Ofcom - Current Investigations

(12-09-2011 20:37 )Chilly Wrote:  Keep it as it is and Elite TV avoids the wrath of Ofcom. Step it up another level and no doubt Elite TV will be found in breach. Either way, the complaints against the channel will more than likely continue.

Anyone know if the channels are able to use the freedom of information act or something in order to try and find out who's actually making these complaints?

This was part of their response to a similar request.

However it is not possible for us to provide you with personal details of complainants. The information is being withheld as it falls under the exemption section 40 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, which relates to personal information and which provides that such information is exempt for the purposes of the Act.
Section 40 is an absolute exemption under the Act and does not require a public interest test.

Ofc@m can hide under various legal sections of regulations in relation to not providing information. I will post some information from the Information Commissioner concerning various infringements by Ofc@m.

A recent FOI to Ofc@m by a busybody concerning the adult section on Freeview. One has to ask the question what are her motives.

http://www.ofcom.org.uk/files/2011/08/1-182022240.pdf

Disgraceful. The woman asked "I would like to know any information about the decision-making process and any consultations that took place with regard to the implementation of an Adult Section on Freeview?"

While I probably dont agree with her stance, the correct response should have been to describe the 3 consultations that Ofcom undertook, and its decision to permit adult channels on Freeview provided they were bookended with warning channels. Instead they hide behind a misunderstanding, choosing to take the question as one about commercial frequency allocation within Freeview, a question they can then say is out of scope. I donteven know what Ofcom think they gain by this.

(13-09-2011 00:29 )Roquentin Wrote:  I'm not sure it matters what name you give the category of channels, Ofcom hold that they are there to regulate the BCAP rules that apply to PRS adult chat and daytime chat services.

Trouble is Ofcom wrote the rules for BCAP.

(13-09-2011 00:29 )Roquentin Wrote:  I'm pretty sure Ofcom consider the babechannels as a category all on their own. The full title of the guidance is "Ofcom guidance on the advertising of telecommunications-based sexual entertainment services and PRS daytime chat services." PRS = premium rate telephone services

I'm not sure it matters what name you give the category of channels, Ofcom hold that they are there to regulate the BCAP rules that apply to PRS adult chat and daytime chat services.

So that confirms it then - the babeshows do have their own category. So can we safely assume that all this talk of Ofcom being able to keep reigns on them because they fall under the shopping/advertising regulations is untrue?

(13-09-2011 12:07 )StanTheMan Wrote:  So that confirms it then - the babeshows do have their own category. So can we safely assume that all this talk of Ofcom being able to keep reigns on them because they fall under the shopping/advertising regulations is untrue?

Hi Stan, I've just read your post, and you're right on the money, the foundations that Ofcom stand on concerning the babe channels are so shaky, how they can look at each other seriously in this matter is unbelievable, they live in there own little world, surely some of these people must read some of these posts, and realise something can't be right? I just hope something will be done concerning Ofcom, whether the government of the day will do anything is anyone's guess.

GPP, well, it seems OFCOM have now openly admitted to breaking the law...

European Court of Justice Wrote:Article 1 of Directive 89/552 provides:

‘For the purpose of this Directive:
…

c) “television advertising” means any form of announcement broadcast whether in return for payment or for similar consideration or broadcast for self-promotional purposes by a public or private undertaking in connection with a trade, business, craft or profession in order to promote the supply of goods or services, including immovable property, rights and obligations, in return for payment;

(emphesis added)

Compare and contrast...

OFCOM FoI response Wrote:If Television X runs free-to-air promotions for its paid for services, in the main these would be assessed under the Ofcom Broadcasting Code. We treat these, on the whole, as ‘editorial’ material and not advertising. As free-to-air material these promotions must observe content standards which are much stricter than those that apply to encrypted material that is specifically purchased by adults.

(emphesis added)

I'm pretty certain the ECJ would classify the 10 minute freeview promotions on all adult TV subscription channels as ADVERTISING not, as OFCOM have quite ILLEGALLY decided, 'editorial'.

Double standards when applying their own rules may be within OFCOM's insipid abilities however, IGNORING EC Directives and selectively applying rulings from the ECJ cannot possibly be lawful. Indeed, OFCOM are specifically ordered in the Comms Act to ENSURE the UK meets its obligations with regard to EC Directives and Community Law!

The 10 minute freeview slots contain explicit, sexually provocative language and scenes of people engaged in sexual activity. They quite clearly promote the sexual services on offer AND invite viewers to call a telephone number or visit a website in order to PURCHASE access to the services. This clearly satisfies the definition of ADVERTISING as set out in EC Directive 89/552 above. OFCOM are thus selectively and deliberately breaking international law by classifying adult TV subscription promotions as anything other than ADVERTISING.

It is far too convenient for the 'adult' TV subscription services to be allowed to promote their services by broadcasting unencrypted and non-PIN protected sexual content that would otherwise result in heavy fines or licence revocation on ANY other TV channel. These are OFCOM's own rules - no sexual content made for the purpose of sexual arousal may be broadcast without mandatory PIN and encryption. According to OFCOM this type of material is offensive and/or harmful and will "never be justified by the context" - and 'never' means not even in an editorial context!

Such is OFCOM's duplicity in this matter that one can only conclude they are guilty of gross negligence tantamount to fraud.

To remain the right side of the law OFCOM MUST now reclassify adult subscription promotions as advertising and, if they allow the same explict sexual content to be broadcast in these promotions then, OFCOM WILL also have to change their entirely unjustified stance on the supposed harm and/or offence of sexually arousing material in ANY context.

What constitutes ADVERTISING is laid out in black and white in Directive 89/552 and OFCOM have not the legal right or power to alter that definition - they MUST simply abide by it!

OFCOM are quite openly and blatantly breaking the law according to the UK's international agreements and obligations.

I only wish it was in my power right now to give OFCOM "60 seconds to comply"!

TVX freeviews are clearly advertising, so classing them as editorial is a nonsense. But pointing out this inconsistency doesnt help. At best the freeviews would be taken off air or watered down.

What is a bigger concern is the way Ofcom commission research that fails to assess to acceptability of babeshows, twist the few results they do get, operate without any independence (in breach of the Human Rights Act and 800 years of British legal tradition), have regulators who would not be appointed as magistrates or on council licencing committees, have unclear rules, treat decisions as legally binding guidance and misapply their own rules where they do have some.

To give an example, BCAP rules refer to "offence or harm", but Ofcom decisions referring to that rule talk about "potential to cause offence or harm". My car has the potential to break the speed limit, but strangely I dont get a speeding ticket every time I drive past a camera.

eccles, I understand what you're saying however, the point is OFCOM are clearly in violation of Article 1 of Directive 89/552. They relied upon the terms of this Directive and the ECJ's ruling regarding 'Participation TV' inorder to reclassify the sex chat channels as advertising. They cannot now ignore the terms of that same Directive simply because it doesn't sit with their unjustified, unnecessary and unlawful rights-abusing stance on legally available material being 'offensive and harmful' in their narrowminded and bigoted opinion or, indeed, in the narrowminded and bigoted opinions of a handful of viewers.

OFCOM are in clear and deliberate violation of this Directive. They are choosing which bits of legislation they will abide by as and when it suits them. They are acting unlawfully. The Comms Act orders OFCOM to ENSURE the UK meets its international obligations - one of which is FOLLOWING EC Directives - and especially those concerned with TV regulation like Directive 89/552!

You know as well as I WHY OFCOM have chosen to incorrectly and unlawfully define adult subscription promotions as non-advertising 'editorials'. These 10 minute freeview slots have been part of adult subscription TV for more than 20 years! They are and always have conformed to and, indeed, defined the generally accepted standards with regard to what sexual material can be shown on FTA TV. They were absolutely fine according to generally accepted standards of taste and decency under the ITC Code and they are obviously fine according to the current definition of 'offensive and harmful material' in OFCOM's Code.

None of the material on any FTA adult TV channels offended against the generally accepted standards of taste and decency in 2003 and it is extremely unlikely and somewhat unbelievable that these standards changed in 2004 or 2011 simply as a result of OFCOM taking over regulation of TV. Indeed, the subjective 'taste and decency' requirements of the 1990 Broadcasting Act were replaced by the far more robust and objective measures of harm and offence in the Comms Act, which can be assessed in terms of proportionality with regard to the degree of harm caused and the necessary level of restriction required to balance and preserve the right to freedom of expression - something OFCOM seem to have completely and illegally overlooked!

In a progressive liberal democracy we would expect a relaxation of unnecessary censorship as our understanding of what is truly harmful and what actually constitutes offensive material increases over time. It is clear however that OFCOM do not understand words like proportionality, necessity, liberalism, plurality or freedom of expression. Nor do OFCOM appear to understand that sexual stimulation is a basic human NEED which is KNOWN to directly influence our physical, mental and emotional wellbeing. By placing unnecessary and dispropotionate restrictions upon the LEGAL RIGHTS of adults, OFCOM can be proven to be CAUSING harm!

What is and always has been permitted to be shown in the FTA 10 minute promotional freeview slots should definitely be permitted in any other type of advertising in the adult section of the EPG after midnight. Only OFCOM's dereliction of duty to apply the legal definition of advertising in Directive 89/552 has allowed them to instigate the discriminatory and illogical decrepancies currently in place.

OFCOM are clearly in the wrong as they are quite obviously breaking the law with respect to the internationally agreed LEGAL definition of what constitutes advertising. OFCOM's credibility and fitness to regulate within the bounds of the law is now shot. They are acting unlawfully and thus cannot be trusted. I have always accused OFCOM of being fruadsters, fascists, liars and cheats, and NOW WE HAVE PROOF IN BLACK AND WHITE!

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/ofcom-watershed...04177.html

Ofcom watershed warning to X Factor

..Talent shows such as the X Factor have been warned about showing "sexualised clothing and dance routines" by communications watchdog Ofcom.

A new report cites the show's 2010 final which featured Christina Aguilera and her backing dancers in a racy routine Ofcom described as "at the very margin of acceptability" after thousands of viewers complained.

US singer Aguilera donned a short black dress while her female dancers, who were bent over chairs, wore suspenders, bra tops, fishnet stockings and basques in the raunchy routine which was estimated to have been watched by more than one million children.

The watchdog has held a series of meetings with broadcasters and issued new guidance on "protecting" under-18s and "observing" the 9pm watershed.

It asked broadcasters to pay particular attention to programmes shown before and soon after the watershed and music videos shown before 9pm.

The report states "particular caution" is needed for family shows that continue through the watershed "as the family audience is still likely to remain viewing the programme".

It goes on: "In the entertainment and talent genres, particular areas of concern include the sexualised clothing and dance routines of performers and/or guest artistes".

Speaking earlier this month, X Factor supremo Simon Cowell said the show will be toned "down a bit" after "the reaction" to last year's final.

The report also warns broadcasters "to ensure that children are protected by appropriate scheduling" of music videos.

It highlights the "Urban and R&B genres in particular" which it says are "well known for including mild sexual content and innuendo"....

Christina Aguilera and her backing dancers

TODAYS BROADCAST BULLETIN

Not sure what is going on. Perhaps a serial complainant. Todays Broadcast Bulletin makes it look as if Ofcom are backing off babe channels, but dont be fooled. They have rejected complaints before only to bounce back and hammer a channel. Theres also no telling how lame the content complained about was. Dont relax until the rules are officially changed.

Complaints Assessed, not Investigated Between 4 and 17 October 2011
Adult Channels - Various - n/a - Scheduling/Sexual Material - 1 complaint
Babestation Blue - Get Lucky TV - Offence - 3 complaints
Babestation Extra -Lucky Star - Offence - 3 complaints
Babestation Live - Babestation - Offence - 7 complaints
Bluebird - various - Offence - 15 complaints
Redlight - various - 7 complaints
xxxxBabes - various - 4 complaints

To put this into context:
BBC News - 7 complaints
Big Brother - 16 complaints
Eastenders - 8 complaints
Loose Women - shit
Conservative Party - 1 complaint
Star Trek - Standards/Language - 3 complaints
Strictly Come Dancing - BBC 1 - 5 complaints
X Factor - ITV - 31 complaints

Much of the bulletin is taken up with an investigation of Fives SCXtra (Supercasino Extra). Seems the teleshopping segment didnt have enough adverts. Good to know Ofcom are busy with important stuff.

(08-11-2011 01:38 )eccles Wrote:  Loose Women - shit