORG666 Wrote:  The reality is, some of us on here have or are trying to get our point a cross to Ofcom but they won't listen to anything that goes against them.
The only way they will pay attention is if everyone on this forum got involved.

Yes - actually lobbying your MP is quite useful. If you can provide a bit of evidence of Ofcom's apparent lack of transparency etc (not difficult), he/she will write on your behalf to Ed Richards (Head of Ofcom). He then gets a minion to reply in detail (pretty insulting to the sitting MP).

So lots of MPs writing to ask him to explain himself annoys Ofcom who have to provide the justifications, and the MPs get annoyed with Ofcom when they get a letter back from only a minion.

Most organisations get a "senior" exec about 2 levels below the top to reply to MPs, regarding them as senior but not top level managers in the machinery of running the country. After all there are 650 of them. If it is a consituency matter this applies even if the MP is a Minister, though a bit more double checking takes place. Most replies are actually researched and drafted by junior staff closer to the actual casework, but get scrutinised for due defference, acceptability of the message and conformity to unofficial policies (dont budge on allowing porn).
Many MPs have a sausage factory approach to most consituents complaints, fire off a query to the relevant public body and dont really care about the reply. Honour has been satisfied by raising the matter and they stand a chance of getting a vote.
Most replies fall into two categories:
"We have checked and correct procedures were followed"
or "Thank you for raising this, on this occasion there was an isolated error by a junior member of staff. The error has been corrected."
Neither cases senior management to loose sleep.

Public sector organisations worry when a complaint raises a serious matter, for example well established practices that have no basis in law, people exceeding their authority or bias. These also tend to excite MPs because MPs can get good publicity out of exposing a juicy scandal, that improves their reputation,their reelection chances and their promotion prospects.

Mostly MPs only get one or two letters about any particular subject. If they receive 5 or 6 they start thinking hundreds of constituents are thinking the same. Above that they really worry.

Many MPs also have their own pet likes and dislikes. Europe, unions, taxes, services, toffs, crime...

To get the best response from Ofcom a complaint should clearly indicate that they are acting illegally or inconsistently. And it should also be short and too the point, not 50 pages of closely worded legal argument, case studies and examples.

If many MPs write in with similar concerns Ofcom will take notice. But if they are all the same it will be dismissed as a campaign.

If individual MPs receive a steady stream of complaints they will start to take notice and dig deeper.

Bear in mind that MPs will only reply to constituents with addresses in their constituency. An email that preserves anonymity will not get a response. Minister only respond to matters forwarded by MPs - writing direct will not get a response unless there is a very clear cut scandal.

So find out what excites your MP. Are they pro cuts, anti waste? Do they hate civil servants? Are they pro free speech? Are they against abuse of power? Raise query that will interest them. Try to get different people to contact them. Dont innundate them with repeats, dont appear obsessive, but find different reasons to complain a few times a year.

Also dont forget that as well as Ofcom there is the Culture Media and Sport Select Committee (http://www.parliament.uk/cmscom). This represents the bulk of backbench MPs and helps hold Ministers to account, but they do tend to focus their time and effort on specific topics.

Todays Broadcast Bulletin contains adverse findings against 3 programs and 1 fairness and privacy case. Here for a sense of proportion is a summary:

Various radio broadcasters - Hillsborough Castle Agreement Advertisment
This ad was placed by the Northern Irish First Minister and Deputy First Minister. It basically publicised the NI Agreement in unqualified positive terms. One of the unionist parties complained that this was political advertising on a matter of political controversy. Ofcom upheld that.
(pages 4-22)

Red Light Central
The presenter mimiced sexual intercourse and oral sex, "opened her mouth in a sexual rather than flirtatious manner" and there were some intrusive views of her kneeling on all 4s between 9pm and 9:40. Playboy said there was a gradual trannsition to stronger material in line with the Broadcasting Code and said Ofcom guidance was unclear. Ofcom was particularly concerned about sexualised images broadcast directly after the watershed at 9:02. In Breach but not "held on file" or "considering sanctions" but make no mistake, this was be in a file kept handy for next time.
(pages 23-26)

Some Valley FM Jukebox Hour
Listeners were invited to select songs for broadcast via a text service. Although broadcast as live the show was prerecorded. The radio station said they intended to carry forward requests. Ofcom found this to be materially misleading. It is unclear what harm arose apart from a delay.(pages 26-28)

Fairness and Privacy Case
Press TV, funded by Iranian taxpayers and other sources including advertising, broadcast an interview with a journalist who had previously reported on an attack on an Iranian milita base. The original report, shown on Channel 4 News, appeared to show security forces on demonstrators without provocation. The official Iranian line was that demonstrators had been throwing petrol bombs. The case centred around an interview with the journalist broadcast 2 weeks after the original broadcast. The first report was filed on 15 June 2009. The follow up interview was broacast on 1 July 2009. However the journalist was arrested on 21 June and held in jail for 118 days, including 107 days in solitary confinement, charged with "undermin[ing] the security of the [Iranian] nation" a charge that carries the death penalty. The journalist was told that "he would be freed if he made a televised statement about the role of the Western media in the post-presidential election demonstrations" and read a prepared script to 3 Iranian broadcasters in a room in the prison. This is not the place to pass opinon on other governments. The point is that from a broadcasting perspective all sorts of rules were broken. Ofcom found that the journalist did not consent to the interview. It should have been clear to Press TV that the interview was being given under duress. The journalist was unaware that the interview would be broadcast on British TV. The broadcast suggested he was biassed [possibly affecting his employment prospects and travel options] and suggested he might "actually have been part of the attack". Ofcom upheld the complaint and is considering a sanction.

Of these 4 upheld complaints, which are serious and which are a waste of regulators time and effort?

Programes Not In Breach
Brainiac Science Abuse - Sexual material (yes, really)
Carry On Matron - Sexual material
Gtech Sweepers sponsorship of Grimefighters - Sexual material
QI - Sexual material (its a panel show featuring seated participants)
Super Casino - Misleadingless (go on, make up words, youre only the statutory regulator)
The Alan Titchmarsh Show - Nudity (aw, hes so cute)
The Alan Titchmarsh Show - Sexual Material
The Wright Stuff - Generally Accepted Stanards (64 complaints)
The Zone - Misleadingless (still not learnt English then)
This Morning - Sexual Material (2 separate shows)

Bluebird Daytime - Participation TV Offence
Lucky Star - Participation TV Offence
Red Light 2 - Participation TV Offence