Ofcom's next target

(10-03-2011 00:07 )Gold Plated Pension Wrote:  Another licensee that is still to feel the wrath of the regulator is Satellite Entertainment Ltd who holds and operates four separate licences: Live XXX Babes (950), Sport XXX Girls (967), Essex Birds (955) and Northern Birds (954).
They have a total of nine 'In Breach' findings against them for non supply of recordings between September and October 2010 and Ofc@m are now considering issuing a statutory sanction.
The broadcaster at this time was they who cannot be mentioned on this forum but ultimately the responsibility for compliance with a licence condition lies with the licensee and not the broadcaster unless Ofc@m has been informed and agreed to alternative arrangements.
In these instances this is not the case and SEL themselves are being pursued.
The Broadcasting Sanctions Committee can take up to 60 working days (3 months) to reach a decision after hearing submissions by the licensee. A ridiculous amount of time.
This licensee has been fined previously for repeated breaches of the Broadcasting Code, £20,000, but never for breach of conditions, a more serious offence.
Bang Media was fined for a similar offence, £6,000, so with nine breaches plus Ofc@m always add an accumulator for non co-operation expect a minimum of circa £65,000 plus a Notice of Direction for the licensee to demonstrate to the regulator that it now has a full compliance procedure in place.
I might be being optimistic in this finding and Ofc@m might just go for revocation if it considers that the broadcaster has seriously, deliberately, repeatedly or recklessly breached a Licence requirement.

Whichever way Ofc@m decide to go ultimately they need to start recognising that these channels will not go away and that nudity, not grafhic explicit nudity, on FTV channels within the adult EPG should be permitted. It is not offensive, does not cause harm, is broadcast when the little darlings are in bed and is watched by people who know what to expect.

I have just finished watching the film Antichrist (18) on Sky where full frontal nudity, penetrative sex, ejaculation and female genital mutilation were shown. Because it was BBFC classified it is not regarded as offensive, harmful or in breach of the Broadcasting Code in anyway shape or form.
For those that do not get Sky i will post some of the more interesting clips on this thread.

Amazing that Antichrist can be shown, yet ofcon have issues with a vagina being shown after the watershed on adult channels. How is a body part dangerous again?

(10-03-2011 14:41 )mrmann Wrote:  

(10-03-2011 00:07 )Gold Plated Pension Wrote:  Another licensee that is still to feel the wrath of the regulator is Satellite Entertainment Ltd who holds and operates four separate licences: Live XXX Babes (950), Sport XXX Girls (967), Essex Birds (955) and Northern Birds (954).
They have a total of nine 'In Breach' findings against them for non supply of recordings between September and October 2010 and Ofc@m are now considering issuing a statutory sanction.
The broadcaster at this time was they who cannot be mentioned on this forum but ultimately the responsibility for compliance with a licence condition lies with the licensee and not the broadcaster unless Ofc@m has been informed and agreed to alternative arrangements.
In these instances this is not the case and SEL themselves are being pursued.
The Broadcasting Sanctions Committee can take up to 60 working days (3 months) to reach a decision after hearing submissions by the licensee. A ridiculous amount of time.
This licensee has been fined previously for repeated breaches of the Broadcasting Code, £20,000, but never for breach of conditions, a more serious offence.
Bang Media was fined for a similar offence, £6,000, so with nine breaches plus Ofc@m always add an accumulator for non co-operation expect a minimum of circa £65,000 plus a Notice of Direction for the licensee to demonstrate to the regulator that it now has a full compliance procedure in place.
I might be being optimistic in this finding and Ofc@m might just go for revocation if it considers that the broadcaster has seriously, deliberately, repeatedly or recklessly breached a Licence requirement.

Whichever way Ofc@m decide to go ultimately they need to start recognising that these channels will not go away and that nudity, not grafhic explicit nudity, on FTV channels within the adult EPG should be permitted. It is not offensive, does not cause harm, is broadcast when the little darlings are in bed and is watched by people who know what to expect.

I have just finished watching the film Antichrist (18) on Sky where full frontal nudity, penetrative sex, ejaculation and female genital mutilation were shown. Because it was BBFC classified it is not regarded as offensive, harmful or in breach of the Broadcasting Code in anyway shape or form.
For those that do not get Sky i will post some of the more interesting clips on this thread.

Amazing that Antichrist can be shown, yet ofcon have issues with a vagina being shown after the watershed on adult channels. How is a body part dangerous again?

It's all about "context" , or so I'm told.
Remember now, no erections with "arty" films.

(10-03-2011 00:07 )Gold Plated Pension Wrote:  Another licensee that is still to feel the wrath of the regulator is Satellite Entertainment Ltd who holds and operates four separate licences: Live XXX Babes (950), Sport XXX Girls (967), Essex Birds (955) and Northern Birds (954).
They have a total of nine 'In Breach' findings against them for non supply of recordings between September and October 2010 and Ofc@m are now considering issuing a statutory sanction.
The broadcaster at this time was they who cannot be mentioned on this forum but ultimately the responsibility for compliance with a licence condition lies with the licensee and not the broadcaster unless Ofc@m has been informed and agreed to alternative arrangements.
In these instances this is not the case and SEL themselves are being pursued. ...

Several operators ran into the same problem. In some form or another they outsourced content provision or leased their bandwidth. Precise details are hard to come by. Whatever the arrangement, most were experience operators who should have known full well that they remained legally responsible for both content and keeping recordings. Ofcom received complaints, asked for recordings and was basically told to fuck off. From memory several broadcasters were affected including SEL and Hoppr.

Here is a typical response, this one from Broadcast Bulletin 174: "Between 28 October to 29 November 2010 Ofcom formally asked SEL on several occasions, and set explicit deadlines, to provide recordings of its output at the times and dates specified. The Licensee failed to provide recordings of the programmes requested regardless of the approaches made by Ofcom.
The Licensee said that it wished Ofcom to respond to a number of questions about the validity of the complaints it had received and for information relating to the complainant, as had been previously requested. The Licensee also stated Ofcom had “no lawful power to record any notice of breach unless and until Ofcom complies with its legal obligations”. The Licensee said it would await confirmation that Ofcom applied “no pre-judgment to broadcast complaints prior to asking the broadcaster to provide tapes”. "

Suppose you are caught (allegedly) speeding. You might dispute the speed or the accuracy of the speed gun. You might even employ Nick Freeman and dispute whether the road meets the legal criteria for that speed limit. All those actions would attract resigned sighs from ploddy and the beak, who would accept that kind of challenge as part and parcel of the legal process.

But suppose you challenged the policemans right to check your speed at all, claiming no history of accidents on that stretch of road, no independent complaint from a member of the public, and also refused to let your car be examined for safe tyres, brakes, etc.

Its one thing to challenge regulations as excessive, badly applied, unclear and unsupported by legislation, its an entirely different thing to dictate to the regulator when they can and cannot even start an investigation.

Several big experienced operators seem to have handed over responsibility for recordings and not insisted that they were being made and stored reliably. Its like handing over the keys to the safe and a load of blank checks. They knew the risks.

These channels deserve to be punished for being dupes, but no more than that.

Good news from ofcom today.
They have targeted Openreach (BT)
see http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-12917639

(31-03-2011 09:17 )TheWatcher Wrote:  Good news from ofcom today.
They have targeted Openreach (BT)
see http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-12917639

Not before time - let's hope it means costs come down

I wonder if Ant and Dec's comic relief sketch when they visited the Babestation studio's for a piece of furniture has perhaps pushed them more into the spotlight as being nothing more than harmless late night fun entertainment as has just illustrates just how unimportant they actually are in the broad thing of things.

One of the big side effects of the way Ofcom rules work and the operators own ideas about having themed channels is that most channels are getting more and more narrowly focussed instead of offering a balanced range of shows.

Today you can set the channel and spend all day watching detective shows. Or quizzes. Or news/religion/gambling/politics. That cant be healthy.

It also means that anything slightly controversial gets taken off other channels. You wont hear a mention of religion/news/politics on Dave/Challenge/Hallmark. Even the BBC and ITV are not immune, any hint of politics is kept in a tightly controlled cage called News/Newsnight. Ever seen "election" time on Eastenders? Or political discussion outside elections - surely someone is affected by student fees, NHS cuts or the closure of the Walford Inuit Lesbian Mime Theatre workshop?

By the same token pretty girls in scanty clothes are almost entirely absent, unless the script specifically says they are required. Rather like ethnic minorities.

In real life pretty babes in revealing/tight clothing are all over the place, let alone at parties and down the pub. If TV shows reflected natural intersests there would be the odd dancing girl opening a scene, weather girls with unbuttoned blowses, topless dancers on Jim Davidson sketches, the occasional wet T shirt contest on ITV, and as for Jimmy Carrs Distraction quiz show...

But no, like oil and water, sexy and non sexy are separating out. In the 70s and 80s Monty Python used to have occasional topless or even nude bits. Benny Hill was shown at prime time (8pm). James Whale used to have a stripper called Cookie on between rants. It matters because almost the only sexy content these days is selling highly commercial content, and thats an unnatural separation.

I would not want full on babeshow content on prime time family TV, but a bit of glamour is normal. Having every female star in non revealing clothing could create a situation where teenagers and young adults have never seen a womans leg or side boob, and they over-react when they eventually do. Most people are not eunachs but broadcasters increasing play safe and treat us as if we are.

Well, as was expected, all of the investigations against Elite TV have been found 'in breach'.
The investigations relate to the following programmes.

Elite Days
Elite TV (Channel 965), 30 November 2011, 12:00 to 13:15
Elite TV (Channel 965), 1 December 2010, 13:00 to 14:00
Elite TV 2 (Channel 914), 8 December 2010, 10.00 to 11:30

Elite Nights
Elite TV (Channel 965), 30 November 2011, 22:30 to 23:35
Elite TV 2 (Channel 914), 6 December 2010, 21:00 to 21:25
Elite TV (Channel 965), 16 December 2010, 21:00 to 21:45
Elite TV (Channel 965), 22 December 2010, 00:50 to 01:20
Elite TV (Channel 965), 4 January 2011, 22:00 to 22:30

Ofc@m state that the broadcasts were in breach of various advertising BCAP codes.

BCAP Code Rule 4.2: “Advertisements must not cause serious or widespread offence against generally accepted moral, social or cultural standards.”

BCAP Code Rule 30.3: “Television only – Advertisements for products coming within the recognised character of pornography are permitted behind mandatory restricted access on adult entertainment channels only.”

BCAP Code Rule 32.3: “Relevant timing restrictions must be applied to advertisements that, through their content, might harm or distress children of particular ages or that are otherwise unsuitable for them.”

Now whilst the above rules were applied to the decisions Ofc@m also quoted and commented on

BCAP Code Rule 30.3.2: “Television only – Advertisements permitted under rules 30.3… must not feature material that comes within the recognised character of pornography before 10.00pm or after 5.30am”.

It is interesting to note that Ofc@m are stating that the material shown was of a character recognised to be pornography.
So Ofc@m are opening up yet another subjective area by stating what the material is that comes within the 'recognised character of pornography'.
I don't believe the ASA (or Trading Standards) have a strict definition of 'pornography'. If anyone made a complaint to them concerning a XXX Hardcore Sex video expecting R18 content but ending up with 18 content then i believe the ASA could take action.
Everyones expectations is that R18 represents pornography therefore anything less would be a breach of the advertising code, ASA quote 'spirit as well as letter of the law'.

The BCAP code's definition is

“R-18 material” is classified as such by the British Board of Film Classification (BBFC): the BBFC’s definition of the R-18 category appears on its website (http://www.bbfc.co.uk). The BBFC is responsible for classifying “video works”, which are defined by, and subject to restriction under, the Video Recordings Act 1984.

So Ofc@m are stating that Elite showed R18 equivalent material on the 22nd December 2010 and 4th January 2011. What would the BBFC say and will Elite appeal this decision. The BBFC charge around £1000 to classify a film. A lot cheaper than an Ofc@m fine and by not appealing are you admitting guilt, which WILL be used against you at a future decision.

Read the full report and make your own judgement on Ofc@m's actions.

http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binarie...obb179.pdf

Just read the report, fucking bullshit and I think it's fair to work out which presenter they are referring to without naming names, expect dull shows from now on, we live in a fucking free country don't we, this is nothing short of fascism and tyranny coming from those arsehole's at Ofcom. Elite should tell them to go and get fucked and if they have a problem with it, we'll see you in court, but going by the history of recent events they won't instead they'll happily oblige to anything Ofcom have ordered them to do and then most likely Ofcom will pull the plug anyway so Elite is fucked as far as I'm concerned either way, furthermore these channels and I include every channel on this one have done absolutely FUCK ALL to make any kind of stand so if it all ends in tears for Elite they only have themselves to blame. GROW A FUCKING SET OF BALLS FOR ONCE IN YOUR LIFE AND TELL OFCOM TO GO AND AND GET FUCKED. But I forget this is the UK AND WE DON'T GIVE A FUCK ABOUT DEMOCRACY DO WE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I agree.

This is just another excuse for ofcon to make money off of these channels. R18? BULL!!!! Even still, R18 that just shows nudity and some G/G action is NOT going to harm anyone, and who care if it causes offense, as the complainers have the option not to watch if they don't want to. Also, this general accepted standards stuff is nonsense, and was already proven wrong by an earlier survey, where the general majority of survey takers said the content was perfectly suitable.

We need to face the fact that ofcon does not follow the rules, and does not listen to anyone who enjoys these channels.

Since when is a vagina harmful? With all the penises shown uncensored on non adult channels, ofcon never ceases to be hypocritical and petty.