(29-07-2013 21:24 )eccles Wrote:  The fortnightly broadcasting bulletin was due out today, but sod protecting the nation from filth, its hot weather so Ofcom has gone to the beach instead.

(29-07-2013 21:49 )continental19 Wrote:  

(29-07-2013 21:24 )eccles Wrote:  The fortnightly broadcasting bulletin was due out today, but sod protecting the nation from filth, its hot weather so Ofcom has gone to the beach instead.

haha nice one Eccles

Quote:How charities fall foul of the TV ad rules

Some not-for-profits have fallen foul of the rules on broadcast ads, but how were the decisions made? Susannah Birkwood reports.

It took eight years to reach a final decision about an advert by the not-for-profit organisation Animal Defenders International that was banned from TV for being "too political". The advert, My Mate's a Primate, featured a crying child imprisoned with a chimpanzee.

Clearcast, the body that pre-approves all adverts, rejected it soon after its submission in 2005; last year, in response to an appeal from ADI, the European Court of Human Rights upheld the ban, ruling that it did not infringe ADI's right to free expression under the European Convention on Human Rights.

ADI is not the only not-for-profit that has had difficulty with the rules on political advertising. In 2005, the charity coalition Make Poverty History was banned from broadcasting an advert in which celebrities clicked their fingers every three seconds to symbolise a child dying; two years later, two radio adverts for the housing charity Shelter were forbidden, accused of "denigrating" local authorities. Other organisations affected include the RSPCA, Amnesty International and ONE, the anti-poverty NGO founded by the singer Bono.

The rules about which adverts and advertisers can appear on commercial TV and radio are set out in the UK Code of Broadcast Advertising, based on the Communications Act 2003. The act says organisations that are "wholly or mainly of a political nature" are not allowed to advertise – a sensible rule, on the face of it, because, in contrast to the situation in the US, it reduces the likelihood of the political party with the biggest budget getting the most votes. What seems less sensible is that charities are affected, despite the fact that it is against charity law for an organisation that has a political purpose to be a charity.
more (ThirdSector)

Quote:Legal obstacles
Mobile Today

Ed Richards made no secret of the fact that he believed the legal processes that repeatedly hindered Ofcom decisions needed reform. Speaking at the press conference for the opening of the 4G auction, Richards said: ‘There is a real question about the ability of ourselves and other regulators to be able to make timely decisions. I do not think the UK is in the right place: it is too legalistic, too bureaucratic and prone to gaming.

‘Everything we do is subject to the huge shadow of litigation – the threat of multiple courts and multiple years moving from appeal court to appeal court. We are dealing with multinational corporations with huge reserves.’ The problem that Ofcom frequently faces is that the current appeals process can be used tactically by companies looking to delay decisions with which they don’t agree. Every part of an Ofcom ruling can be challenged and there is almost no downside to a business going down this route. Once the legal process begins, the cases often get mired in the courts, which can cause lengthy delays. Although Ofcom would accept that its decisions need to be scrutinised, the current process is clearly open to abuse. The trouble is that the investment required by a major firm in legal fees can be far less than the potential losses that a damaging Ofcom ruling could bring about, only giving more incentive to companies looking to take advantage of the system as it stands.