Whos Who At The Content Board

A thread for factual information about the UKs top censors.

The Board has 7 members:

Anthony Lilley
Chiel Creative Officer and CEO at Magic Lantern, an interactive media company. The company has worked on Top Gear, Doctor Who, Teletubbies, Spooks, FourDocs, The Guardian and many others.
(The company’s clients include Channel 4, BBC, BT, Tiscali, Nigella Lawson’s Pabulum Productions, UKTV, Telewest, Discovery, C21 Media, the UK Film Council, NESTA, the DTI, the DfES, Skillset, The Tate Modern and PACT. Anthony is Executive Producer and co-creator of Channel 4’s FourDocs )
38* married with 2 young children, lives in the South East.

Millie Banerjee
Chair of British Transport Police.
Former BT senior executive covering operational and HR matters.
Non-executive director of the NHS Primary Care Trust at Newham.
Chair of Postcomm
"Pursued non-executive plural career since 2001" in other words has made a career of being on quango bodies for the past decade.
Listed on the Women In Telecoms and Technology website, but unclear. A fair inference would be that she has an interest in fair career advancement for women.
59*, married no children. Born in India, presumably lives in or near Newham (London).

Tim Gardam
Had a 25 year career in broadcasting starting at the BBC where he was editor of Panorama and Newsnight before becoming Head of Current Affairs and Weekly News.
Priciple of St Annes College Oxford.
Part of the first senior management team at Five and was Director of Programmes at Channel Four.
48*

Philip Graf CBE
Chairman of the Gambling Commission
Associate, Praesta Partners LLP (executive coaching business)
Former Chief Exec of Trinity Mirror newspapers.
Lived in Liverpool until 1999, moved South when Trinity aquired the Mirror Group. Now lives in South London.
Remarried.
64*

Dr Paul Moore
Northern Ireland Board Member
An academic with over 25 years’ teaching and writing experience in the field of media studies and related areas.
Freelance presenter with BBC Radio Ulster since 1991.
Now Professor at Ulster Uni, Head of the School of Creative Arts.
Age unknown.

Joyce Taylor
Content Board member for Scotland.
She has been managing director of Discovery Networks Europe, CEO of Flextech Television and a non-executive director of Mersey Television.
Age unknown.

Christopher Woolard
Formerly Deputy Director of the BBC Trust.
Prior to this he was a senior civil servant at the Department for Trade and Industry. His roles included leading the bill team for the Communications Act 2003, postal services and private secretary to the Secretary of State.
~ he was a career civil servant who helped write the law that created Ofcom, went on to a supervisory role at the BBC Trust, and has recently joined Ofcom at a senior level. Fresh views eh?

* Forgot to say ages are estimates based on dated or undated information.

Noticed this:

Quote:New Content Board members and Chairmen of National Advisory Committees announced
May 6, 2011

Ofcom today announced the appointment of four new members of its Content Board and the appointment of a new Chairman of the National Advisory Committee for Wales. It has also announced the re-appointment of the Chairmen of the National Advisory Committees for both Scotland and Northern Ireland.

CONTENT BOARD


The Content Board is the committee of the main Ofcom Board with delegated responsibility for TV and radio content issues, including setting and enforcing quality and standards.

The Content Board includes members who represent each of the four Nations of the UK. Two of today’s appointments include new members to represent Scotland and Wales. The new appointments are:

Janey Walker

Janey worked at the BBC from 1982-95 and then Channel 4 from 1996-2010 where she was Commissioning Editor Arts and Performance until 2000, later becoming Managing Editor for Commissioning and Head of Education until 2010.

Dr. David Levy

David is Director of the Reuters Institute at Oxford University and had a distinguished career at the BBC from 1982 where he moved from editorial and programme making into wider-policy development becoming Controller, Public Policy from 2000-2007.

Glyn Mathias

Glyn will be the Content Board member for Wales. Between 1973-1994 he worked as Political Editor/Correspondent for ITN and then until 1999 was Political Editor for BBC Wales. He was the Welsh member of the Electoral Commission from 2001-9 and joined Ofcom’s Welsh Advisory Committee in 2007.

Iseabail MacTaggart

A fluent Gaelic speaker, Iseabail was a solicitor before moving to BBC Radio 5 as an assistant editor. She is now on the Highlands and Islands Enterprise Board and has been a Board member of MG Alba and the BBC Audience Council for Scotland. Iseabail will be the Content Board member for Scotland.

The appointments took effect on the 1st May 2011.

Advisory Committees

Ofcom has established Advisory Committees for each Nation of the United Kingdom. These Committees provide advice to Ofcom on a range of issues including the impact of Ofcom’s activities in each Nation.

Ofcom is delighted to announce that Glyn Mathias has been appointed as the Chairman of the Advisory Committee for Wales in addition to his role on the Content Board.

Professor Philip Schlesinger of the University of Glasgow has been re-appointed as Chairman of the Advisory Committee for Scotland and Professor Wallace Ewart has been re-appointed as the Chairman of the Advisory Committee for Northern Ireland.

Philip Graf, Chairman of the Content Board and Deputy Chairman of Ofcom, said:

“I am delighted that we have such a variety of experienced individuals joining the Content Board.”

“We continue to have important work to do in ensuring standards and quality on television and radio are maintained as we face the increasing challenges of content being delivered to people over a variety of platforms.”

“I am also delighted that Professor Philip Schlesinger and Professor Wallace Ewart have agreed to further terms as Chairmen of two of our Advisory Committees. Ofcom and the Advisory Committees have benefitted hugely form their advice and guidance. I am also very pleased that Glyn Mathias has taken on the additional role of Chairman of our Welsh Advisory Committee.”

Of course it would be too much to ask that Ofcom updates its webpage listing Content Board members. That would be like transparency.

No idea what Professor Philip Schlesinger and Professor Wallace Ewarts reputation is but a cynic might suggest they were being lined up for senior board member roles in a few years time. Fortunately there are no cynics here.
http://media.ofcom.org.uk/2011/05/06/new...announced/

Kath Worrall

For completeness here are some biographical details of former Content
Board member Kath Worrall.

Broadcasting Standards Commission Member 1 Jan 2002 to 30 June 2003.
Content Board Member 1 May 2003-30 June 2006 (first appointment 3 years).
Term extended.
Term extended to 30 June 2010 (Ofcom Board Meeting 141 on 7 July 2009, item 132(9)).

Chair of the Ofcom Fairness Committee for 3½ years (to March 2010?)

Fellow of the Royal Television Society since 1998.

Former director of broadcasting at ITV company Border (covers Cumbria and Scottish borders)
Former BBC producer
Former presenter at BBC Radio Cumbria, dates unknown
(another BBC Radio Cumbria alumni is Richard Hammond)

“A broadcasting consultant with successful senior management experience in both the commercial and public service sectors, who has worked overseas advising on broadcasting legislation and regulation. She has held a number of senior broadcasting posts in Britain, which include the Director of Broadcasting at Border Television, the Secretary, BBC Scotland, and Managing Editor, BBC Cumbria.” – press release 21 Dec 2001

While chair of Ofcoms Fairness Committee she heard complaints from the Kennel Club and several dog breeders about a BBC Panorama programme (“Pedigree Dogs Exposed”) broadcast in August 2008. Allegations that Kath Worrall had links to the dog-breeding world were refuted. Mrs Worrall said she had not sat as a judge since 1976. The decision was taken to appeal, and BBC lawyers complained that it was inappropriate for someone who took the original decision to sit on the Appeals Committee.

She may be a Quaker involved with the management for The Friend magazine (or it may be a different Kath Worrall).

Wrote an article in The Guardian 11 April 2001 in which she wrote

Quote:“You can guess which group of broadcasters were frequently up before the committee: the pornographic or, as they prefer, adult channels. … Some channels were regulars. … Personally I don't think we should police what adults choose to view in privacy. But I do take seriously "the vulnerability of children and others whose circumstances appear to Ofcom to put them in special need of protection"
... And after a decade of viewing porn it's pretty obvious that there are some general concerns if anyone can stumble on what's available. If it was all encrypted and paid for – even at one penny per view – access would be effectively restricted to over-18s because a credit card would be needed. If a parent chose to give a six year old access, that would be in spite of reasonable efforts to protect. Just as if internet service providers have to reconfigure their sites so that a user has to opt in, not out, to accessing porn. Again, it's proportionate and reasonable protection of the vulnerable. Not what we have at the moment, although it's what any engaged home secretary could suggest.
… Suddenly what was "light and flirtatious chat" was extremely embarrassing when it came out of the mouth of a middle aged/elderly woman.
… They would also argue that if the channel was in the adult section of an EPG it should be allowed special privileges. Yet it's very easy to stumble on the wrong part of an EPG. The Ofcom code is still the code, no matter which electronic shelf the programme appears on. "There have only been a handful of complaints and we believe those came from our competitors," was another regular line. Well, the Communications Act empowers Ofcom to deal with breaches of the code. No complaints are needed. Numbers are irrelevant. During my time one of the most complained-about programmes was Jerry Springer the Opera, with in excess of 16,000 complaints. We threw out the complaint because the programme didn't breach the code.
… With the exception of specialist material for hair fetishists, there is no body hair. Waxing is universal. … Overall the effect is to suggest women are as different from the reality as was classical statuary from Effie Ruskin (whose pubic hair hence shocked her husband, John).”

The bold section implies that the criteria for acceptability of broadcast material is what it would sound like if voiced by a “middle aged/elderly woman”. Strangely this criteria does not appear in legislation, or to be applied to hard hitting drama, Never Mind The Buzzcocks or horror films.

It might be argued that a former dog show judge might be favourably inclined towards dog show practices and may be familiar with practices or people involved, and that this could cast doubt on their impartiality, making it good practice to recuse themselves.

It might also be argued that being on a panel hearing an appeal into a decision she originally made is not best practice and open to suggestions of conflict of interest and lack of due impartiality.

The BBC Panorama Kennel Club case therefore resulted in two arguable instances of poor judgement.

Regarding the dismissive comment in the Guardian article about the Ruskin Effect, respected female journalist Polly Vernon wrote “No one under the age of 40 seems to have public hair”, quoting Rachel Johnson, editor of The Lady and Boris Johnsons sister, in The Times Magazine, 30 April 2011, page 39. So it would appear that this influential and long established member of the Content Board was seriously out of touch with cultural norms for intimate female matters.

Patricia Hodgson and Lynne Brindley appointed to Ofcom Board

Quote:Ofcom today [9 June] announced the appointment of Dame Patricia Hodgson and Dame Lynne Brindley as Non-Executive Members of Ofcom’s Board.

Dame Patricia Hodgson will join the Ofcom Board on 1 July 2011 and will become Deputy Chairman for a three year term, on the retirement of Philip Graf CBE, on 1 January 2012.

Dame Lynne Brindley begins her three year term on 1 September 2011.

Millie Banerjee CBE retires from the Ofcom Board on 30 June 2011.

Dame Patricia Hodgson is Principal of Newnham College, Cambridge, a Non-Executive Director of the Competition Commission and Member of the Higher Education Funding Council for England. She was Chief Executive of the Independent Television Commission before it merged to form Ofcom in 2003. She is also currently a Member of the BBC Trust from which she will step down with immediate effect to take up her role at Ofcom.

Dame Lynne Brindley has been Chief Executive Officer of The British Library since 2000. She is a Member of the Arts & Humanities Research Council and a Board Member of the Creative Industries Knowledge Transfer Network. She is also a Member of the Strategic Management Board for super-fast broadband for Cornwall & the Scilly Isles from which she will resign on her appointment to Ofcom. She was formerly Pro-Vice-Chancellor of the University of Leeds, Director of Information Services at the London School of Economics and senior management consultant at KPMG.

The appointments were made by the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport.

Ofcom Chairman, Colette Bowe, said: “I am very pleased to be welcoming Patricia and Lynne to the Ofcom Board. They bring a wealth of experience and expertise which will greatly benefit Ofcom and I very much look forward to working with them over the next few years.

“I would also like to thank Millie Banerjee, who leaves the Ofcom Board at the end of June, for her significant contribution to Ofcom’s work over many years. Philip Graf will remain on the Board as Deputy Chairman until the end of this year but I would also like to take this opportunity to thank Philip for his contribution to Ofcom as Deputy Chairman and Chairman of the Content Board, which we have greatly appreciated.

“We all wish Millie and Philip the very best.”

Thats the main Ofcom Board, not the Content Board. And before anyone gets too excited about the return of Dame Patricia Hodgson (former Chief Exec of the ITC) bear in mind that these are non-exec posts.

Christopher Woolard Article

Full text of an article that Content Board member Christopher Woolard wrote for the Guardian around 13 June 2011, in response to "The TV watershed is a thing of the past" by Mark Lawson.

What is particularly interesting is that he has already made up his mind on content controls "why do we bother enforcing standards? ... Finally, to keep the most inappropriate content, such as BBFC Rated R18 hardcore porn, off TV screens altogether and to ensure that other strong content is restricted from general viewing though parental controls."
If he were a judge this would prevent him exercising judgement in related matters. At Ofcom it is seen as a requirement.

Quote:Why the TV watershed still matters
The watershed may not be the answer to all ills but it still plays an important role in maintaining public confidence in TV

Numerous column inches have been devoted to the 'watershed' recently, particularly around the publication of Reg Bailey's report on children.

To some, like Mark Lawson, the onset of technology which increasingly allows us to choose when and how we watch something has rendered the watershed meaningless, with those trying to uphold standards fighting a losing battle. To others, the current regulation is too liberal or Ofcom's application of it 'toothless'. Some hard facts might help inform this debate.

Despite the explosion of choice – including catch-up TV and PVRs – more people are watching more hours of linear television than ever before, an average of four hours per day – up from 3.6 hours. That's people sitting down and turning on the telly. However unfashionable it may be, the TV schedule is alive and kicking.

Twice a year, every year, we ask parents and the wider general public what they think about standards on TV. Pretty consistently about one in 10 people want tougher standards, while around one in 20 want something more permissive. But the vast majority — 72 per cent in our latest survey — think it is about right.

Almost everyone (93 per cent) understands the watershed and 74 per cent think 9pm is the right time. If you just ask parents, that number is 76 per cent. Since 2003, Ofcom has taken action on more than 300 occasions when broadcasters have failed to adequately protect children. These include two recent cases where inappropriate music videos — including Rihanna's S&M — were screened early in the afternoon.

The question underlying Mark Lawson's G2 article last week was: if you can find the same video online in seconds, why do we bother enforcing standards? First, to protect children from seeing harmful content. Second, to set expectations for all viewers, including parents, about what kinds of content can be found by using proxies like the 'watershed'. Finally, to keep the most inappropriate content, such as BBFC Rated R18 hardcore porn, off TV screens altogether and to ensure that other strong content is restricted from general viewing though parental controls.

Undoubtedly the online world makes addressing these kinds of issues more challenging. So far behaviours and expectations online and in front of the television have been very different. New Ofcom research that we'll present to the UK Council for Child Internet Safety Summit this week, reveals that only around half of young teenagers online say they know basic techniques for staying safe on the internet. One in 10 aged eight to 15 say they have seen something worrying or offensive online. That online world is colliding with traditional TV in a living room near you soon courtesy of a range of internet-connected TV devices.

The future debate about protecting audiences is going to depend on what kind of protection we as a society are trying to achieve. Stopping responsible content providers from showing material unsuitable for young children is normally a matter of guidance backed by the possibility of enforcement. Preventing a determined teenager from accessing adult material is another matter altogether. Stopping broadcasters from ever causing offence would also change the nature of television entirely. Should pre-watershed dramas avoid dealing with difficult issues or avoid comedy or pop music? As Reg Bailey notes, "clearly television cannot be indifferent to popular culture".

Bailey also insists that his recommendations need to be seen in the round. No one tool, be it what Bailey dubbed our "helpful" X Factor decision, greater online security or shielding magazine covers will entirely protect children. Nor should this be seen as a debate in which it's all down solely to parents or businesses or regulators to solve. There's a balance to be struck.

So where does that leave the humble TV watershed? The bottom line is, so long as parliament continues to value standards regulation we will enforce those standards. Even as we enter an even more complex converged market, the power of traditional television and viewer expectations endure. It is one tool, not the answer to all ills.

But nor do we think the time has come when technology has removed the watershed's relevance.

Broadcasting codes have always sought to reflect the standards generally accepted by the public at any given time. Broadcasters may need to be given guidance when they are in danger of misjudging those standards, as our decision on The X Factor shows. Such decisions will always be judgments with which some will disagree.

We believe they continue to play an important role in maintaining public confidence in television provided they are rooted in a strong base of evidence about the protection the public wants.

Christopher Woolard

A little more information on Christopher Woolard, Ofcoms Group Director, Content, International and Regulatory Development Group.

Actually there does not seem to be much to add. It may be that as a long term civil servant he kept a low profile.

Dec 2008 or early 2009: Joins Ofcom.
March 2005: Joins the BBC Trust as as Head of Compliance & Value for Money (VFM) in the Governance Unit.
Previously: Senior civil servant, led the team that wrote the Communications Act 2003 that established Ofcom.

So after just 3 1/2 years at the BBC he joins the organisation he set up.

No experience at all of making programs.

No apparent experience of deciding on the suitability of content.
No apparent experience or training in legal matters.
No apparent experience of running a large organisation.
Does have experience of assessing public value tests.
Experience of value for money.

A pen pusher and accountant then.

Executive Board Member for UKCCIS (Council for Child Internet Safety), a Government body. Interestingly they list him as being from “Ofcon”

Found this on The Independent, 4 UK censorship bodies - sorry, content regulators - in their own words. Bit long, but its their own words.

BBFC - Internet Watch Foundation - Advertising Standards Authority - Ofcom

Saturday 17 September 2011

Meet the censors: Who decides what's beyond the pale?
They have the power to ban a film, withdraw an advert or shut down a website. But how do Britain's censors decide what goes beyond the boundaries of good taste? Holly Williams meets the nation's moral guardians We might think of the UK as a country with few controls over what we view, listen to or watch. We champion freedom of expression; we don't have censorship here, thank you. Yet we also, it seems, love to complain. Viewers take umbrage at adverts showing spitting or burping, and complain to the Advertising Standards Authority. Puffed-up newspaper campaigns, re-printing an 'offensive' joke told on TV, can drive complaints to Ofcom through the roof.

Occasionally, the issue comes into sharper political focus – in June, David Cameron commissioned a report into the sexualisation of childhood, which proposed tighter regulations on music videos. Or a film gets banned; again in June, the British Board of Film Classification refused a certificate for Human Centipede II. That this is news at all is a reminder that people are watching what we watch.

What is deemed "not OK" ebbs and flows on the moral tides of the era – panic over Eighties video nasties has given way to concerns about the internet. Swear words go in and out of fashion (though a "Fuck" before 9pm on TV remains a no-no). And some changes are welcomed – who mourns the loss of adverts claiming smoking is good for us?

But what are these organisations – 'censors' is an unpopular term; 'regulatory body' is generally preferred – really like? How do they decide what is or isn't offensive? While each body has its guidelines, with an emphasis on 'transparency' and 'accountability', ultimately they are made up of ordinary people, who have to make fine judgement calls. We spoke to four at the cutting edge...

Rebecca Mackay - British Board of Film Classification

"I've been at the board for 17 years now. We're a good deal busier these days. There's more to watch and we're down to 14 examiners.

A day's examining will comprise watching basically six hours of material: anything from brand new feature films – which we will watch in the cinema – to DVDs of TV series, straight to video releases, pornography...

We start from the 'ground floor' that everything is appropriate and acceptable for everyone to watch. That's the 'U'. As we watch, we have in our minds a series of issues, everything from language to sex, nudity, violence and drug use. We have our public guidelines and under those we know what is appropriate for each age category. Sometimes thing fall right on the borderline, and that's when we have to be quite rigorous in our analysis of the work and its potential audience.

Context is everything: one use of strong language, ie, 'fuck', will take a work to a '12' as parents don't want strong language in anything below that. The guidelines say only infrequent use is acceptable – but what does infrequent mean? With The King's Speech, there was a very narrow precedent for quite a number of uses of strong language, but because of the context and how it occurred, we felt on balance it was not going to impact in a way that was negative – whereas perhaps two or three really aggressive or directed uses of 'fuck' would not be appropriate.

Every five years we do a huge public consultation exercise. It's hugely important because we do consider we are working to provide information for the public; it's not about us dictating. Of course there have been shifts in what the public thinks is acceptable, and not always in the direction one would expect. We are much tougher on issues like sexual violence and violence against children now; but consenting sex, we're reasonably liberal about – the general public is not as prudish as in the past.

We reject the granting of certificates very rarely. Fifty years ago, we were rejecting films that now we might classify as a '15'. Now, we're classifying things with greater potency, because shocking and offending is just shocking and offending. The only two films we've rejected in the past couple of years have been Grotesque, a Japanese horror with sexual assault, humiliation and extreme torture – we thought it was potentially harmful – and we cut Murder Set Pieces, an American feature about a psychopathic, sexual serial killer. Recently, we've rejected Human Centipede II – but I can't talk about that yet!

There are huge down points: I hate watching pornography, and at times I feel hugely dispirited by what some material is and for what purpose it is made. But mostly I just feel so bloody lucky – I do love my job. And I still go to the cinema; my favourite treat when I'm on holiday is going to the pictures in the afternoon."

Fred Langford - Internet Watch Foundation

"The IWF was started in 1996. There was pressure put on by the government to take action on child sexual abuse content on websites and the industry decided to pull together a self-regulatory body.

We also took on obscene adult content, so that's anything likely to deprave and corrupt – which is quite subjective. Because of the shifting landscape, we only act when the content is potentially illegal, and a legal precedent has been set. We don't see ourselves as censors of the internet. If it's criminal offline, it's criminal online. Simply inappropriate content isn't within our remit.

There's no place for vigilantes searching for this content, but if a member of the public stumbles across it, they can report it on our website. The number of reports vary from 150 to over a thousand, though that would be an unusually busy day. We have four analysts and a hotline manager. We always assess whether the content falls foul of the law, and use UK sentencing guidelines. We have five different assessment levels: level five is an act of sadism or penetration of a child involving an animal, while level one is child images depicting erotic posing with no sexual activity.

We only ever issue a notice for the removal of the page if the content is hosted in the UK; if it's in another country we report it to that country's Inhope [an international umbrella organisation] hotline, or reach out to their law enforcement. If it's in the UK, then we contact the host provider and issue them a notice for the removal of that page. It's usually legitimate providers who've had their services abused; they just don't have the correct security. Since the establishment of the IWF, the figures have really changed: originally, 18 per cent of sites that contained child sexual abuse content were in the UK; we're now down to less than 1 per cent.

We also put a list out of sites outside of the UK which contain illegal content. This is an entirely voluntary list for internet service providers to download [so they can block sites]; 98 per cent of broadband customers in the UK are covered by this. People get concerned about the list; we do have detractors who think we're some sort of secretive organisation but that's not the case – we're reasonable and pragmatic about what is or isn't illegal.

I've been here seven years, and before I worked for the Ministry of Defence, the American Air Force and as an internet engineer. I answered a job advert – I wanted to do something to make a difference, to help society. It is a tough job. We have a full counselling service provided quarterly. There's always going to be content that shocks you, but it's not always what you would expect. You're expecting to see child sexual abuse – but you're not expecting a beheading, so that shocks you more."

Louisa Bolch - Advertising Standards Authority

"The ASA judges adverts which are complained about against the industry's codes and works out whether the advert needs to be withdrawn or whether it's OK. We uphold complaints on about 2,500 adverts a year and there are millions, so it's important to get a bit of perspective – that's a tiny, tiny proportion.

I've been on the council – there are 13 of us – for just over three years, but the ASA has been judging adverts for almost 50. There's a locked-down website where we will all look at adverts and comment on them in a forum. But there are some things that can't be resolved online, so we meet once a month for a day-long meeting and look at cases in really forensic detail.

We administer the codes written by the Committee of Advertising Practice. We've just been through a review – anyone can comment, but they also go to representative groups and ask for their input. And it's our Bible! You have to be able to hold [your decision] to account against the code – that's how the industry and the public can have some sense that the system works. It's definitely not good enough to go, 'I don't like it'; that really doesn't fly.

If an advert says 'This product can do x' and this product can't do x, that's really straightforward. More interesting is the stuff around taste and decency, and harm and offence. We ask, is this something the majority are going to find offensive? Or is this something which is going to offend a much smaller number of people, but offend them so much that actually when you weigh in the balance the advertisers' right to freedom of expression versus the amount of offence it's caused, you say it's too great. That's a really grey area – we will discuss them for quite a long time. We don't withdraw adverts lightly; it's a serious business. The meetings can be really good fun, but there's a lot at stake. If it's not clear cut, at the end of the day we have a voting mechanism.

My background is in television journalism. I always liked the governance aspects of working for a channel; I like fixing things and I like puzzles, I'm analytic. And I like knowing lots about lots of different things. It's kind of a perfect job for that. My dinner party conversation is now really rocking!

You never know what you're going to get – there was an advert which had farting in it a couple of years back, and a sizeable chunk of the British public don't really like bodily functions in adverts. You have to take it seriously, and we do, but you can spend 45 minutes discussing, in this context, whether farting is socially irresponsible or not...

The most complained about advert was a KFC one, where KFC employees were singing while eating with their mouths open. Some people found it offensive, but being proportional, in the grand scheme of things – well, we didn't uphold."

Alison Marsden - Ofcom

"Ofcom is the independent communications regulator; the area I work in is enforcing our rules on broadcast television and radio. Ofcom has a number of very specific legal duties which are set out in the Communications Act and we have transposed that into our code.

People feel very, very strongly about a number of issues. Complaints usually result from offensive language or the broadcast of a certain kind of material at a certain time of day – protection of children is a very key issue – and violence gets quite a lot of complaints, too. We're also doing lots of work around preventing harmful claims being broadcast – for instance, a small religious channel claiming certain products can cure cancer.

Ofcom isn't a censor; we don't have any powers before broadcast. We have to take into account freedom of expression – broadcasters' and audiences' rights to impart and receive material. The counterpoint to that is that, intervening post-transmission, we have some pretty strong legal powers to impose sanctions where necessary, so there is an incentive for broadcasters to comply.

On average we get about 25,000 complaints a year. But that can vary enormously; our most complained about programme – Celebrity Big Brother in 2007 – got 45,000 complaints [of racism towards the contestant Shilpa Shetty].

Every single morning there is a triage meeting where we look at the complaints that have come in overnight and every complaint is carefully assessed. There's five people in that team. It's the first thing we do each day; so you come into the office, watching adult material with your cup of morning coffee... I'm not sure I could really be shocked anymore.

If we judge that a breach is serious, repeated, or even deliberate, then we can start to impose sanctions. The more substantial sanctions are financial penalties which can be quite significant sums of money, or even suspending or revoking their Ofcom licence to broadcast. With the scandal over premium-rate audience voting, we imposed fines of about £13 million in total.

There's no prohibition on broadcasting material that is offensive – that's really important. A lot of complainants don't know that; they think it's their right not to be offended. What we require is that if you're going to broadcast potentially offensive material, it has to be justified by the editorial context: it might be about the scheduling of the programme, the type of programme, the audience expectations of that channel at that time. But it can be very, very difficult and we have to be very, very careful. In most cases it's clear to us that the broadcaster has tried to comply with the rules.

After working in TV production for 10 years, I've been at Ofcom since 2007. It's a unique job, I love it! It's a fascinating insight into what offends people, but also I think we're doing an important job of protecting people."

So that say's it all then, a very small panel of 5 people is enough to impose sanctions on the Adult Channels, if you ask me this is unconstitutional and it's obvious these decisions are made on opinion and nothing else, so this government leaves the power to take life out of all the channels and impose the draconian rules on these channels on a panel of 5 non elected individuals, I'd like to know what exactly makes them qualified to make such decisions, what type of training have they recieved in terms of tolerance and equality, this is a shambolic way for this government to be running any kind of democracy, it seems to me that important decisions such as sanctions or revoking a channels licence can be put in the hands of any Tom, Dick or Harry

(01-11-2011 16:35 )Scottishbloke Wrote:  So that say's it all then, a very small panel of 5 people is enough to impose sanctions on the Adult Channels, if you ask me this is unconstitutional and .........

You might be being a little harsh on Ofcom's Content Board Scottishbloke. From their website here, the board has up to ten members, appointed by the Ofcom Board and is chaired by the Deputy Chairman of the Ofcom Board.

It goes on....... "The majority of Content Board members are part-time and drawn from diverse backgrounds across the UK, including both lay members and members with extensive broadcasting experience. Four are appointed to represent to Ofcom the interests and opinions of people living in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and the English Regions."

The authority for the board's actions is contained within s.12(1) of the Communications Act 2003, and so is not, as you claim, "unconstitutional".