(08-11-2011 20:49 )the fat parky Wrote:  Ofcom had 4,500 complaints about an episode of the X-factor - that's quite impressive.

(22-11-2011 02:55 )eccles Wrote:  Apart from formally announcing the Playboy fine, todays Broadcast Bulletin had almost no content. Sod all ongoing invesigations, very few complaints even made and rejected. However the few findings published were worring even if not babe related.

Sky Sports was done over for a cricket sponsorship comment. They were sponsored by Jaguar Cars and the commentator said "Well, that bit of rain hasn‟t changed the performance at all.". Whats worrying is that Ofcoms own guidance says that double ententres are permitted. Ofcom said "yes but" it could be seen as endorsing the cars.

So yet again the idiots at Riverside House dont understand their own rules.

It would be interesting to see if anyone involved in the case has any legal training.

Mercedes-Benz sponsored travel news on Forth Radio with this message "Forth One Travel with Mercedes-Benz of Edinburgh at Willowbrae Road, your Mercedes-Benz dealership in the City with 100% after-sales customer recommendation in 2011." The sponsorship message had been pre-cleared with the Radio Advertising Clearance Centre. Ofcoms case was that this was based on a survey not a 100% sample of all dealerships or all customers. In other words pedantic fine print for something that had already been checked.

A lorry driver was shown on Motorway Cops. He was caught drinking super strength lager while driving and using his other hand to gesture to an undercover policeman. He claimed the filming and broadcast was an invation of his right to privacy both while being questioned at the roadside (a public place) and being shown to the cells. Ofcom conceded the second point but decided there was an overriding public interest in seeing drink drivers getting caught. Im not sure I entirely agree with the sentiment that some sod is fair game for the TV just because a camera crew decides to shadow a police team, but my opinion in beside the point. Ofcom took over 10 pages to convey what I have compressed into one paragraph.

A woman complained that a documentary about Dr David Southall included 20 year old footage of a woman in a studio audience discussing cot death. Ofcom ruled that as the original broadcast was with her consent then including the footage in any program ever was also ok. Her point was that at the time she was young vulnerable and coming to terms with her babys death, but she had put that behind her in the intervening 20 years, and was suddenly faced with questions from students who had seen her on TV. Its tempting to say "Get over it" and "Come on, TV companies cant ring round everyone who was in a studio audience 20 years ago", but is there an issue about whether people can be allowed to put painful episodes behind them? Would the response be the same if it were a murder victims school mates confronting someone they thought could have stopped it? Or a Hillsborough relative? Will the Dowlers be faced with their TV appearances being trotted out in 10 or 20 years time when they dont expect it? Rather than acknowledge that this raises difficult issues about moving on and practicality, Ofcom took the narrow technical line that implied consent to broadcast was given 20 years ago by a young nieve grieving teenager, so further consent was unnecessary.

(21-03-2012 19:25 )Scottishbloke Wrote:  Anyway here is the fucking bullshit story if anybody can be fucked to read it http://www.melonfarmers.co.uk/ow.htm

(23-03-2012 01:31 )eccles Wrote:  Another new piece of deranged lunacy was "Ofcom does not prohibit nudity in adult sex chat services ... we would caution against the use of naked presenters when broadcasting this content."

Ofcom cautions against something they specifically permit.

(21-03-2012 19:25 )Scottishbloke Wrote:  Check out this latest bullshit, Storm have been found in breach of rule 4.2 of the BCAP Code whatever the fuck it is. 1 fucking complaint, surely there must have to be more than that to launch an investigation into this, in saying that it's fucking Ofcom were talking about here, infact it wouldn't surprise me if the complaint came from one of the Ofcom panel members themselves. Does anybody remember life before Ofcom when we had The ITC previously, they wouldn't give a fuck unless the complaint was in it's thousands but even then they never bothered too much what was broadcasted on an Adult Channel hence the reason it's in the Adult Section. What are people expecting to see on these channels, fucking cartoons or something Anyway here is the fucking bullshit story if anybody can be fucked to read it http://www.melonfarmers.co.uk/ow.htm

(21-03-2012 19:25 )Scottishbloke Wrote:  1 fucking complaint, surely there must have to be more than that to launch an investigation into this

(23-03-2012 12:19 )shylok Wrote:  Remember this. OFCOM are puritanical cunts who fleece the British tax payer rotten.