Ofcom - Current Investigations

When there channels with the mic left on i used to hear the callers telling the model that they left the mic , but a serios note mrmann is right. At the moment ofcom have way too much power and spoiling it for us fan's of all the babechannels i hope and pray that one day it can be reversed, maybe its asking for too much.

the only way forward on this forum now is if you see something your not supposed to dont reveal it on here!!! ,ofcom are using us for their means ,if you must share it do it by p/m instead ,the lazy bastards are takin us for a ride ;(

(11-05-2011 09:29 )shankey! Wrote:  the only way forward on this forum now is if you see something your not supposed to dont reveal it on here!!! ,ofcom are using us for their means ,if you must share it do it by p/m instead ,the lazy bastards are takin us for a ride ;(

your right shankey looks like pm is gonna be the only way forward, if any does spot anything feel free to pm me on the details .

We was talking about the mic left on while it was happening in the chat box, we knew somebody would blurt it out (looking at you rammy

As stated in my post 261, Red Hot Mums were found 'In Breach' for showing a ten minute clip of alleged 'Adult Sex Material' 4 times over two nights of broadcasting.
Red Hot Mums is an encrypted pay to view channel located within the Adult section of the Sky EPG broadcasting between 22.00 hours to 05.30 housr.
Ofc@m made a big issue over the forty minutes of FTA broadcast even though it is less than 5% of the total time broadcast per night and no doubt only a small proportion of the alleged 'Adult Sex Material' shown being 'offensive'...
The broadcaster themselves revealed the other three broadcasts following an internal investigation.

Finding them 'In Breach' the regulator stated,

As regards Rules 23.2.1 and 30.3 of the BCAP Code, Ofcom noted that the spot advertisements were for telecommunications-based sexual entertainment services and other pornographic products (and so came within the recognised character of pornography), and were not encrypted. These BCAP Rules were therefore also contravened, as was admitted by RHF.

However, Ofcom noted this was the first time that the Licensee had made transmission errors of this sort had occurred with RHF and we noted the arguments presented in mitigation. In light of this, Ofcom stopped short of referring this case for consideration of the imposition of a statutory sanction. However, as with all breaches of the Code and BCAP Code, these will be held on file, forming part of the Licensee‟s compliance history. Ofcom is putting the Licensee on notice that, should it repeat similar breaches in the future, we will proceed to consider the imposition of statutory sanctions.

Quite a strong worded sanction decision from the regulator even though this broadcaster has an exemplary record and this was a first offence.

Now compare how this sanction for an Adult broadcaster is worded against other 'In Breach' findings against other mainstream broadcasters in the same bulletin.

ITV News

High level of flash photography that could trigger seizure in people with photosensitive epilepsy (PSE) were broadcast without warning being given.

Ofc@m stated

In these circumstances, it would have been appropriate to have included this footage providing that appropriate warnings were given to viewers, as required by Rule 2.12. Ofcom considers that warnings of this type may assist viewers with PSE to avoid instances of flashing images that the broadcaster cannot reasonably control.

In this case however ITN failed to correctly identify a potential problem with the flashing imagery in this material and therefore did not provide any warning to viewers. The broadcast of this material, without an appropriate warning, was therefore in breach of Rule 2.12 of the Code.

Ofcom notes that this is the second recent occasion on which analogue testing equipment has failed to identify problematic material. We strongly advise broadcasters to ensure that material which contains flashing images is adequately tested against Ofcom‟s published Guidance.

So well documented and researched known harm from flash photography to persons with PSE which could result in death gets the broadcaster a mild rebuke.


Zor ka Zatka sponsorship credits NDTV Imagine.

NDTV Imagine is a Hindi general entertainment channel.

We note the broadcaster‟s explanation that this occurred as a result of human error and was not a condition of the sponsorship arrangement, therefore no commercial gain resulted from the broadcast of this material. However, this was a significant mistake as the sponsorship credits were shown across many hours of programme time. We would expect a mistake of this nature to have been identified by compliance staff at the channel at the time the material was broadcast, rather than as a result of an Ofcom investigation.

Ofcom is therefore concerned about whether NDTV Imagine has effective compliance procedures in place. This is the fourth time that Ofcom has recorded breaches against NDTV Imagine for content which has not complied with different rules in Sections Nine and/or Ten of the Code2. Ofcom therefore puts NDTV Imagine on notice that it expects the broadcaster to improve its compliance in this area. Should any similar compliance issues occur, Ofcom is likely to consider the imposition of statutory sanctions.

So a licence holder who has been warned three times previously for similar breaches with Ofc@m concerned that the broadcaster does not have effective compliance in place. So how can the regulator now be confident that this will not happen again. Ofc@m have a duty of care to ensure broadcasters have robust compliance procedures in place to minimise repeat offences and should be issuing a Notice of Direction on the licence holder to put these procedures in place or face revocation of the licence.



QI UK Gold Services Ltd

Dave, 22 February 2011, 14:00 Offensive language.

Rule 1.14 states that the most offensive language must not be broadcast before the watershed. Ofcom research on offensive language1 clearly notes that the word “fuck” and its derivatives are considered by audiences to be very offensive. Such language is unacceptable before the watershed, whatever the audience profile of the channel.

We note UK Gold Services said the full phrasing of the offensive language was not audible. However, the use of both words clearly began with an „f‟, and an unmistakable „ck‟ and „cking‟ followed after the „bleep‟. This would have left viewers in no doubt in Ofcom‟s view that „fuck‟ and „fucking‟ had been used.

Broadcasting the words “fuck” and “fucking” in QI, although partially masked, was clearly at odds with the requirements of Rule 1.14.

We welcome improvements to the compliance procedures introduced by UK Gold Services. However, human error does not justify the broadcast of the most offensive language before the watershed and we are therefore recording a breach of the Code.

So for offensive language 'we welcome improvements', very mild language for such a serious offence in the afternoon when children could be watching.


Chris Evans Breakfast Show

BBC Radio 2, 28 January 2011, 08:50 Offensive language.


Ofcom noted that the interview with Sir Elton was to be live and that the BBC gave guidance in advance to the singer‟s management team about the need to refrain from using offensive language. The broadcaster did not however underline this guidance directly to Sir Elton before the interview took place. Ofcom welcomes the BBC‟s decision to speak directly to interviewees in the future to help avoid them using offensive language in live interviews.

In addition to noting this new measure to improve compliance, Ofcom acknowledges that Sir Elton‟s remarks appear to have been a “spontaneous outburst” made with no intention to offend, and that any offence caused was mitigated by the apologies offered by Chris Evans and Sir Elton both immediately after the incident and after the 09:00 news. In view of the steps taken by both the broadcaster and Sir Elton John to remedy the error, Ofcom considers the matter resolved.

So a broadcaster of such repute as the BBC not to ensure that live transmissions with celebrities known to have a loose tongue when it comes to swearing are not directly advised about swearing. This shows a serious flaw in their compliance and also that they are more concerned about not upsetting their guest in case he throws a hissy fit.

Again a mild rebuke for a broadcaster who should have all the angles covered when dealing with celebrities on 'live' transmissions. This new compliance measure SHOULD have already been in place to ensure offensive language was not transmitted when children would have been listening.


So tell me now that Ofc@m don't treat Adult content differently when reaching 'In Breach' decisions.

Consistant, even handed, fair are not words that come to mind when describing this regulator.

Its been clear for a least a year that OFCOM are using this (and other) fan sites as a ready made monitoring service. A permanent site-wide announcement should be put up and have something on the registration page to the effect of not posting caps or comments which might alert OFCOM to "marginal" audio/visuals.

What a sorry state of affairs to behold!

Ofcom read this "FUCK OFF AND DO THE WORK YOURSELVES, YOU LAZY MOTHERFUCKERS".

I have idea they should set up a board to censor ofcom, fine and ban them and see how they like it lol.

(11-05-2011 18:32 )kalel76 Wrote:  I have idea they should set up a board to censor ofcom, fine and ban them and see how they like it lol.

And I could be the Judge, Jury and Executioner

(11-05-2011 18:39 )SYBORG666 Wrote:  

(11-05-2011 18:32 )kalel76 Wrote:  I have idea they should set up a board to censor ofcom, fine and ban them and see how they like it lol.

And I could be the Judge, Jury and Executioner

sure as long as your quick and swift with them lol.