Open letter to Ofcom

kasone, I posted section 319 of the Comms Act a few weeks ago on another thread, and added my own comments on what the clauses appear to mean to me (and no doubt any liberal/right-minded person).

I've also posted this 'explanation' Ofcom offered up to 'justify' the R18 ban back in 2006 a fair few months ago (another outing seems appropriate...) Source: http://www.melonfarmers.co.uk/arow06.htm

Ofcom Wrote:Ban on R18

This is fully explained in our statement:

Ofcom ... concluded that the transmission of R18 material is compatible with Article 22 (1) of the TWF.

In the absence of evidence of “serious” harm to minors, there can be no justification for an outright ban on this type of material under Article 22 (1) of the Television Without Frontiers Directive (“the TWF Directive”). However, if the material is caught by the test of being material which is “likely to impair” the development of minors (TWF Directive, Article 22 (2)), then Ofcom still needs to be satisfied that suitable protections are in place to so as to ensure that minors will not normally see or hear such broadcasts, before the transmission of such material can be allowed.

Ofcom’s view is that measures currently available, such as PIN security and a late watershed, are consistent with the requirement that minors will not “normally” access these broadcasts. Article 22(2) does not therefore require a prohibition on the transmission of this material.

They go on however, with a total crock of shit:

Ofcom bullshit Wrote:However, Ofcom is not bound to adopt the standards applied in other European countries. It must consider its policy in the light of the UK legislation and its specific duties under the Act.

Ofcom ARE BOUND by EC Directives FULL STOP!

Ofcom bullshit Wrote:"In addition to the European provisions [above], UK legislation namely, the Act places specific duties on Ofcom, in particular it sets out a standards objective to protect the under-eighteens (Section 319 2(a)). It also requires Ofcom to have regard to “the vulnerability of children and of others whose circumstances appear to Ofcom to put them in need of special protection” (section (3)(4)(h)). In light of this, if Ofcom is not satisfied that sufficient measures to protect the under-eighteens can be applied (for example, through scheduling and/or security mechanisms), then R18 material should not be transmitted.

WHO are these vulnerable people Ofcom have decided are in circumstances that require Ofcom to flout their findings under the TVWF and ignore every safeguard in the HRA 1998?

You can see quite clearly in that Ofcom OPENLY admitted in 2006 that PIN and WATERSHED are more than satisfactory to ensure minors will not normally see R18 (or ANY 'adult' material) which, by the way, was declared SAFE for underage viewing by the High Court in the year 2000.

Ofcom CANNOT claim to be protecting anyone from that which is HARMLESS and, moreover, they can ONLY be abusing the fundamental rights of adult viewers as a result.

The parties most affected are the stations themselves. Presumably, they have legal representatives & that being the case, they are probably better positioned to challenge rulings on individual cases. Perhaps they already do so(?). Alternatively, they may keep quiet & take it on the chin, in the knowledge that they would be 'targeted' to an even greater extent.

I have always gone along with the PIN protection argument (i.e broadcast R18 etc under PIN protection). If the adults are too stupid to safeguard that information, I don't see that as anyone's problem, but theirs + the Web makes the whole Ofcom situation fairly pointless anyway, other than it isn't their responsibility to police that.

With respect, I think individuals challenging Ofcom, with no legitimate concern (i.e not Ofcom & not a broadcaster), are wasting time & energy, better devoted to other things.

One thing that does puzzle me is; how other channels (Movies4Men, Bravo etc.) can show some full-frontal & more explicit scenes? - those being 'mainstream' broadcasters. Slipped through the net, or because they aren't live shows, I dunno?

ofcom allways have an answer to justify the equally graphic nature of the late night movies for men channels, nothing but a bunch of egotistical hypocritical fucking rats. Cameron, Clegg fucking get rid of them or I'll personally come down to 10 downing street myself and rip your balls off and feed them to a croc.

(12-07-2010 14:12 )moron50 Wrote:  The parties most affected are the stations themselves. Presumably, they have legal representatives & that being the case, they are probably better positioned to challenge rulings on individual cases. Perhaps they already do so(?). Alternatively, they may keep quiet & take it on the chin, in the knowledge that they would be 'targeted' to an even greater extent.

I think the channels know which side their bread is buttered. No legal challenges have been raised by any UK 'adult' TV service to my knowledge (there was some legal wrangling over the 'advertising' rebranding a while ago but, that was pretty much out of the courts). The chat channels in particular need to attract viewers and balance that level of attraction with conversion into paying callers. It appears to me that Ofcom perform that balancing act and profit-making role quite nicely - why would the channels complain (esp. when they're not being fined for any such breaches)?

Quote:I have always gone along with the PIN protection argument (i.e broadcast R18 etc under PIN protection). If the adults are too stupid to safeguard that information, I don't see that as anyone's problem, but theirs + the Web makes the whole Ofcom situation fairly pointless anyway, other than it isn't their responsibility to police that.

With respect, I think individuals challenging Ofcom, with no legitimate concern (i.e not Ofcom & not a broadcaster), are wasting time & energy, better devoted to other things.

Individuals are probably wasting their time and considerable amounts of money if mounting a legal challenge but, asking questions pretty much cost the price of a stamp. However, a group of the public made of, by and representing, the thousands of viewers is quite a different matter. Given sufficient support and numbers, a few hundred could effectively blockade Ofcom's offices and picket the House of Commons. Such a group could demand a Judicial Review on such grounds as: Human Rights issues; blatant contradictions in PIN efficacy; double/treble 'standards' with regard content policy (e.g. Movies4Men vs Bangbabes vs Channel 4 levels of explicit content...where 'justified by context'); illogical interpretation of the law; disregard of absolute rights granted under EC Direcitives...and so on. Ofcom's crimes against logic and common decency are legion and legendary.

Quote:One thing that does puzzle me is; how other channels (Movies4Men, Bravo etc.) can show some full-frontal & more explicit scenes? - those being 'mainstream' broadcasters. Slipped through the net, or because they aren't live shows, I dunno?

Why don't you ask Ofcom to explain it? Or shall I take this as your submission for the open letter? Becuase I'd think we'd all like to know how Ofcom allow justification in one context of adult entertainment but not another equally adult entertainment context (that is without proving themselves to be prejudiced bigots and haters of the first order... ).

In years to come we'll look back on the ofcom days and laugh at the backwards times we used to live in. When Playboy magazine first hit the shelves an enormous fuss was made about it and it was highly censered until a general acceptance was acknowledged to allow it to be published in the proper content in which it was supposed to be. The same will happen over time with the live babe shows even with or without ofcom as changes at the top will allways happen and if the chairman just so happens to be liberal minded along with the rest of the team then ofcom could just maybe relax the rules more into line with the rest of europe and future forums will be more like a fanzone rather than a rant against the authorities that be.

Here is what i do know about EC and Ofcom, first off they taxed the production of R18 porn in the UK to a very high extent, that is why a lot of porn companies moved abroad to make and publish their films, Viv Thomas is one company, they moved to Spain, as it wasnt viable to make them any more in the UK, so Ofcom cant stop these companies making films and sending them over here to be sold, it can be said about the Tv channels as well, they could move abroad and show a more high content on their channels without Ofcom interfering, but what I think will happen is that Ofcom will come down on Sky for letting these channels broadcast on their network, if Sky was based abroad as well they couldnt touch them, it comes down to a catch 52 where if Sky and these other channels moved abroad then Ofcom and other standards will stop the sale of these satelites from the UK based market, so at the moment we are in a no win situation. That is how I see things, and with the way things are, its not going to change for a long time.

Probably stating the obvious here, but OFCOM can only act on what's reported to them, which begs the question, who would tune into a babe channel simply to report them? After all, it's a niche market, these are channels that you only find if you go looking for them (on my Sky card the adult section was hidden by default I had to actively enable it) and anyone who tunes in knows exactly what to expect. Traditional British squeamishness about the adult entertainment industry, maybe?

you have ruined my daytimes forever you anarchic ponses
i hope you get civilian revolt and uproar in the streets
all work an no play makes pete a dull boy RaAAAAAAA

kasone, I'm sorry but I beg to differ with much of this.

(12-07-2010 22:24 )kasone Wrote:  Here is what i do know about EC and Ofcom, first off they taxed the production of R18 porn in the UK to a very high extent, that is why a lot of porn companies moved abroad to make and publish their films, Viv Thomas is one company, they moved to Spain, as it wasnt viable to make them any more in the UK, so Ofcom cant stop these companies making films and sending them over here to be sold,

The direct to public sale of R18 videos by producers like VT was(is) not allowed according to the law - namely the "not fully enacted" VRA 1984 (a.k.a. VRA 2010) - which prohibits the advertising and sale of R18 material outside of a licensed sex shop.

IIRC VT and other online shops either stopped operating, moved abroad or, did deals with overseas websites to take payment overseas and allow them to dispatch the goods from within the UK (its a pointless fucking restriction for restriction's sake and as such is totally illegal according to human rights). AFAIK VT moved to Portugal (but it might have been Spain...its been a while since I read Viv's press release).

I don't know of any other liberal democracy from Denmark to Japan that requires an advertising ban and a £20K/yr license to sell hardcore porn. You can buy European strength porn (including fisting and golden showers etc.) from town center news kiosks in Spain, such is their concern over the non-harmful effects of porn. Only theocratic, fascist and/or communist dictatorships treat porn with the same unnecessary bans and rights-abusing restrictions as the UK and Ireland. This cuntry is run by dickhead, fascist morons. It's fucking pathetic.

For over four decades, indeed, since the camera was invented, thousands of people around the world have been making porn and millions more have watched it every single day without any discernable social harm coming from it whatsoever. What it is Ofcom et fucking alia think they're doing trying to protect 'vulnerable' people from the most natural and harmless pastime we humans know of to beat the stress of living in this fucked-up world simply beggars all belief. These folks are totally and utterly off their tiny, prejudiced, bigoted rockers.

And you watch mate, none of these arseholes will do me for slander or libel despite the dreadful things I say about them and accuse them of doing on an almost daily basis. You know why? Because they haven't got a legal leg to stand on. Their protection has never been needed - that's why the rest of Europe dumped all their bans on porn over 40 years ago. Only the relgiously corrupted British government and their dispicable censors keep up such an evil and futile pretence. They make me want to puke with their puerile bullshit.

Quote: it can be said about the Tv channels as well, they could move abroad and show a more high content on their channels without Ofcom interfering, but what I think will happen is that Ofcom will come down on Sky for letting these channels broadcast on their network, if Sky was based abroad as well they couldnt touch them, it comes down to a catch 52 where if Sky and these other channels moved abroad then Ofcom and other standards will stop the sale of these satelites from the UK based market,

That's bull. Ofcom haven't banned any European-based hardcore porn channels save for one supposed obscene/illegal 'violent porn' channel in 2005/6. In fact, NO R18-type consensual adult porn channels have been proscribed in the last 10 years - we can only assume the UK's ability to proscribe R18-type channels ended with the High Court ruling in 2000 and the sale of R18 being PUSHED offshore by the out of date, out of step, out of fucking kilter VRA 1984/2010. This rights-abusing bullshit was written when the VCR was a shiny new toy and video rental shops were popping up everywhere. It belongs in the bin along with Thatcherism, Mary Shitehouseism and 'video nastyism'.

The cause of the situation is either $ky that won't carry European hardcore channels according to their own narrowminded puritan idealism and/or the UK channels themselves that have decided not to bother moving onto European satellite providers or, indeed, fighting Ofcom's total and utter baseless, fascist claptrap. The fact is the UK channels all place the European-strength/R18-type hardcore versions of their softcore UK TV stuff on the web so that UK customers can see the real thing if they want and/or can use the internet to watch it.

Quote: so at the moment we are in a no win situation. That is how I see things, and with the way things are, its not going to change for a long time.

Ofcom can fool some of the people some of the time but, they sure as hell can't pull the wool over my eyes.

(13-07-2010 00:21 )MrJack Wrote:  Probably stating the obvious here, but OFCOM can only act on what's reported to them, which begs the question, who would tune into a babe channel simply to report them? After all, it's a niche market, these are channels that you only find if you go looking for them (on my Sky card the adult section was hidden by default I had to actively enable it) and anyone who tunes in knows exactly what to expect. Traditional British squeamishness about the adult entertainment industry, maybe?

your assuming that every 1 thinks this kind of entertainment is on. certain religious nuts or moralists will deliberately sit and watch every channel night after night writing down notes on every slip they see.
then complain to ofcom because they are the moral minority who think there moral majority are morally bankrupt.
they don't give a fuck about freedom of expression or speech what they care about is that every 1 should be pigeon holed into there judgmental way of life.
they think sex is for babys not for fun. they fuck in the missionary position so the wife cant cum. you see them on sundays beating there drum. shouting god has dammed you and its the judgment for some... but on sunday night in the dark where its fun he is a rubber wearing gimp with a 12" knobbly jammed up his bum.

hypocrites m8 thats all they are on the most part.