Is it time for a mass attack on OFCOM?

(26-04-2011 13:24 )sweetsugar007 Wrote:  The whole basis of introducing pin protection is not necessarily to create a financial transaction at the point the pin is required but to make a statement that this is:-

1.) Adult Entertainment. It is, there no way around it if we want more then this is the only route.

Nonsense. For as long as I can recall the 9pm watershed has marked the point where programming changes from being family friendly to adults only.

Quote:2.) It makes an almost unequivocal argument against reclassification I think if I was making the legal argument for this I would be quite confident.

Reclassification of what? PIN changes nothing - it merely inserts a barrier between viewer and content, reducing accidental exposure to material some folks may believe is 'offensive' and, acting as a blockade against those who wish to tape said programme in their absense.

Quote:3.) Yes it creates an argument for stronger material but there are rules governing that also. It just means everyone has more room to move on content and language.

So, why do I hear far more offensive language and see far more violence, sex and nudity on FTA, un-PIN protected, mainstream channels that millions of people view daily if, as you say, PIN creates an argument for 'stronger' content?

James May can say "cock" on BBC 2 after 8pm (and never raises one complaint from viewers) yet, none of the babe channels dare mention any body part ever in case OFCOM descend upon them like a ton of bankrupt bankers. Double standards is it? Biased amateur 'judges' maybe? Prejudiced shitheads running the show perhaps?

Quote:Finally if the cost is something like £25-£50k per year this would be a marginal cost one would imagine. Given most of the channels pay this out at least once a year in fines at least this would be seen as a constructive way of spending the money.

Ofcom have a big issue with this form of entertainment and view it as a low hanging fruit to demonstrate their effectiveness. I have had sources close to them confirm this.So mass uprisings,petitions or the channels doing things the way they have always been done will not change their attitude towards the babechannels. It is a mature,complex and competitive market far more so than in the last 10 years. They are seeking to regulate it further because of those reasons, more so than than the actual subscription channels.

Let's get this straight. OFCOM do not get to dictate to the public what we "should" or "shouldn't" find offensive and/or harmful. The LAW states that OFCOM should protect the public from that which IS (proveably and according to the law) offensive and harmful. I know this because the Human Rights Act does not allow for jumped-up priggs to start curtailing our rights as adults to CHOOSE what we want to view. If OFCOM believe the Comms Act allows them to dictate our tastes and presume to know our expectations then its time OFCOM and their crappy Code got the same Judicial Review treatment as the BBFC. OFCOM do not make the law, they do not make the rules - they're supposed to publish GUIDELINES based on real EVIDENCE not their own mindless puritan beliefs.

(27-04-2011 14:07 )IanG Wrote:  

(26-04-2011 13:24 )sweetsugar007 Wrote:  The whole basis of introducing pin protection is not necessarily to create a financial transaction at the point the pin is required but to make a statement that this is:-

1.) Adult Entertainment. It is, there no way around it if we want more then this is the only route.

Nonsense. For as long as I can recall the 9pm watershed has marked the point where programming changes from being family friendly to adults only.

Quote:2.) It makes an almost unequivocal argument against reclassification I think if I was making the legal argument for this I would be quite confident.

Reclassification of what? PIN changes nothing - it merely inserts a barrier between viewer and content, reducing accidental exposure to material some folks may believe is 'offensive' and, acting as a blockade against those who wish to tape said programme in their absense.

Quote:3.) Yes it creates an argument for stronger material but there are rules governing that also. It just means everyone has more room to move on content and language.

So, why do I hear far more offensive language and see far more violence, sex and nudity on FTA, un-PIN protected, mainstream channels that millions of people view daily if, as you say, PIN creates an argument for 'stronger' content?

James May can say "cock" on BBC 2 after 8pm (and never raises one complaint from viewers) yet, none of the babe channels dare mention any body part ever in case OFCOM descend upon them like a ton of bankrupt bankers. Double standards is it? Biased amateur 'judges' maybe? Prejudiced shitheads running the show perhaps?

Quote:Finally if the cost is something like £25-£50k per year this would be a marginal cost one would imagine. Given most of the channels pay this out at least once a year in fines at least this would be seen as a constructive way of spending the money.

Ofcom have a big issue with this form of entertainment and view it as a low hanging fruit to demonstrate their effectiveness. I have had sources close to them confirm this.So mass uprisings,petitions or the channels doing things the way they have always been done will not change their attitude towards the babechannels. It is a mature,complex and competitive market far more so than in the last 10 years. They are seeking to regulate it further because of those reasons, more so than than the actual subscription channels.

Let's get this straight. OFCOM do not get to dictate to the public what we "should" or "shouldn't" find offensive and/or harmful. The LAW states that OFCOM should protect the public from that which IS (proveably and according to the law) offensive and harmful. I know this because the Human Rights Act does not allow for jumped-up priggs to start curtailing our rights as adults to CHOOSE what we want to view. If OFCOM believe the Comms Act allows them to dictate our tastes and presume to know our expectations then its time OFCOM and their crappy Code got the same Judicial Review treatment as the BBFC. OFCOM do not make the law, they do not make the rules - they're supposed to publish GUIDELINES based on real EVIDENCE not their own mindless puritan beliefs.

In response to some of your more illogical statements let me take the time to respond.

1.) The 9pm watershed allows for adult themed content to broadcast. It has to be however within context of the transmission/story. There is no way ITV for example could broadcast a sex chat line. It would be deemed to be overtly pornographic as opposed to adult themed.The recent Sky 1 program Spartacus has far more aggressive language and sexual scenes but is within context of the story and within guidelines for broadcasting such images.No vagina close ups,erect dicks etc.So this goes almost unchallenged


2.) We were advised recently from Hof from Asian Babes that all these channels were within hours of being taken off the air as Ofcom wanted to reclassify the channels as shopping channels. If they did this then it would not take long for them to be in breach. If this did happen I am sure this is not the end of that line of attack.

3.) I refer you to point 1 earlier

Ofcom may not dictate to anyone but they are there to enforce the law the comms act and the broadcasting act. they can enforce this as tightly as they are given reason to.It is not an issue of human rights as this sovereign law will take precedence.It is not their puritanical beliefs it is the out of date acts of parliament which is the problem. Quite frankly no government is gonna change it as its political suicide so we have to make do with the tools we have hence the pin protection argument.

(27-04-2011 17:46 )sweetsugar007 Wrote:  Ofcom may not dictate to anyone but they are there to enforce the law the comms act and the broadcasting act. they can enforce this as tightly as they are given reason to.It is not an issue of human rights as this sovereign law will take precedence.It is not their puritanical beliefs it is the out of date acts of parliament which is the problem. Quite frankly no government is gonna change it as its political suicide so we have to make do with the tools we have hence the pin protection argument.

All UK legislation is to be read and interpreted according to the Articles of the HRA 1998 and the Case Law of the ECHR - and that's the Sovereign law of the land!

Human Rights are inherant, immutable and absolute.

If the courts will not allow a handful of suspected terrorists to have their fundamental rights impeded under UK anti-terror legislation, why the hell do you believe a pisspot outfit like OFCOM can use the Comms Act to effectively crush the rights of everyone in the UK?

If you're so certain OFCOM are in the right and that they're obeying sovereign law then please show us which law says R18-type pornography is to be banned from TV. Shows us where the law states PIN controls must be used to access softcore tripe. Shows us where the law says people engaged in adult entertainment cannot utter sexually provocative terms or mention sexual organs.

Indeed, show us which law states adult entertainment can be treated any differently to any other form of free expression and/or that context alone can be used to determine what can and can't be said or done by a performer or presenter.

OFCOM's Code is NOT THE LAW. It has never been debated in, or even been seen by Parliament, it has never been voted on in the Commons or the Lords, it has never been passed by a majority of our elected representatives and it will never be granted Royal Assent and, it sure as hell has never been declared compliant with the Articles of the HRA 1998.

You say "[OFCOM] can enforce this as tightly as they are given reason to". Well, what reasons have they got to do what they have done? They stated categorically and unequivocally back in 2005 that they had no evidence or reason to ban or restrict adult access to R18-type pornography on the grounds of mental, physical or moral harm to children. So, according to the terms of the Comms Act, OFCOM have stated they have no grounds or reason to ban or PIN protect porn channels for the protection of under 18s. Of course, they did it anyway but, their 'reasoning' would never pass muster in a court of law.

Indeed, every sanction against an adult channel since has been based upon nothing more than OFCOM's blatant prejudice and illogical paranoia.

All UK legislation is to be read and interpreted according to the Articles of the HRA 1998 and the Case Law of the ECHR - and that's the Sovereign law of the land!

Human Rights are inherant, immutable and absolute.

If the courts will not allow a handful of suspected terrorists to have their fundamental rights impeded under UK anti-terror legislation, why the hell do you believe a pisspot outfit like OFCOM can use the Comms Act to effectively crush the rights of everyone in the UK?

If you're so certain OFCOM are in the right and that they're obeying sovereign law then please show us which law says R18-type pornography is to be banned from TV. Shows us where the law states PIN controls must be used to access softcore tripe. Shows us where the law says people engaged in adult entertainment cannot utter sexually provocative terms or mention sexual organs.

Indeed, show us which law states adult entertainment can be treated any differently to any other form of free expression and/or that context alone can be used to determine what can and can't be said or done by a performer or presenter.

OFCOM's Code is NOT THE LAW. It has never been debated in, or even been seen by Parliament, it has never been voted on in the Commons or the Lords, it has never been passed by a majority of our elected representatives and it will never be granted Royal Assent and, it sure as hell has never been declared compliant with the Articles of the HRA 1998.

You say "[OFCOM] can enforce this as tightly as they are given reason to". Well, what reasons have they got to do what they have done? They stated categorically and unequivocally back in 2005 that they had no evidence or reason to ban or restrict adult access to R18-type pornography on the grounds of mental, physical or moral harm to children. So, according to the terms of the Comms Act, OFCOM have stated they have no grounds or reason to ban or PIN protect porn channels for the protection of under 18s. Of course, they did it anyway but, their 'reasoning' would never pass muster in a court of law.

Indeed, every sanction against an adult channel since has been based upon nothing more than OFCOM's blatant prejudice and illogical paranoia


Ian,

Remember this I am on your side!!! The question is not whether Ofcom are right or not but what is their mandate. I will be brief however:-

1.) All Uk Human rights laws are meant to be compatible with the ECHR nothing more. The Human Rights Act of 1998 is our sovereign law.In fact a judge can rule a case as being not compatible or in conflict with our law which then gives the individual bringing the claim the opportunity to file a claim in Strasbourg. In the drafting of our law we must be cognizant of Article 6 of the treaty of Nice which is what you are referring to. So in principle it is not absolute.

2.) The 1984 Video Recordings Act later updated in 2008 is explicit in its definition that R18 type material is not allowed on even digital TV.I never debated that PIN controls are a legal requirement just a solution to demonstrate that the industry is trying to reach a solution that can allow everyone to move on.

Ofcom's mandate is to ensure that none of the associated laws to include Obscene publications also is not breached on any of the electronic or telecommunications media under its regulatory jurisdiction. It was provided this absolute authority in the 2003 Comms act and the 1996 Broadcasting act.

Is it prejudicial towards the channels I suppose so not sure,is it paranoia again not sure.

sweetsugar007, where did you read this: "The 1984 Video Recordings Act later updated in 2008 is explicit in its definition that R18 type material is not allowed on even digital TV"? Its news to me...! Moreover, even if this is the case, from 1984 to 2008, and at the time of OFCOM's spawning, the VRA only applied to the content of material items for sale in shops such as video tapes and disks.

Before 2000, all adult TV channels broadcast R18 rated material because at the time R18 was highly censored by the BBFC and did not breach the "No real sex" clause of the ITC Broadcasting Code.

Then in 2000, when the High Court ruled R18 SHOULD contain explicit real sex - as there was no evidence from child wellfare experts around the world to support the BBFC's claim that it might cause any harm to children that might be exposed to it in the home - the ITC changed their Code to say "No R18".

As far as I understand it, the ITC made an illegal decision at that point because, in 1990, the ECHR stated that "It is undisputed that a broadcast licensing system cannot be used to restrict any legally available material" (Groppera AG v Switerland,1990)(emphesis added).

This likely illegal situation is what OFCOM inherited and suggested should be maintained as the "status quo". However, we know the type of content on the babe channels of 2003/4/5 has been totally and utterly lost, banned, fined and destroyed by those mindless priggs at OFCOM.

As I said earlier, in 2005, OFCOM stated as a matter of fact that under the terms of the TVWF Directive clauses 22a & b that they had no evidence or reason whatsoever to ban or restrict the broadcast of R18-type material on the grounds of child protection. They went ahead anyway on the claim that they were protecting some other unknown and unidentified 'vulnerable people'. The Comms Act doesn't mention vulnerable people - it says OFCOM should protect the under 18s but, the under 18s need no protecting from R18 content according to a) the High Court, b) the BBFC and, indeed, c) according to OFCOM's own research and statements.

So, as I said, OFCOM are acting irrationally based solely upon their own prejudice and phobias. They're very likely acting illegally, not just according to the ECHR and the HRA 1998 but also under their remit in the Comms Act and according to the High Court ruling of 2000 re R18 material.

Indeed, the High Court stated that "Given the available evidence a reasonable person would conclude that the risk to children from exposure to explicit sexual material is insignificant" (emphesis added). As such the BBFC were deemed to be acting unreasonably and so explicit sex was allowed at R18 (not that the BBFC hadn't permitted real sex at 18 in films like Romance or The Lover's Guide already). Similarly, OFCOM are now acting unreasonably and, according to the Comms Act, way beyond what the law actually permits them to do legally.

Can I just add that explicit sex at R18 would not be on sale if it were deemed legally obscene. The BBFC would not permit real sex at 18 if it were deemed legally obscene. UK juries haven't found vanilla adult porn to be obscene since the mid 1970s - but of course the vice squad, BBFC etc. kept up the pretence. And just to clarify, for something to be legally obscene it must be thought able to "corrupt and deprave" those that come into contact with it...and especially if they are children!

Hopefully we're now clear on the situation. OFCOM are claiming to be protecting children (or some other unknown vulnerable people) from material that was deemed an insignificant risk to children (and we assume other vulnerable people) by the High Court over 10 years ago!

For what its worth

Section 12 makes it an offence to supply R18 videos outside sex shops

Quote:12 Certain video recordings only to be supplied in licensed sex shops.
(1)Where a classification certificate issued in respect of a video work states that no video recording containing that work is to be supplied other than in a licensed sex shop, a person who at any place other than in a sex shop for which a licence is in force under the relevant enactment—.
(a)supplies a video recording containing the work, or.
(b)offers to do so,.
is guilty of an offence unless the supply is, or would if it took place be, an exempted supply.

Section 9 makes it an offence to supply a video recording containing a video work that is no classified or exempt:

Quote:9 Supplying video recording of unclassified work.
(1)A person who supplies or offers to supply a video recording containing a video work in respect of which no classification certificate has been issued is guilty of an offence unless—.
(a)the supply is, or would if it took place be, an exempted supply, or.
(b)the video work is an exempted work..

So does that mean that R18 material is banned on TV (because TV is not a sex shop)?

No because section 1(3) contains this definition

Quote:“Video recording” means any disc magnetic tape or any other device capable of storing data electronically containing information by the use of which the whole or part of a video work may be produced

and a television broadcast is not a device.

The Video Recordings Act 1984, re-enacted as the Video Recordings Act 2010 refers to the sale of physical recordings, not TV.

Thanks for that eccles. I should have thought it was obvious to everyone that 99% of programmes on TV are pre-recorded and yet none have to be vetted by the BBFC before airing.

While I'm here I'd just like to add that the only material the Comms Act actually instructs OFCOM to pay special attention to is..Religious Programming. The Comms Act doesn't mention pornography anywhere. And I think it would be pretty obvious that OFCOM's 'vulnerable people' - which is actually stated in the Comms Act "the vulnerability of children and of others whose circumstances appear to OFCOM to put them in need of special protection;" - are in fact those people susceptible to religious extremism who then go around bombing innocent people based on a corrupted and evil interpretation of religious claptrap.

I'm not aware of any porn-inspired terrorist atrocities. Indeed, the attacks on the WTC, London and elsewhere are to my mind the absolute epitome of true obscenity. In fact, one can argue that extremist religious belief that leads to suicide bombings and mass murder is most certainly a sign of "corruption and depravity" that qualifies such religious brainwashing as legal obscenity.

The Comms Act was penned only a year after the WTC attacks. One has to ask why OFCOM have paid little heed to its explicit instruction to carefully monitor the output of religious channels? Why didn't OFCOM demand PIN protection of such potentailly devastating output? Why didn't they understand that the vulnerable minds of children and the mentally disturbed are susceptible to the claptrap spouted by religious nutters? Why, despite the High Court ruling declaring hardcore porn an insignificant risk to children and OFCOM's own inability to find any real reason to ban or even restrict access to R18-type material, did OFCOM choose to ban it from adult subscription channels, place mandatory PIN access on softcore rubbish and, ban full frontal nudity from FTA babe channels? Who do OFCOM think they're protecting and from what exactly?

OFCOM have quite clearly done all the wrong things for all the wrong reasons. They are bigots and Rights-abusers. They have abused their power to promote their own religiously-inspired agenda and ignored every piece of evidence, consultation and legal ruling that proves their actions to be disproportionate, unnecessary, unwelcome and illegal.

(29-04-2011 05:40 )IanG Wrote:  Thanks for that eccles. I should have thought it was obvious to everyone that 99% of programmes on TV are pre-recorded and yet none have to be vetted by the BBFC before airing.

While I'm here I'd just like to add that the only material the Comms Act actually instructs OFCOM to pay special attention to is..Religious Programming. The Comms Act doesn't mention pornography anywhere. And I think it would be pretty obvious that OFCOM's 'vulnerable people' - which is actually stated in the Comms Act "the vulnerability of children and of others whose circumstances appear to OFCOM to put them in need of special protection;" - are in fact those people susceptible to religious extremism who then go around bombing innocent people based on a corrupted and evil interpretation of religious claptrap.

I'm not aware of any porn-inspired terrorist atrocities. Indeed, the attacks on the WTC, London and elsewhere are to my mind the absolute epitome of true obscenity. In fact, one can argue that extremist religious belief that leads to suicide bombings and mass murder is most certainly a sign of "corruption and depravity" that qualifies such religious brainwashing as legal obscenity.

The Comms Act was penned only a year after the WTC attacks. One has to ask why OFCOM have paid little heed to its explicit instruction to carefully monitor the output of religious channels? Why didn't OFCOM demand PIN protection of such potentailly devastating output? Why didn't they understand that the vulnerable minds of children and the mentally disturbed are susceptible to the claptrap spouted by religious nutters? Why, despite the High Court ruling declaring hardcore porn an insignificant risk to children and OFCOM's own inability to find any real reason to ban or even restrict access to R18-type material, did OFCOM choose to ban it from adult subscription channels, place mandatory PIN access on softcore rubbish and, ban full frontal nudity from FTA babe channels? Who do OFCOM think they're protecting and from what exactly?[i]OFCOM have quite clearly done all the wrong things for all the wrong reasons. They are bigots and Rights-abusers. They have abused their power to promote their own religiously-inspired agenda and ignored every piece of evidence, consultation and legal ruling that proves their actions to be disproportionate, unnecessary, unwelcome and illegal.

Themselves & from the fact that they might enjoy it too?

(27-04-2011 17:46 )sweetsugar007 Wrote:  1.) The 9pm watershed allows for adult themed content to broadcast. It has to be however within context of the transmission/story. There is no way ITV for example could broadcast a sex chat line. It would be deemed to be overtly pornographic as opposed to adult themed.The recent Sky 1 program Spartacus has far more aggressive language and sexual scenes but is within context of the story and within guidelines for broadcasting such images.No vagina close ups,erect dicks etc.So this goes almost unchallenged

I'm not going to argue with the deeper stuff you and Ian are talking about because I'd simply be out of my depth, but how can 'adult themed content' and/or explicit language on a Babeshow situated in the adult section of Sky's EPG not be in context??

Thanks to Ofcom at least I'll be getting more sleep from now on, the channels tonight and for a Friday are all fucking rotten, what's the point anymore in covering old ground, the babe channels don't give a fuck, they won't protest against Ofcom, all they care about is taking your money so as far as I'm concerned fuck the lot of them, close them down tommorow for all I care.