Serious Ofcom warning for Bang Media

I think IanG mentioned in another post or thread that Ofcom just requested over 24 hours of compliance material from Bang Media, so they could review it. Even though this is called fishing for evidence of an offence, and is illegal under our judicial system.

Seems it's OK for them to break the law to enforce one.

Load of my arse imo. If ppl dont wanna see things like that then dont put da channel on. Just like if u dont wanna watch them stupid auction shows then u dont put them on do ya. Simple as

(11-03-2010 16:00 )StanTheMan Wrote:  I would just like to add at this moment how suspicious it seems that Bang Media are being targeted and seemingly singled out on so many occasions.

I'm left wondering why it is Bang Media haven't challenged Ofcom's blatantly false claim that the Bangbabes website had R18-equivalent material available for under 18s to access witout proper age verification and creditcard membership (as I'm sure all visitors to that site are all absolutely familiar).

If Ofcom falsely accused me of negligently exposing children to hardcore porn I'd sue their arse off faster than you can say superinjunction. But perhaps Bang Media 'enjoy' the clearly false advertising and the reputation as dangeruous perverters of children?

Something isn't right here, indeed, it stinks of hypocrisy and cover-up.

I wonder if Ofcom have done a deal with these channels - "Don't challenge what we say and we'll let you off with a fine and allow you stay in business". Absolute power and all that...eh? We need that independant body to oversee Ofcom's adjudications. We need a Content Board with some real expertise in public attitudes and rating sexual (and other) material. We need experts, not nepatistic, self-serving pissants, on Ofcom's boards.

The people of this country deserve better, far better, and by christ we're going to get it!

Well this is going to sound daft, but does anyone know what percentage of complaints Ofcom receive are actually from a rival company?

And how can Ofcom take such complaints seriously, as it's not like they can say they saw something that offended them, they produce the same stuff themselves.

If all these companies would stop back-stabbin each other for the sake of a quick buck, they would realise that there missing out on the opportunity to open up a whole new lucrative and potentially profitable area of the business.

So IanG may be right. Has there been some negotiated settlement between Ofcom and the channels, saying you provide us with infringements to make us look good, and we will allow you to remain in business.

Kinda makes you wonder.

All this seems strange to me,and not being 100% up on this sort of thing, but I have always been under the impression that Ofcom have to actually recieve a complaint before they can investigate any supposed incident. How can they instigate their own complaints ? If they are investigating incidents on the strength of a written post within this forum then that could mean ultimately that anyone seeing or even thinking they have seen anything along those lines would infact have to keep it to themselves, as it would appear the posters themselves could be deemed responsible for Ofcom commencing any action against said channel. Would that not give any channel with a "complaint" against them recourse to take action against any said poster of the supposed incident if it was found to be false. If it is from the forum they are gaining information then would that not be regarded as "fishing".

(11-03-2010 17:52 )Rael 74 Wrote:  All this seems strange to me,and not being 100% up on this sort of thing, but I have always been under the impression that Ofcom have to actually recieve a complaint before they can investigate any supposed incident. How can they instigate their own complaints ?

By pretending it came from another source?

(11-03-2010 16:18 )Chilly Wrote:  Don't think they have to mention a certain 'incident', Stan, as I'm fairly sure that Ofcom just request the channel to provide the recording for that day.

But surely this is great ammunition for Bang Media. If Ofcom can't/won't provide details of the incient, insist on knowing why they won't/can't. How stupid would Ofcom look if a case went to court and they had to admit they didn't have any details of the incident they wanted to investigate? How would they explain that they'd received a complaint from a viewer but that it didn't contain any details?

You see it all the time in their bulletins; "A viewer complained that...." If they don't have that the nature of the complaint - or indeed a complaint full stop - they're stuffed, aren't they?

(11-03-2010 17:52 )Rael 74 Wrote:  All this seems strange to me,and not being 100% up on this sort of thing, but I have always been under the impression that Ofcom have to actually recieve a complaint before they can investigate any supposed incident.

Ofcom can, and do perform routine monitoring of radio and TV broadcasts.
This is within their remit and perfectly legal. Previous sanctions for a variety of broadcasts have stated that there wasn't a complaint from a viewer and that action began as a result of "routine monitoring".

Just a couple of points i would like to express.
1:How are we supposed to get uptight and defend the companys responsible for supposedly "grassing" on each other.
2:Where is the monies these channels are fined sent and ultimately spent.
3:My expectations probably differ from from every other person who contributes to this forum.Except on a sat night when those sixnumbers are drawn.

I think that Ofcom should get of the babechannels back and pay attention to things that can cause offence before the watershed. I think who we should also blame is the nanny state that we live in.