Adult broadcaster fined £90k by Ofcom

(24-06-2011 15:40 )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."

Well Stan (referring to post 26 of this thread by "StanTheMan") from how i interpret the latest £90.000 fine that Ofcom gave SEL it was for repeatedly failing to supply recordings on its channels and also for losing control of it's own services , so my statement was incorrect as i failed to add the "lost control of its own services" bit , so obviously the fine was a accumulation of a few things , but to my knowledge SEL was not fined for showing or doing anything that was to explicit for tv , Ofcom will always say in their bulletins if to explicit in their eyes material was the reason for a fine and give precise details of what was shown , so obviously they could not give any fines or sit in judgement of what was shown on tv because SEL failed to provide them with the recordings resulting in a Ofcom fine . Ofcom have in the past said that channels have been monitored by themselves resulting in "in breach" findings , Ofcom haven't mentioned this concerning SEL fine either . I may well be totally wrong and the "in breach" rulings could also be for something that was shown on tv , but i can't find any details about what was show on tv .

Well, if that's the case, mr mystery, I must confess it would lessen my anger considerably. I must confess I haven't followed the link and read the report in its entirety.

Despite this latest fine, there's still this, of course:

Quote: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.

(25-06-2011 15:54 )StanTheMan Wrote:  Well, if that's the case, mr mystery, I must confess it would lessen my anger considerably. I must confess I haven't followed the link and read the report in its entirety.

Despite this latest fine, there's still this, of course:

Quote: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.

From what i can gather Ofcom also consider past misdemeanors committed by channels when deciding what fines to dish out , so could well have taken into consideration the past history of SEL when dishing out the £90.000 fine .

Some excerpts from the published judgement:

*****

Legal Framework
The Communications Act 2003
10. Ofcom has a duty under section 319 of the Communications Act 2003 (“the Act”) to set standards for the content of programmes in television and radio services as appears to it best calculated to secure the standards objectives. The standards objectives are set out in section 319(2) of the Act. They include that: persons under eighteen are protected (section 319(2)(a)); generally accepted standards are applied to the contents of television and radio services so as to provide adequate protection for members of the public from the inclusion in such services of offensive and harmful material (section 319(2)(f)).

11. In discharging its functions, Ofcom‟s principal duties are to further the interests of citizens in relation to communications matters and the interests of consumers (section 3(1)) and to secure a number of other matters. These include the application in the case of all television and radio services of standards that provide adequate protection to members of the public from the inclusion of offensive and harmful material in such services (section 3(2)(e)).

12. In performing these duties, Ofcom is also required to have regard to the principles under which regulatory activities should be transparent, accountable, proportionate, consistent and targeted only at cases in which action is needed, and any other principles representing best regulatory practice (section 3(3)); and where relevant, a number of other considerations including:

• the need to secure that the application in the case of television and radio services of standards relating to harm and offence is in the manner that best guarantees an appropriate level of freedom of expression (section 3(4)(g)); and

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

The Human Rights Act 1998
14. Under section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998, there is a duty on Ofcom (as a public authority) to ensure that it does not act in a way which is incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights (“the Convention”).

15. Article 10 of the Convention provides for the right to freedom of expression. It encompasses the broadcaster‟s right to “impart information and ideas” and also the audience‟s “right to receive information and ideas without interference by public authority”. Such rights may only be restricted if the restrictions are: “prescribed in law and necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health and morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary” (Article 10(2) of the Convention).
16. Ofcom must exercise its duty in light of these rights and not interfere with the exercise of these rights in broadcast services unless it is satisfied that the restrictions it seeks to apply are required by law and necessary to achieve a legitimate aim.

*****

Now i’m by no means a legal eagle, and nor do i have to be, but it’s clear to see/read that the “duties” of Ofcom in applying their (so called) protective “laws” are laced in so much ambiguity, grey areas that it’s little wonder that, one, Ofcom can do as they please. Two, that nobody can understand where they (the babe channels for example) stand, and three, appeal any decisions.

Look at some of the words/terms used for example (highlighted).

The whole f*cking thing is absolutely outrageous.

However, Ofcom have a duty to “retain” (now this is a laugh, unfortunately) the rights of those who wish to watch, which actually makes the section highlighted in this colour very interesting.

(25-06-2011 17:13 )schmoo Wrote:  Some excerpts from the published judgement:

*****

Legal Framework
The Communications Act 2003
10. Ofcom has a duty under section 319 of the Communications Act 2003 (“the Act”) to set standards for the content of programmes in television and radio services as appears to it best calculated to secure the standards objectives. The standards objectives are set out in section 319(2) of the Act. They include that: persons under eighteen are protected (section 319(2)(a)); generally accepted standards are applied to the contents of television and radio services so as to provide adequate protection for members of the public from the inclusion in such services of offensive and harmful material (section 319(2)(f)).

11. In discharging its functions, Ofcom‟s principal duties are to further the interests of citizens in relation to communications matters and the interests of consumers (section 3(1)) and to secure a number of other matters. These include the application in the case of all television and radio services of standards that provide adequate protection to members of the public from the inclusion of offensive and harmful material in such services (section 3(2)(e)).

12. In performing these duties, Ofcom is also required to have regard to the principles under which regulatory activities should be transparent, accountable, proportionate, consistent and targeted only at cases in which action is needed, and any other principles representing best regulatory practice (section 3(3)); and where relevant, a number of other considerations including:

• the need to secure that the application in the case of television and radio services of standards relating to harm and offence is in the manner that best guarantees an appropriate level of freedom of expression (section 3(4)(g)); and

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

The Human Rights Act 1998
14. Under section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998, there is a duty on Ofcom (as a public authority) to ensure that it does not act in a way which is incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights (“the Convention”).

15. Article 10 of the Convention provides for the right to freedom of expression. It encompasses the broadcaster‟s right to “impart information and ideas” and also the audience‟s “right to receive information and ideas without interference by public authority”. Such rights may only be restricted if the restrictions are: “prescribed in law and necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health and morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary” (Article 10(2) of the Convention).
16. Ofcom must exercise its duty in light of these rights and not interfere with the exercise of these rights in broadcast services unless it is satisfied that the restrictions it seeks to apply are required by law and necessary to achieve a legitimate aim.

*****

Now i’m by no means a legal eagle, and nor do i have to be, but it’s clear to see/read that the “duties” of Ofcom in applying their (so called) protective “laws” are laced in so much ambiguity, grey areas that it’s little wonder that, one, Ofcom can do as they please. Two, that nobody can understand where they (the babe channels for example) stand, and three, appeal any decisions.

Look at some of the words/terms used for example (highlighted).

The whole f*cking thing is absolutely outrageous.

However, Ofcom have a duty to “retain” (now this is a laugh, unfortunately) the rights of those who wish to watch, which actually makes the section highlighted in this colour very interesting.

Excellent post, schmoo. Unfortunately you can do the logical argument about child protection, rights of the viewer, proving of harm & offence etc until you are blue in the face. It will not make one iota of difference.

Ofcon do not want explicit sex on the encrypted channels & do not want full frontal nudity on the FTA channels.

What they want is what they get as the government support them.

That is their remit and they pursue it with a zeal that is almost the reserve of the religious nutcases.

They are, to me, the modern day Mathew Hopkins (Witchfinder General).

(25-06-2011 18:32 )blackjaques Wrote:  ~~~~
~~~~
Ofcon do not want explicit sex on the encrypted channels & do not want full frontal nudity on the FTA channels.

What they want is what they get as the government support them.

That is their remit and they pursue it with a zeal that is almost the reserve of the religious nutcases.

They are, to me, the modern day Mathew Hopkins (Witchfinder General).

http://www.babeshows.co.uk/showthread.ph...#pid842657

(25-06-2011 18:32 )blackjaques Wrote:  Excellent post, schmoo. Unfortunately you can do the logical argument about child protection, rights of the viewer, proving of harm & offence etc until you are blue in the face. It will not make one iota of difference.

Ofcon do not want explicit sex on the encrypted channels & do not want full frontal nudity on the FTA channels.

What they want is what they get as the government support them.

That is their remit and they pursue it with a zeal that is almost the reserve of the religious nutcases.

You're right blackjaques, of this there is no doubt. Part of why i posted what i did was to highlight a different angle should the powers that be at the channels wish to take Ofcom to task. Not that it will happen, i know, but.. courts, legal processes etc only deal in fact(s), not summation and assumptions.

The amount of Ofcom's written remit, or more so, their reasons to do what they do, is so open to interpretation (or as has been proved, misinterpretation) that a court could not possibly stand by it.

Then of course, there's the "human right(s)" side of things, which should be on our (the viewers') side.

But anyway..

I too have completed the survey, emailed Ofcom (twice), written once and telephoned once.

I don't know about the survey but I received no response to the emails, no response to the letter and was treated as if I was some sort of pervert on the telephone.

This is the problem, those of us who wish to enjoy the mild or not so mild form of entertainment offered by the 900 channels are considered to be some sort of dark minority - you have to have some reasonable amount of courage to publicly admit that you watch and if publicised locally it could have consequences, which is why most people wont or cant do much.

I spoke to my local MP who couldn't get me out of his office fast enough!

At the same time, a local theatre recently staged a new play in which there was full frontal nudity, both sexes, and received both local authority funding and much congratulation in the local rag! And this started at 7.30pm.! I don't know about any age restrictions but there was not a ticket to be had 2 months before the opening night and it seems that this is ok but 900 channels are depraved.

I can't understand the logic!

My local Greek restaurant has a burlesque evening but thats nothing, the council run taxpayer subsidised theatre will be hosting Puppetry of the Penis later this season. Do not click if easily offended.

Puppetry of the Penis: The Ancient Art of Genital Origami:
Hamburger

(25-06-2011 23:20 )eccles Wrote:  My local Greek restaurant has a burlesque evening but thats nothing, the council run taxpayer subsidised theatre will be hosting Puppetry of the Penis later this season. Do not click if easily offended.

I rest my case!!!