Adult broadcaster fined £90k by Ofcom

If it was recordings from when the channels were leased, then surely it should of been the responsibility of the company that had leased the channels and the punishment should of been handed to that company.
If an licensing law offence had been commited by a pub manager, then the punishment would be given to the pub manager who was leasing the premises and not the company that owned the premises.
So, Ofcom are still to blame here.

(24-06-2011 17:17 )mr mystery Wrote:  Right guys for the first time ever i am not going to have a go at Ofcom over this one , they have not found SEL in breach for any overly sexual imagery or bad language or any thing at all that's been shown on adult tv , the fines were for repeatedly refusing to supply recordings , as far as i know ALL channels and not just adult channels are required to under their licence agreement if requested be able to supply recordings of the shows , SEL refused on numerous occasions to supply recordings , So what other choice had Ofcom got ? . SEL or should i say the channel that was leasing the Sport channels at that time was just fucking stupid they knew the rules .
If SEL had been found in breach for showing some sort of sexual imagery in a Adult 18+ section of the Sky EPG that Ofcom thought was to explicit then i would be also criticizing Ofcom like i usually do , but not this time they had no other choice IMO .
PS the channel that was using the Sport channels at that time should IMO get the fine and not SEL .

OR they didn't supply the footage because of what was on it? In any event its disgusting that the penalty for not providing the footage is more severe than if it contained the "unacceptable material". as I've said on the Sport thread - I think this is a making an example punishment!

(24-06-2011 18:49 )SYBORG666 Wrote:  If it was recordings from when the channels were leased, then surely it should of been the responsibility of the company that had leased the channels and the punishment should of been handed to that company.
If an licensing law offence had been commited by a pub manager, then the punishment would be given to the pub manager who was leasing the premises and not the company that owned the premises.
So, Ofcom are still to blame here.

No, you've got it wrong. I think you'll find that Ofcom can only punish a license holder. They have no power to punish anyone else.

Ah, my bad. It's a fucked up system where one company breaks the rules and another one pays the price.

I put up a post explaining all this but it was deleted within thirty minutes. SEL were stitched up by a third party. This third party was renting the channels from SEL and refused to hand over tapes to SEL.

The whole sorry saga is explained in the full Ofcom judgement:

http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binarie...inment.pdf

(24-06-2011 21:17 )admiral decker Wrote:  

(24-06-2011 18:49 )SYBORG666 Wrote:  If it was recordings from when the channels were leased, then surely it should of been the responsibility of the company that had leased the channels and the punishment should of been handed to that company.
If an licensing law offence had been commited by a pub manager, then the punishment would be given to the pub manager who was leasing the premises and not the company that owned the premises.
So, Ofcom are still to blame here.

No, you've got it wrong. I think you'll find that Ofcom can only punish a license holder. They have no power to punish anyone else.

I know what you mean - but in fact they are punishing us all!!!!!

Well I've just come on this for forum for the first time in a couple of days, I've been working the early shifts and ofcourse everyone is expecting me to go nuts well why not, the only reason they wished to see the video recordings of the show's is that no doubt they were checking up and knowing Ofcom Sport were going to get shafted anyway irrespective of whether or not recordings were supplied, and yes I will say it Ofcom are a bunch of fascist bastards so just cannot live with the fact that somebody might actually get some enjoyment out of these channels, no we can't be having that, kids could be watching at 2am in the morning, no doubt ofcom HQ will be having a good piss up with that money, secondly Sport just like Bangbabes media lied to the fans into the reasons for the toning down of the shows, unfortunately we are now living in an era where these channels are dropping like flies, you cannot realistically expect these show's to last much longer going by the harsh conditions and rules they find themselves in and anybody worth their bread and butter out there is neither going to start a new one up either. Give it time and we will soon have a thread entitled RIP To The Babe Channels and all we will have is memories with the majority of them being shit ones, the babe channels are fast becoming a disastrous industry to get involved in, I know if I was into the stocks and shares market I wouldn't be wasting any of the money on these channels. Fuck Ofcom and fuck the channels for lacking the balls to run a station unless it's into the ground.

I wonder who's next on ofcom's hit list.

(24-06-2011 22:15 )kalel76 Wrote:  I wonder who's next on ofcom's hit list.

Most likely Redlight or Storm knowing Ofcom because they always go for the easy target.

Serves the idiots right.

Sport are/were a major player and knew the rules, but they handed complete control to a third party knowing full well that Sport would carry the can for any breaches.

They then failed to guarantee independent recordings despite knowing that they would be responsible for supplying them, not the company they rented the channels to.

Did they even have enforcable penalty clauses legally requiring the third party to keep and hand over recordings, and to pay punitive fines if they did not?

If I was SEL I would be trying to sue the arse off the third party for the fine and damage to reputation.

The report says SEL refused to hand over recordings. Did it refuse or was it incapable? There is a huge difference in intent.

The quoted article says SEL is no stranger to enforcement, having had 10 adverse findings in several years and a previous fine. OK, its just a magazine article, but lets not forget the BBC has had more adverse findings, has a much larger audience, has been fined more, yet has less output.

It would be ironic if because of the fine SEL sold the channels and at some distant point in time some people who worked for the third party end up working on the channels. If SEL had provided recordings it might have been possible for Ofcom to declare some people associated with the third party as unfit to operate a TV channel. By failing to supply recordings SEL has not only lumbered itself with a hefty fine and been found in breach, it has also protected the third party who has a clean sheet.