Ofcom - Financial Penalty For SEL

(17-01-2012 22:57 )KRISB Wrote:  It is the licence holders, S.E.L, who are having the problems having been fined by OFCOM, The offences I think occurred when Sport resumed broadcasting on those channels. This link may give an indication of the ongoing "technical problems".

http://wck2.companieshouse.gov.uk/cbf4a6...ompdetails

Found a bit more about SELs finances at http://companycheck.co.uk/company/04890743
According to that its liabilities and assets were both exactly £0 from 2007 to the latest accounts in 2010. A shell holding company then.

The current director is listed as a director or secretary of 34 companies, including Express Mags, Participation TV Broadcasters Association Ltd. He is also listed as a director of Sport Television Limited, which has stated net worth of -£794,629 in 2010, Total Current Liabilities in 2010: £1,447,439, Total Current Assets in 2010: £651,840. Sport Television is listed as being in liquidation.

The Participation TV Broadcasters Association Ltd has 4 directors listed. It was registered 1/5/2008, is now dissolved, date unknown. Other directors are linked through directorships to Bang and Babeworld, suggesting that the Paricipation TV Broadcasters Association (PTVBA) consisted for Sport, Bang and Babeworld.

The association contributed to Ofcoms "Participation 2" consultation published April 2008 (http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/consult...&pageNum=3) (hmm, those dates dont add up) and represented LivexxxBabes (Ofcom Broadcast Bulletin 118 29/9/2008) where they claimed the complaint was not made by a member of the public. They also responded to the 2010 "Participation 3" consultation, so stayed around some time. Membership may have varied.

In the 2009 Broadcast Code Review, conclusion published Dec 2009 "A number of respondents, including Channel 4, Box Television, Viacom, PTVBA, STV, Viasat, VLV, the Christian Broadcasting Council and the Children’s Commissioner for Wales welcomed or did not object to the proposed Rule 1.17." which stated "Material equivalent to the British Board of Film Classification (“BBFC”) R18-rating must not be broadcast at any time." (para 3.19). Thanks a bunch for that. http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binarie...tement.pdf

This information does not of course present a full picture of company finances, and as the source is unspecified it should be taken with a pinch of salt.

In their latest bulletin Ofcom announce that have upheld a further four instances of rule breaching by BB/SEL. These date back to last August and September.

All four incidents seem to have been reported by a single complainant! The incidents took place over a one-week period. Presumably the complainant had to keep going back for more, just to top up his offence level.

In reality, this stinks of dirty tricks by a rival company - I wonder who?

Ofcom hint that they'll be dishing out more fines to SEL in addition to the recent £130,000, but from what we now know about SEL, Ofcom will have absolutely no chance of getting it.

It must be inevitable that BB will disappear shortly, especially if the 'further regulatory action' referred to below is the revocation of SEL's licences. In any event, I can't understand how a non-trading company which is being struck off at Companies House can still be a licensee anyway.

Quote from Ofcom:

Ofcom has recently imposed a sanction on the Licensee for a number of serious and repeated breaches of the BCAP Code
which led to the imposition of a financial penalty totalling £130,000.

These present contraventions of the BCAP Code by SEL are another example of very poor compliance by the Licensee. In the circumstances, Ofcom is considering what further regulatory action is appropriate.

^^^^ Just following a similar path to Bang Media, and we know how that ended up. Basically, Ofcom will always win.

(23-01-2012 19:30 )Chilly Wrote:  ^^^^ Just following a similar path to Bang Media, and we know how that ended up. Basically, Ofcom will always win.

When i read something like this, i feel ashamed to be British, what a sad state of affairs, this really is. So much for being a Democratic nation

(23-01-2012 13:09 )Digital Dave Wrote:  All four incidents seem to have been reported by a single complainant! The incidents took place over a one-week period. Presumably the complainant had to keep going back for more, just to top up his offence level.

If you look at the dates and times closely it's apparent that 3 of the 4 incidents were on the same night and close close in time - so that must have been quite a non-compliant night!

If there is a theme this time it seems to be Bash Five.

In the same bulletin Ofcom investigate/find:

ITV in breach for googling the internet, getting video game footage and thinking it was extended real footage of a real incident where the IRA shot down a helicopter. They also used genuine riot footage, but it was not from the riot described. Lazy wankers, misleading, but Im not sure what harm was done.

Channel 5 broadcast a phone in prize draw after it had closed. Due to a legal problem the prerecorded show had been delayed. Five decided to enter postal entries in two competition. Ofcom reckoned this generosity diluted the chance of winning by 3.37% and found Five in breach. They noted promises to tighten up last September and have put Five on notice.

Five also tried a new way of "flashing" sponsor credits for the Nokia Lumia. This did not comply with technical requirements and they were found in breach again.

ARY News/Entertainment failed to supply acceptable recordings. By a strange coincidence their recording equipment broke down around the time complained of. Ofcom note the lack of further explanation. One complaint was about religious hated. Fortunately Ofcom obtained a copy from a simulcast and cleared them of the religious hated aspect.

In a daring move, the Xtra Factor was found in breach for plugging Olly Murs single. Ofcom seem unaware that X Factor and its spin offs controls a giant army of brain dead zombies who like nothing more than wasting their benefits money ringing premium rate lines in return for a chance to vote for Susan Boyle, and who could rise and raze Riverside House to the ground if Simon Cowell clicked his fingers. Or even Louis Walsh. Lets hope it doesnt come to that.

One thing that is particularlly galling is the way the twats at Ofcom feel it necessary to constantly justify themselves. "Under the Communications Act 2003, Ofcom has a statutory duty to set standards for broadcast content...". I doubt that judges open cases by explaining that they have a statutory duty to hear criminal cases, however distasteful they might find the work.

Another X Factor type show was found in breach for advertising Tooloosas new perfume, but two others were let off.

In the final shot at X Factor, messing up the order of phone in options was investigated, and the explanation accepted. (It was a fuck up, the competition cancelled and money refunded.) Resolved but warned.

In a complete waste of resources, Eamonn Holmes was investigated for calling someone a "Retard". Viewers phoned in to complain that they had been offended. Particulary a parent of an autistic child.

This was a waste of space because the word was not not directed at people with various forms of disability, but another presenter. Some people with disabilities find it offensive if they are called "retarded". But how does it offend them if the word is applied to someone who clearly does not share their conditions? If a white presenter is told they will be someones "slave" will black people ring in to complain that this perpetuates racial sterotypes? No. The word was used so far out of context as to be inoffensive. One complaint was from the parent of an autistic child, yet autism is not even the same as learning disability, though there is an overlap. Eamonn Holmes apologied shortly after. Despite this the case was investigated in depth and "Resolved" rather than being found "Not in breach".

Ofcom save the best to last. Pricky Gervais made a big thing about the word "mong" in his Science standup show. He said people watched XFactor, looked at Susan Boyle and thought "What a mong". Thats a prettty offensive comment about a named individual, however he dresses it up. You can almost hear Ofcoms spine creaking as they bend over backwards to justify not finding against him. No favouritism or anything. The word "mong" can also mean "mongrel" (how is that better?). It has progressed from targetted hurtful insult to general matey insult.

"Ofcom took into account that there is a long history on British television of broadcast comedy tackling difficult issues and deliberately pushing at boundaries of contemporary taste, particularly when broadcast well after the watershed.". No, only in the past few years.

"We therefore concluded that this material clearly had the potential to cause offence,"

Apparently calling people "mong" is OK because he also calls them "cu*ts".

"the degree of offensiveness was reduced to some extent by many in the audience knowing Ricky Gervais‟ reputation for acerbic, controversial and challenging humour"

So its OK because people know what to expect.

"the material would not have exceeded viewers‟ expectations"

"Channel 4 ... unique statutory remit ... diverse programming ... provocative and controversial"

So can we expect to see a season of full on explcit sex shows?

"the programme began at 22:35, more than an hour and a half after the watershed, and that therefore most viewers of the programme would have been expecting stronger and more challenging content"

Remember, this is the exact same document where shows are warned of further regulatory action (fines or closedown) for non explicit skimpy underwear at 3am.

Not in breach.

http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binarie...obb198.pdf

^^^ Eccles, are you a lawyer? If not then you bloody well should be! You have an excellent nose for sniffing out inconsistencies in argument.

Ofcom's ability to shoot themselves in the foot with every pathetic monthly bulletin is truly astounding.

you want to put OFCOM aside? Ask the European Court... Ask Nigel Farage to sue this to the European court... Whzn i w
the EU has so many down side, but having someone on top of all that can take actions in your country if the ppl complain i think is enough to step in...

I hope to not start a topic of Euro-sceptics...

Were no longer a democratic nation. The Tories took that away when they got into power last time. Were now 'ran' by a bunch of embezzling cunts who make all these 'complaint's' up to pander to the great unwashed.

The Lib Dems have prostituted themselves (and are now equally culpable as the Tories) and all for a small sniff of political power too. Wanker's. I hope they all rot in hell. It's a fucking disgrace.

(23-01-2012 21:04 )continental19 Wrote:  

(23-01-2012 19:30 )Chilly Wrote:  ^^^^ Just following a similar path to Bang Media, and we know how that ended up. Basically, Ofcom will always win.

When i read something like this, i feel ashamed to be British, what a sad state of affairs, this really is. So much for being a Democratic nation

(24-01-2012 18:33 )shylok Wrote:  The Lib Dems have prostituted themselves (and are now equally culpable as the Tories) and all for a small sniff of political power too. Wanker's. I hope they all rot in hell. It's a fucking disgrace.

There speaks an unhappy voter, one of many.

Id put money on most Lib Dems being unhappy with whats happening and are itching for a way of showing their true colors. Some are very into womens rights and the whole "anti exploitation" thing, but there are still many who are against State control of media. And dont forget the Tories who desperately want to be seen as the good guys. Its a whole new year, Christmas is well in the past, believe me the campaign goes political this week, though you wont see much in print for a while. This isnt Ireland, Russia or Poland, but some of the controls are similar.