Ofcom Off

Where do you start with ofcom. I am personally beginning to find it exhausting now trying to analysis this fuck up in the system, ofcom are now a machine like a terminator and somebody has to stop them before it grows any bigger. Lets be simple about this. It's now 2010 and we really shouldn't be having these debates, everybody now in the whole of europe lives in a democracy and with the word democracy means freedom unless you live in the uk, all I can say is I've getting pissed off with these ofcom bastards dictating to us what they find or not find acceptable viewing, I personally don't like soaps either way it doesn't bother me a fuck. Let and let live and ofcom go and fuck yourself and don't dare preach to us in your facist views.

Scottishbloke, I doubt anyone understands your frustration as much as I.

As many are aware I've been acting VERY strangely this last week or so. It is as I explained last week due initially to sleep depravation leading a loss of touch with reality. We enter a state where we appear awake but in fact we are living inside a dream. This dream lead me to a halucinogenic state of paranoid delusion and belief in a dark conspiracy therory, which by its very nature robbed one of more sleep. It thus becomes a self-sustaining cycle which, as I explained to some, was proving very difficult to escape.

I have finally broken out of this cycle and regained control of all my faculties and restored my mental balance. From now on I'll stick to the facts at hand adn make sure I get at least 6 hours kip of a night.

Now, there are people elsewhere I've been in contact with that feel as we do that Ofcom have lost it. Ofcom are quite clearly stooping to any level to justify the complainants' feelings of offence. This of course hinges upon Ofcom's erroneous interpretation of what the Comms Act says about protecting the public from offensive and harmful material.

The issue as I see it is quite straightforward. The HRA 1998 allows Freedom of Thought, Conscience and Religion (Art. 9) and not only but also Freedom of Expression (Art. 10). The HRA is clear that religious feelings and so forth cannot be used as excuses to restrict other fundamental rights. I would argue that mere offence felt by one or two people is nowhere near serious enough to restrict everyone else's freedom of expression, indeed, only offensive and harmful material such as inciteful racist and sexist propaganda, truely obscene material, threats to national security and the like fall within the scope of what is actually permitted to be censored and restricted.

It just so happens that Ofcom are required by law to interpret the Comms Act in such a way as to make it compatible with the HRA 1998 and the Case Law of the ECHR. To my mind Ofcom have failed in that respect. Moreso because, as I've said many times, the High Court ruled that R18-type hardcore isn't a danger to children that might accidentally be exposed to it - why would they? It's only sex - the giver of life since year dot.

As we know, Ofcom have chosen to allow offence alone felt by one or two people to justify sanctions against adult chat services in particular. Ofcom should be assessing all complaints in terms of harm and offence and advising unharmed complainants how to secure their equipment against susequent accidental exposure - i.e. using user-assigned PIN controls.

Ofcom are in a way in the same state I was. They're placing themselves in the deranged state of mind where they can understand the compalinant's offence (if its even real and not just someone claiming a rival channel breached one of Ofcom's commandments). How you can actually tell someone has overstepped Ofcom's Code is a mystery to me. The thing is barely a guide and even then it violates the law it is supposed to reflect.

E.g.
The Comms Act 2003 clause 319(2)(f) says that generally accepted standards are to be applied to the contents of TV and radio services to provide adequate protection to members of the public to prevent the inclusion in such services of offensive and harmful material.

Whereas, Ofcom's Code Rule 2.3 says offensive material must be justified by context.

The law says offensive material must not be included at all. Ofcom say it can be if you can justify its presence.

I'll say again, Ofcom's Code bears no relation to the law it is supposed to reflect. And hopefully this is now blatantly obvious to all reading this message.

Knowing that the law doesn't recognise R18-type material as being harmful to anyone of any age, Ofcom rely wholly on prosecuting mere offence only one or two clearly religiously-warped individuals or back-stabbing rival companies claim to 'feel'.

(26-06-2010 20:05 )IanG Wrote:  Scottishbloke, I doubt anyone understands your frustration as much as I.

As many are aware I've been acting VERY strangely this last week or so. It is as I explained last week due initially to sleep depravation leading a loss of touch with reality. We enter a state where we appear awake but in fact we are living inside a dream. This dream lead me to a halucinogenic state of paranoid delusion and belief in a dark conspiracy therory, which by its very nature robbed one of more sleep. It thus becomes a self-sustaining cycle which, as I explained to some, was proving very difficult to escape.

I have finally broken out of this cycle and regained control of all my faculties and restored my mental balance. From now on I'll stick to the facts at hand adn make sure I get at least 6 hours kip of a night.

Now, there are people elsewhere I've been in contact with that feel as we do that Ofcom have lost it. Ofcom are quite clearly stooping to any level to justify the complainants' feelings of offence. This of course hinges upon Ofcom's erroneous interpretation of what the Comms Act says about protecting the public from offensive and harmful material.

The issue as I see it is quite straightforward. The HRA 1998 allows Freedom of Thought, Conscience and Religion (Art. 9) and not only but also Freedom of Expression (Art. 10). The HRA is clear that religious feelings and so forth cannot be used as excuses to restrict other fundamental rights. I would argue that mere offence felt by one or two people is nowhere near serious enough to restrict everyone else's freedom of expression, indeed, only offensive and harmful material such as inciteful racist and sexist propaganda, truely obscene material, threats to national security and the like fall within the scope of what is actually permitted to be censored and restricted.

It just so happens that Ofcom are required by law to interpret the Comms Act in such a way as to make it compatible with the HRA 1998 and the Case Law of the ECHR. To my mind Ofcom have failed in that respect. Moreso because, as I've said many times, the High Court ruled that R18-type hardcore isn't a danger to children that might accidentally be exposed to it - why would they? It's only sex - the giver of life since year dot.

As we know, Ofcom have chosen to allow offence alone felt by one or two people to justify sanctions against adult chat services in particular. Ofcom should be assessing all complaints in terms of harm and offence and advising unharmed complainants how to secure their equipment against susequent accidental exposure - i.e. using user-assigned PIN controls.

Ofcom are in a way in the same state I was. They're placing themselves in the deranged state of mind where they can understand the compalinant's offence (if its even real and not just someone claiming a rival channel breached one of Ofcom's commandments). How you can actually tell someone has overstepped Ofcom's Code is a mystery to me. The thing is barely a guide and even then it violates the law it is supposed to reflect.

E.g.
The Comms Act 2003 clause 319(2)(f) says that generally accepted standards are to be applied to the contents of TV and radio services to provide adequate protection to members of the public to prevent the inclusion in such services of offensive and harmful material.

Whereas, Ofcom's Code Rule 2.3 says offensive material must be justified by context.

The law says offensive material must not be included at all. Ofcom say it can be if you can justify its presence.

I'll say again, Ofcom's Code bears no relation to the law it is supposed to reflect. And hopefully this is now blatantly obvious to all reading this message.

Knowing that the law doesn't recognise R18-type material as being harmful to anyone of any age, Ofcom rely wholly on prosecuting mere offence only one or two clearly religiously-warped individuals or back-stabbing rival companies claim to 'feel'.

i just purchased tvx on the adult nightly on virgin and cant believe how crap it is, i havnt watched any of the so called adult channels for a few years and wanted to see if things had changed, what a joke think i might ask ofcom if they will give me a refund on the fiver i just wasted.

IanG - glad you are feeling better. Your posts were getting rather, er, individual and difficult to follow. Here's hoping you can avoid whatever circumstances caused the loss of sleep.

Back to the thread - Ofcom justify many cases against babe channels on grounds of offence (or Generally Accepted Standards, pretty much the same thing). The only other justification is straying into R18 territory, but it's rare for a Free or Encrypted channel to actually show penetration etc, so that leave Offence as the basis for 99% of recorded Breeches. Oh, there is also Early Scheduling, and risk of Kids watching, but that does not apply late at night.

Open fanny, anal detail, spitting, nipple sucking, simulating mastrurbation, dildo sucking may be offensive, but they are not explicit R18 material, but Ofcom say the fall foul of Rules 2.1 and 2.3.

So either Ofcom should apply rules on Offence equally or they should not apply them at all. Why is it OK for impressionable to watch Frankie Boyle making jokes about the disabled and blatant racism against the Scots? Being Scots himself does not make it OK. Why is it OK for actors in films to say Motherf**kr? Or the entire content of any episode of South Park?

Does simply sticking up a warning beforehand magically mitagate all the offence?

Why is it OK to show Christmas Carols from Canterbury Cathederal, knowing full well that Muslims and Jews watch TV? Or documentaries about evolution, that fundamentalist Christians consider to be evil lies designed to undermine Christian belief?

I'm serious. I once worked with a wonderful man who found The Vicar of Dibley offensive.

And how dare they say that Elvis is dead? My friend saw him working at Burger King.

And what about extreme violence or frequent sanitised killing in films like Saw, Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Exorcist: The Beginning, Apocoplyto, Hero...

Either offence is allowed with suitable controls, or all forms of offence are banned, not just one category.

johnm, you should check the Comms Act 319(2)(l) iirc - Ofcom are to PREVENT advertising which "MAY BE" misleading. They've failed on that Standards Objective everyday for 7 years to my knowledge - "we get much the same after encryption" would be more accurate.


eccles, cheers, I am back to normal at last.

I feel you're just confirming the point I've maintained all along. Ofcom are not to protect against mere 'offence', they're supposed to be protecting the public from offensive and harmful material. The difference is not subtle. The Comms Act AVMS amendments from 19 Dec 2009, 368E, clearly states harmful material is racist and sexist incitement and other such offensive bile.

Ofcom have simply chosen to set the bar far too low and they've utterly destroyed all balance. You can't say "cock" on a Babeshow yet, you can hear "your grandma fucks pigs in hell" on any FTA channel after 9pm.

As far as I can see Ofcom are discriminating against sexually oriented adult programming for no other reason that it suits them to do so. Why they believe red-blooded males need their special brand of protection beats the crap outta me.

Remind me, doesn't the law say that Ofcom must protect the public from "offensive and harmful material".

Does that mean their remit only covers material that both offensive and harmful at the same time? Is material that is offensive but not harmful covered?

(27-06-2010 22:30 )eccles Wrote:  Remind me, doesn't the law say that Ofcom must protect the public from "offensive and harmful material".

Does that mean their remit only covers material that both offensive and harmful at the same time? Is material that is offensive but not harmful covered?

It does, eccles, but as I slowly returned to the land of reality I asked someone with a little legal knowledge to tell me how this works in practice. The thing is the Comms Act allows Ofcom to interpret these clauses (319(2)) and the only way to know if they've got it right is to put it before a Judge. Taking eveything else into consideration (368E amendments, HRA 1998 etc.) my gut tells me Ofcom are way off the mark. Indeed, the fact they claim offensive material CAN be 'justified by context' when the act makes it clear the public are to be adequately protected from such stuff just highlights Ofcom's misinterpretation IMHO.

I've actually reached the point where I don't even bother to watch any of the babe channels. Its the same old crap that airs every night. I actually thought that progress would happen when the new government took over such was all the talk on David Cameron and his stance on needless qangos but that optimism has now all but vanished. For a western democracy we really do live in backward times and the needless censership towards the babe channels should be lifted. Its been proven in other european countries that there is no evidence whatsoever that this type of viewing is harmful. If not explicit nudity then at least allow full frontal to be shown. I'm fed up watching these pathetic side on angles, fucking stupid props such as cushions, blankets to hide what ofcom deem as offensive. These channels have no future if they carry on with this tame patronising material. It's time for the teasing to stop and for the action to begin.

(28-06-2010 12:09 )IanG Wrote:  

(27-06-2010 22:30 )eccles Wrote:  Remind me, doesn't the law say that Ofcom must protect the public from "offensive and harmful material".

Does that mean their remit only covers material that both offensive and harmful at the same time? Is material that is offensive but not harmful covered?

It does, eccles, but as I slowly returned to the land of reality I asked someone with a little legal knowledge to tell me how this works in practice. The thing is the Comms Act allows Ofcom to interpret these clauses (319(2)) and the only way to know if they've got it right is to put it before a Judge.

Deffo, and it would be slow and expensive, and worst of all, it would benefit a channel's competitors equally, making it a waste of time, unless it were a class action by a trade representative body.

Quote:Taking eveything else into consideration (368E amendments, HRA 1998 etc.) my gut tells me Ofcom are way off the mark. Indeed, the fact they claim offensive material CAN be 'justified by context' when the act makes it clear the public are to be adequately protected from such stuff just highlights Ofcom's misinterpretation IMHO.

I can't help feeling that many judges would secretly piss themselves laughing at the convolutions that Ofcom go through to justify equivalent content in one set of circumstances but not others. Racist and anti-disability jokes (by Frankie Boyle) OK if broadcast on the BBC, but not OK if on the National Front channel? Fanny and cunlingus OK in a Film4 production, but not on BangBabes? Obscured but real sex scenes OK on Virgin1's Sin Cities with a flimsy pretence at documentary context, but not on the more honest SportXXX?

Justified by context is an artifical construct designed to justify inconsistency.

ScottishBloke - don't give up. Even the most clear cut policies take time. Mind you, 100s of well argued letters MPs would not hurt.

eccles, I just remembered Ofcom said back in 2005/6 they had no real argument against R18 on TV IF the means to protect the under eighteens were available - if you recall Ofcom trashed PIN as a means of securing R18 type material...then insisted it be made mandatory to protect the under eighteens.

So, I'm wondering, what do we all think would allow sufficient protection for the under eighteens (baring in mind its harmless to children according to the law based on the available evidence)?

I'd say an adult subscription or adult-verified activation (decryption) of the service(s) is the first line of defense.

Post watershed broadcasting with regular (or permanent) on-screen age-rating - e.g. BLUE box with 'R18' or 'X' inside it. Perhaps other symbols for bad language and adult situations too (the Dutch use this type of system and most other EU states put age ratings in the corner of the screen).

Regular audio warnings or beeps (the French use tones in ad breaks to warn parents and children that content is changing to a higher age rating/stronger content).

Oh and of course, some EDUCATION of the masses, and esp, PARENTS, as to how to set up their equipment to hide, delete, block and user-PIN protect any channels THEY don't want themselves OR their children viewing.

After all, 20 million on-site child protectors must be better than one wet blanket who's only mode of defense is to wait for a call from some distraught parent nursing a traumatised 10-year-old, don't you think?