(28-05-2010 22:58 )eccles Wrote:  

Quote:Bang Babes have contributed 1000's of pounds to the legal fund of the PTVBA, its a shame those lawyers couldn't have confronted this situation sooner. Perhaps Bang should hire lawyers to sue their lawyers?

Actually BangBabe's response to the latest Ofcom investigation was very robust. Ofcom doesn't like it when a broadcaster doesn't admit guilt and bend over to be spanked - they have made it clear in the past that admitting guilt results in a reduced penalty, while honestly believing that the rules allow something is punished more harshly. Clearly a conflict of interest as Ofcom write the rules, sometimes initiate a complaint, select it for investigation, investigate it, adjudicate it, and even hear appeals. It's as if Parliament, Trading Standards, Police, Crown Prosecution Service, Courts and the Appeal Court were all rolled together in one organisation with one Chief Exec hiring, firing, setting pay and bonuses, one set of policies, and all the people working on different stages have the opportunity to work, lunch, train and socialise together. Not good.

BangBabes "said that when balanced with the need to protect viewers from harm and offence in a multi-channel environment, the viewer could exercise his choice simply not to view material which was not to his taste. It said that Sky viewers, for example, could block all adult content should they choose. The broadcaster considered that if it was to be found in breach of the Code in this case, Ofcom would find it difficult to justify its position in light of the broadcasters rights under Article 10 of the Human Rights Act." and "Bang Channels stated that this material was in line with audience expectation for a channel of this nature at this time of night. It said it was satisfied that the nature of the broadcast provided sufficient context for the type of material shown. Adequate controls were in place to protect the public in the form of warnings as to the nature of the content, the channel type and position, and the ability of all set top boxes on sale in the UK to restrict access to any channel. It asserted its right that freedom of expression outweighed the potential for offence as individuals could exercise their right to simply not view the material in the first place."

Might be wrong, but sounds as if BB aren't going to take this lying down.

Common Law / Case Law - doesn't really matter which, both are enforceable. The Obsence Publications Act is an interesting example. Statute says obscence material is illegal, but the definition of what is obscene is up to the Courts. Parliament has not defined this, lower courts (with juries) can make their own decisions, but only if consistent with Appeal Court decisions. Messy but ultimately enforceable.

(25-05-2010 00:37 )Shady Cee Wrote:  However, even if you could do that, the fact is that Bangmedia would ultimately remain in breach of Ofcom's code - irrespective of who blew the whistle.

(28-05-2010 00:03 )eccles Wrote:  To be technical it is Common Law.

(03-06-2010 15:59 )vila Wrote:  

(25-05-2010 00:37 )Shady Cee Wrote:  However, even if you could do that, the fact is that Bangmedia would ultimately remain in breach of Ofcom's code - irrespective of who blew the whistle.

On that basis everything broadcast by every broadcaster across the entire spectrum of UK television is in breach of Ofcom's code. The simple truth is that Ofcom decide that they disapprove of something and then re-interpret their rules to suit their purpose in each case.

A while back BB were found in breach for showing material before 10pm which Ofcom said was unsuitable for broadcast before that time. When BB later showed similar material but at a much later time Ofcom had another go at them for showing material of a nature they had previously been warned about. BB defended themselves by pointing out the time qualification in the previous case and said that as the second occasion was at a much later time there was no case to answer. Ofcom replied that just because they had said it was unsuitable for broadcast before 10pm didn't mean it was suitable after that time. WTF ELSE COULD IT MEAN????? When they said it was unsuitable before 10pm they must have done so in full knowledge that they would have ruled against it whatever time it was broadcast. They were therefore guilty of knowingly enticing BB into committing the second 'offence'. Wtf is that, if not victimisation?