Ofcom - Current Investigations

(08-03-2011 10:08 )Tonywauk Wrote:  As I keep saying on here the Babe Channels will continue to attract opprobrium from Offcom while they are being shown FTA. Were there broadcasts to be pin-protected they would enjoy a degree more latitude and would certainly diminish the number of complaints enormously.

Agreed that the technology to pin-protect the channels exists, but, to my mind it is crass to suggest that future complaints against them should be null and void when they are not availing themselves of it.

Do you not think that they do not want to become totally pin-protected because, as they are not subscription services, their ability to attract passing trade for their chatlines would be greatly diminished if they did not appear 'free to air'. It's entirely up to them. Either continue as things are and abide by the rules, whatever one may think of them, or become pin-protected, enjoy greater latitude but realise that it will affect your current business model.

I agree, but I still think the channels should bend and even break the rules from time to time, because the rules are ridiculous. If they did go to encryption, they'd need to calculate how much they would make, compared to what they make now. Any caller who is willing to shell out some money for a phone chat, probably won't mind shelling out a fiver to view a less censored show, so it's more than likely that this business side of things would be OK. The freeviewers would be screwed though, and I think they make up a lot of the callers, though I might be wrong. I think it's very possible that if the channel producers came up with a plan, that they could make about the same amount on encryption as they do now. Also, there are a lot of non callers who would probably be willing to spend five pounds just to watch an encrypted show, so it's not like they would lose all of the non callers. The other issue is that cost of encryption, which I've heard isn't cheap, though I really have no idea about this.

This is the latest list of investigations. Whilst you can see that there are none noted against the Babe Channels this does not necessary mean that no complaints were received.

Up to 11 March 2011
No investigations launched against the Babe Channels.

Up to 4 March 2011
No investigations launched against the Babe Channels.

Ofc@m's latest Broadcast Bulletin

http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binarie...obb178.pdf

shows under 'Other programmes not in breach'

Programme Transmission Date Broadcaster Categories Number of complaints

Red Light Lounge 30/01/2011 RedLightZone1 Participation TV - Harm 1

There are no details on Ofc@m's website of the complaint received or even that an investigation was started. So when is an investigation not an investigation. Is it from the information provided by the complainant. Do they have to be specific of what part of the BCAP code was allegedly breached. The complaint noted above concerned Harm which is covered by,

Rule 4.1 Advertisements must contain nothing that could cause physical, mental, moral or social harm to persons under the age of 18.

We know that the complaint was against a daytime show and for Ofc@m not to launch an investigation it must have been made by someone over 18 who claimed to be harmed in someway by the show. Instant dismissal of the complaint.

Whilst the rule itself is very subjective it is very objective in that only those under 18 are protected by it. How Ofc@m prove harm is another matter.

So don't relax in thinking that no complaints are being made or investigations started, Ofc@m have a habit of storing up complaints as can be seen if you read the bulletin.

Programme - Aden Live TV
Channel - Aden Live TV
Complaints - Wednesday, 27 October 2010 to Friday, 29 October 2010, and Monday, 15 November 2010 to Tuesday, 16 November 2010
Complaint lodged - 07 March 2011

Four and a half months after transmission a complaint is made and accepted by Ofc@m to launch an investigation. Why so long, your not even put on bail for this amount of time for a serious criminal offence.

Ofcom has republished a previous finding against the X Factor. Ofcom had previously found against ITV1/X-Factor for broadcasting flashing images that broke rules designed to protect against photo sensitive epilepsy. The broadccaster "Channel TV said that it “suspect[ed] that as the [digital] PSE device used at the studio was hired each weekend rather than being in situ permanently, it was in need of re-calibration” and that this factor was likely to have led to the breach of Rule 2.12 in this instance."

After the original finding was published the manufactuer of the equipment wrote to Ofcom pointing out that the equipment had no facilities for calibration or adjustment.

The manufacturer also informed Ofcom that as the only company that hires out the relevant digital PSE testing device, they did not have any record of a machine being loaned for The X Factor on the date in question.

The broadcaster checked and "explained that all post-production material was tested using a digital PSE device at a production house and a digital PSE device was hired for the programmes broadcast on 11 and 12 December 2010 only."

In other words in response to a formal investigation from the regulator, ITV, one of the biggest and most reputable companies in the business, made a slapdash response blaming everyone but themselves that was wildly inaccurate and made wild and unfounded allegations about equipment needing recalibration and being hired out at weekends, as well as making misleading statements about every show being checked.

Ofcom have warned that if there is a repeat they could impose sanctions, but the warning is so specific that it almost certainly wont happen - breach of one specific rule on one particular show: "If there are any further breaches of Rule 2.12[b] in relation to [b]The X Factor Ofcom may consider further regulatory action."

Time and time again Ofcom proves itself to be a toothless laughing stock, taking no effective action against all manner of breaches, many more serious than this, the only exception being a normal consenting human activity, ie sex, and even then only when on a sex channel.

The BBC News At 6 was told off for inadvertantly showing footage of a student demonstraor with the word "Feck" written on his forehead before the watershed. I am torn between wanting say "Get a life, mistakes happen, do you seriously expect every broadcaster to put every live face under a microscope forever after", and wondering why this was allowed to be Resolved when there has never been a single instance of an accidental slip on a babestation being Resolved even when the producer has been sacked, the babes suspended for a month and retrained and procedure tightened up. The BBC pblished an apoloy on its website. Oh wow, are we meant to be impressed? On balance I feel rules should be applied consistently. The BBC broadcast the word Fark at peak family viewing time. Large numbers of children would have been exposed to very offensive language. Ofcom must stop playing favourites.

A scan through the list of Other Programs Not In Breach reveals these sex related complaints (all not upheld), some of which beggar belief. In the topsy turvy world of RegulatorLand of course, a complaint about sexual material on an adult channel is not logged as "Sexual Material" but as "Particpation TV - Harm". I assume that complaints for other channels listed as "Sexual Material" do actually relate to sex, but who knows, it could be Ofcoms way of referring to misleading cookery adverts:

4thought.tv / Channel 4 - Sexual material
Celebrity Juice / ITV2 - Nudity
Channel Promotion / Clubland TV - Nudity
Dirty Talk 10/2/2011 - Participation TV - Harm
Glory Daze (trailer) / E4 & Film 4 - Sexual Material
Great TV Mistakes / BBC3 - Sexual Material
Harry Hills TV Burp - Sexual Material (yes, really, Harry Hill)
Jonny Craig "I Still Feel Her" / Scuzz - Sexual Material
Joop Sponsorship of Law And Order / FX - Sexual Material
Justin Lee Collins: Turning Japanese - Sexual Material
Koffee with Karan / Star Plus - Sexual Material (should have been spelling)
Lets Dance for Comic Relief / BBC1 - Sexual Material (comic hand relief?)
Loose Women / ITV1 - Sexual Material
Newbeat / BBC Radio1 - Sexual Material
Red Light Lounge - Participation TV Harm
National Lottery: Secret Fortune / BBC1 - Sexual Material
The Brit Awards 2011 / ITV1 - Sexual Material
The Real Housewives of Orange County / ITV2 - Sexual Material
The Vanessa Show / Channel 5 - Nudity (please No)
This Morning (31/01/2011) - Nudity (the naked chef ?)

Worth noting by the way that Ofcom is as illiterate as ever and making up new word. The reported category for Live: Celebrity Who Wants to be a Millionaire? is "Misleadingness".

Like some Third World regulator, thet do not even have fixed categories, but make up the terminology as they go along.

PS. Why do you think people complained about "Bum Bum Bhole" on Star TV?










Thats right. Product Placement.

No, dont even think about it, they dont mean like that.

eccles, "Participation TV - Harm"? Have OFCOM any PROOF of this supposed 'Harm' or is it all OFCOM cloud cuckoo land prejudicial fantasy?

Of course I don't know who and what was complained about but I do know this...no dozy fucker whoever existed has ever been harmed by the sight of a womans crack, arsehole, spit, flesh coloured knickers, nipples, finger sucking or wanking gestures...etc. etc. etc.

OFCOM had better start producing some evidence of this supposed 'harm' because their unsubstantiated bullshit is beginning to stink something like the paedophile priest cover-up.

When is someone, anyone, going to take these fuckers to court and put an end to the total and utter rights abusing travesty OFCOM truly is? OFCOM aren't just pissing all over every single right and freedom our forebears fought and died to win and preserve, they're also shitting all over the fucking law that grants them any right or means to regulate TV in the first instance.

OFCOM aren't just unreasonable misguided idiots, they're clearly totally and utterly insane - and I've only been saying that for the last 6 miserable years.

OFCOM aren't just pissing all over every single right and freedom our forebears fought and died to win and preserve, they're also shitting all over the fucking law that grants them any right or means to regulate TV in the first instance.

Did my father really fight and get badly injured in the last war to preserve the right of a load of somewhat sad middle-aged men to wank themselves stupid over uncensored pictures of glamour models beamed into homes throughout the country whether they want them or not? I some how don't think so, even while taking on board the whole human rights question.

OFCOM aren't just unreasonable misguided idiots, they're clearly totally and utterly insane - and I've only been saying that for the last 6 miserable years.
[/quote]

Might I respectfully suggest that the general tenor and content of your posts suggest that the above statement has a certain element of pot and kettle to it. ;-)

(22-03-2011 02:55 )IanG Wrote:  eccles, "Participation TV - Harm"? Have OFCOM any PROOF of this supposed 'Harm' or is it all OFCOM cloud cuckoo land prejudicial fantasy?

Of course I don't know who and what was complained about but I do know this...no dozy fucker whoever existed has ever been harmed by the sight of a womans crack, arsehole, spit, flesh coloured knickers, nipples, finger sucking or wanking gestures...etc. etc. etc.

OFCOM had better start producing some evidence of this supposed 'harm' because their unsubstantiated bullshit is beginning to stink something like the paedophile priest cover-up.

When is someone, anyone, going to take these fuckers to court and put an end to the total and utter rights abusing travesty OFCOM truly is? OFCOM aren't just pissing all over every single right and freedom our forebears fought and died to win and preserve, they're also shitting all over the fucking law that grants them any right or means to regulate TV in the first instance.

OFCOM aren't just unreasonable misguided idiots, they're clearly totally and utterly insane - and I've only been saying that for the last 6 miserable years.

Even if they did have evidence, it shouldn't really matter, and it's just one person's word against another. ofcon already did their survey on whether or not the majority of people found these channels to be harmful, and the answer they got was NO. Of course, they didn't like that answer. Porn or not, the least they could do is just let up a bit on the censorship, and allow for full nudity to be shown. Full nudity is not going to have the potential to cause harm, because it's just a human body, and every person is interested in it. It's unlikely a child will ever see these channels, and if they do, then all they'll be seeing is what a normal human body looks like, just as they've seen other naked bodies in real life. I knew what a female body looked like at a young age, because of seeing naked women in the community pool changing rooms, as well as being on a beach with relaxed dress code. I also looked at my uncles Playboy mags at age seven, because I was interested in the opposite sex. Nothing weird there or harmful, and I didn't grow up too soon or become reckless or promiscuous. Allow full nudity, and I'll be a happy little clam, but until the women can stop covering something that's normal and not disgusting or scary, then the complaints shall ensue.

When everything in life costs so much these days the only enjoyment we do get out of the telly seems to be scuppered at the first opportunity by those who think they know best at Ofcom. I know that no complaints have been lodged recently so that's positive news but with SKY having no control over the protection of the Adult Channels they can be withdrawn without reason or notice, every day the first thing I allways do is check that the 900's are still there but it's the not knowing how long they will exist that's the problem. The babe channels ought to seek some kind of insurance against those at Ofcom even it means paying SKY themselves for protection, as Tonywauk put's it Ofcom are pissing and shitting on our own doorstep. The babe channels right now are sitting ducks and an easy target. Ofcom are here to stay but they don't actually have as much power as they think they do by the obvious way they just don't bother with the mainstream channels as they all have protection so Ofcom doesn't have the power to revoke any one of these channels and the only way for the babe channels to get any kind of future assurance is to make it hard for those at Ofcom by also seeking protection.

On second thoughts, the ITV/X-Factor complaint was not just an amusing bit of dual standards and sheer incompetence.

In serious cases epilepsy results in prolonged muscle spasms that use up the bodies supply of oxygen. If this goes on long enough it can cause brain damage. This is one reason why epilepsy can become progressively worse for some sufferers - parts of the brian causing epilpsy become progressively more damaged, resulting in more frequent, more severe and more prolonged epilepsy.

Its not often I agree that a TV show had potential to cause harm, but this seems a clear cut case of potential to cause clear cut actual physical harm.

(22-03-2011 10:16 )Tonywauk Wrote:  

Quote:OFCOM aren't just pissing all over every single right and freedom our forebears fought and died to win and preserve, they're also shitting all over the fucking law that grants them any right or means to regulate TV in the first instance.

Did my father really fight and get badly injured in the last war to preserve the right of a load of somewhat sad middle-aged men to wank themselves stupid over uncensored pictures of glamour models beamed into homes throughout the country whether they want them or not? I some how don't think so, even while taking on board the whole human rights question.

OFCOM aren't just unreasonable misguided idiots, they're clearly totally and utterly insane - and I've only been saying that for the last 6 miserable years.

Might I respectfully suggest that the general tenor and content of your posts suggest that the above statement has a certain element of pot and kettle to it. ;-)

You can suggest what you like, Tony. I quite deliberately used 'offensive' language to highlight my anger and exercise my Right to free expression.

On the wider issues of censorship and 'nannying' by a bunch of mindless toads, I stand by the fact that our forebears did indeed fight and die to secure a bill of rights which, since Magna Carta, has enshrined our Right to freedom of speech/expression and many more.

Might I suggest you ask your father exactly what it was he fought for? Because I know damn well my father definitely didn't fight to allow said mindless toads to declare 'adult sex material' to be 'offensive and/or harmful' without some form of real proof.

As I'm sure you are aware, the whole purpose of freedom of expression is to allow information and ideas that are NOT generally 'acceptable' to be shared and expressed. There simply is no need to enshrine the right to express ideas and information that everyone deems acceptable, safe, wholesome, welcome and 'nice'. The simple truth of the matter is, the Comms Act CANNOT be interpreted in the way OFCOM has chosen to implement it without VIOLATING the basic principles of Human Rights and freedom in a democratic society. As OFCOM have been allowed to act in a way which is clearly not compatible with such fundamental principles then we can only assume that this is not a free democracy and that our own fathers fought in vain to prevent Nazi-type oppressors to rule over us and the mass media.

Of course, you may see things differently and that's your perogative. I for one am absolutely sure in the belief that free and unhindered access to harmless pornography in books, DVDs, TV and over the internet is one true measure of the state of freedom and human rights in a sane and rational democracy.

And just to illustrate, the High Court stated in 2000: "Based on the available evidence, a reasonable person would conclude that the risk of harm to children from viewing hardcore R18-type material is insignificant" (Mr Justice Hooper, BBFC v VAC, 2000). The courts are clear on the harmless nature of explicit R18-type porn...so how come OFCOM get to dictate the complete opposite and then dare to prosecute and persecute TV companies based on a totally unsubstantiated, unjustified and, indeed, ILLEGAL pack of LIES?

Another thing, is it just a coincidence but why is it that SKY broadcast on the 28.2 degree slot that nobody else use's when it would make more sense from a business point of view to switch back to the 19.2 degree slot. Is this the work of Ofcom to keep a leash on things and prevent us from accessing the other channels from Europe or like I said just a coincidence because I could just imagine Ofcom trying to block the likes of Sexysat and Eurotic Tv with great difficulty if we shared the same satellite as the French, Dutch and Germans do.