Adult broadcaster fined £90k by Ofcom

(25-06-2011 16:13 )schmoo Wrote:  Some excerpts from the published judgement:

*****
• the vulnerability of children and of others whose circumstances appear to Ofcom to put them in need of special protection (section 3(4)(h)).

So that's everyone on the face of the planet then, as far as Ofcom and the courts are concerned. Talk about covering your fucking backs!! In other words, none of us can decide for ourselves what's safe for us to watch

(25-06-2011 22:36 )StanTheMan Wrote:  

(25-06-2011 16:13 )schmoo Wrote:  Some excerpts from the published judgement:

*****
• the vulnerability of children and of others whose circumstances appear to Ofcom to put them in need of special protection (section 3(4)(h)).

So that's everyone on the face of the planet then, as far as Ofcom and the courts are concerned. Talk about covering your fucking backs!! In other words, none of us can decide for ourselves what's safe for us to watch

As I've said elsewhere, these bureaucrats pay no attention whatsoever to the statutes which set them up , they just follow their own agenda and at the moment they seem to be completely off the leash on this. There isn't much danger that they are going to be headed off any time soon either.

Seriously though one problem is that Ofcom has the entire process under one roof. Even parking tickets have an independent appeals process.

One thing that would help would be if Ofcom investigated, but actual decisions were made by an independent body staffed by people with legal qualifications. Even better if they were respected people with senior level broadcasting experience, but the legal qualifications and broadcasting experience dont go together. And they should have experience of human rights and content/taste/decency issues and an impartial track record (collectively if not individually).

There isnt a Dimbelby, Attenborough, Issacs, Grade, Puttnam, Whittam Smith, Ferman, Phillips, Chakrabarti, Mansfield or Tatchell among them. The closest I can think of is Philip Graf, but his background is newpapers.

The main qualification for membership of the Content Board appears to be public sector board level experience, despite the fact that these people are acting as censors, sorry, judges, not board level executives running the organisation.

(25-06-2011 22:48 )eccles Wrote:  The main qualification for membership of the Content Board appears to be public sector board level experience, despite the fact that these people are acting as censors, sorry, judges, not board level executives running the organisation.

Is the bible-bashing, sandpit-jumping Olympic Gold medalist Jonathan Edwards still on the board? I feel confident his judgments regarding the adult babeshows were entirely impartial

Despite the hysteria shown by some people in this thread, I think in reality there's not much Ofcom can do about the babe channels, whether it likes them or not. They don't seem to have succeeded in their attempt to force the channels to go encrypted and I don't see what else they can do. Cellcast for example have been broadcasting for over 8 years and are virtually never mentioned in Ofcom bulletins, so it shows quite simply that if a channel is a sensible and responsible broadcaster there's not really much Ofcom can do about it. I don't want to spoil anyone's fun with their anti-Ofcom rants, but Ofcom isn't the threat to the babe channels that some people make out, otherwise the babe channels would have been put off air years ago.

(24-06-2011 14:40 )mr anderson Wrote:  http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/broadcasting...ofcom.html

Ofcom has today fined Satellite Entertainment Limited (SEL) £90,000 for "serious and repeated" breaches on its Essex Babes, Northern Birds and Live XXX Babes channels.

SEL was called to a meeting on May 9 at Ofcom about the three channels, all available in the adult section of Sky's electronic programme guide.

Ofcom was particularly concerned about SEL's repeated refusal to supply recordings of programming on the channels, as required under its broadcast licence.

The regulator also noted that SEL had "lost control of its own services" during a six-week period by "allowing another company to transmit using its licences".

Ofcom judged that the breaches were so serious as to require the imposition of a £90,000 fine on SEL, payable to the HM Paymaster General.

"After considering all of the evidence and representations made to it, the committee decided that these Licence Condition 11 breaches were so serious and repeated that a financial penalty should be imposed," said Ofcom.

"The committee considered that the licensee's refusal to supply Ofcom with recordings constituted a very serious licence contravention. The committee noted that the licensee's behaviour served only to frustrate the regulatory process and that this was unacceptable.

"The committee further considered that for a six-week period the licensee had lost control of its own services. The committee found this failure to maintain control of its service to fall far beneath the standards required of a licence holder."

SEL is no stranger to rebukes from Ofcom, after being rapped for ten breaches of the Broadcasting Code in 2007 and 2008, as well as a further six breaches last year.

The broadcaster's Sports XXX Babes service was fined £20,000 in 2008, while SEL was also criticised in November 2010 for material transmitted on Sport XXX Girl.

Also last November, Ofcom revoked the four adult channel broadcast licences owned by Bang Channels and Bang Media for "numerous and repeated breaches" of editorial standards.

thing is they sold the channels to another company who then decided they didnt want to pay for them. but in the mean time broke just about every rule going and left sel holding the bag. as legaly they still owned the license, ofcom clearly have disregarded this as mitigating circumstance and decided to levy a hefty fine anyway... end result they have probably sold the channels to cover there fine, and done it at a much reduced price 2... sel were the victim of a deal that went tits up
and in reality were not responsible for the shows that were broadcast as i doubt the channel they were potentially selling to were gonna take any notice of any sel imposed guidelines... ofcom should have levyd the fines on the interim license holder not sel. but due to pryor dealing where the interim company has deliberately scorned ofcom , i guess they chose the easier option... frankly it stinks.

(25-06-2011 22:36 )StanTheMan Wrote:  

(25-06-2011 16:13 )schmoo Wrote:  Some excerpts from the published judgement:

*****
• the vulnerability of children and of others whose circumstances appear to Ofcom to put them in need of special protection (section 3(4)(h)).

So that's everyone on the face of the planet then..

That was exactly (one of) my point(s) Stan - with wording like that there can just be no recourse, it's never going to be possible. Which is why Ofcom will always get their way.

There are only two ways of preventing them doing so:

1. The government reign in their powers/re-write some clear guidelines for everybody (refer back to to my earlier post re this)/stop funding/disband them.
2. They are challenged on the so obvious ambiguities - a court would realise these and legally, could never uphold any judgement Ofcom bring (because there needs to be clear statute to do so).

(26-06-2011 08:44 )William H Bonney Wrote:  Despite the hysteria shown by some people in this thread, I think in reality there's not much Ofcom can do about the babe channels, whether it likes them or not. They don't seem to have succeeded in their attempt to force the channels to go encrypted and I don't see what else they can do. Cellcast for example have been broadcasting for over 8 years and are virtually never mentioned in Ofcom bulletins, so it shows quite simply that if a channel is a sensible and responsible broadcaster there's not really much Ofcom can do about it. I don't want to spoil anyone's fun with their anti-Ofcom rants, but Ofcom isn't the threat to the babe channels that some people make out, otherwise the babe channels would have been put off air years ago.

Cellcast's channels are, I believe, licensed in the Netherlands, not by Ofcon.

As I've said many times before, the only way that Ofcon will change (and by extention, the UK Government - as others point out, Ofcon are only doing what they are supposed to do (albeit VERY enthusiastically), is to be forced to, by successful legal action, and the channels have made clear that they would rather moan about not being allowed to show anything worth watching (IMO), than seek judicial review - presumably, as long as they are making money, that situation will not change.

As for what we can do, like others, I have responded to their 'consultations' (PR exercise, nothing more), contacted them by email to complain about censorship etc., and it doesn’t do any good - "It's entirely up to the broadcaster to decide what they wish to broadcast...so long as they comply with our Broadcast Code" (typical, fucked up, Ofcon 'logic'!).

Bottom line, their position is utterly nonsensical - put simply, people who claim to be offended by adult content, and therefore have no legitimate reason to watch it in the first place, are dictating what those who do want to watch it, can see - that alone is worth challenging, never mind their censorship by means of a licensing system, abuse of fundamental rights etc.

(26-06-2011 11:17 )Censorship :-( Wrote:  Cellcast's channels are, I believe, licensed in the Netherlands, not by Ofcon.

nope, only sky 906 has a dutch licence, the other cellcast channels are licensed by ofcom