There's been another kick in Ofcom's balls recently that I forgot to mention, when they failed to stop X-Factor's Tulisa from doing that salute thing at the start of the show. She brings her forearm across her chest revealing a tattoo depicting her own brand of perfume. Ofcom tried to claim this was advertising and made a move to stop her from doing it. They failed and she continued to do the salute right up till the end
(12-12-2011 00:23 )StanTheMan Wrote: [ -> ]There's been another kick in Ofcom's balls recently that I forgot to mention, when they failed to stop X-Factor's Tulisa from doing that salute thing at the start of the show. She brings her forearm across her chest revealing a tattoo depicting her own brand of perfume. Ofcom tried to claim this was advertising and made a move to stop her from doing it. They failed and she continued to do the salute right up till the end
Stan, I'm sure that, if she had shown her knickers, she would have had 10 years in Devil's Island, courtesy of Ofcon.
Fuck Ofcom, they are just going too far, in many ways I'm delighted they are now beginning to piss off more channels than the Adults Ones which was there only and main targets for a very long time, so now they think they can fuck around with ITV too, getting a bit too big now aren't you Ofcom and to be honest I couldn't give 2 fucks what Tullisa was showing on her arm, I was too busy checking out the rest of her body anyway and more to the point who gives a fuck if she advertised her own product or not, fucking childish bullshit coming from Ofcom once again, I say Ofcom go fuck yourselves and take a dive into the North Sea as I hear it's nice and chilly at this time of the year, fucking bastard killjoys.
i gathered from the news earlier that they are trying to gatecrash david attiegborough"s polar bears cubs not actually giving birth in the wild but a dutch zoo and because of this it has mislead the public which has given them reason to investigate ,have they really got nothing else to do apart from get up peoples arses the the useless twats
(12-12-2011 21:09 )shankey! Wrote: [ -> ]i gathered from the news earlier that they are trying to gatecrash david attiegborough"s polar bears cubs not actually giving birth in the wild but a dutch zoo and because of this it has mislead the public which has given them reason to investigate ,have they really got nothing else to do apart from get up peoples arses the the useless twats
I say leave them to it! You know the old adage, 'give them enough rope...'
The more meddling they do and people they piss off the better as far as I'm concerned. The end is nigh for Ofcom
(12-12-2011 21:09 )shankey! Wrote: [ -> ]i gathered from the news earlier that they are trying to gatecrash david attiegborough"s polar bears cubs not actually giving birth in the wild but a dutch zoo and because of this it has mislead the public which has given them reason to investigate ,have they really got nothing else to do apart from get up peoples arses the the useless twats
Its got fuck all to do with Ofcom. Competitions must not mislead. Or politics. Factual programmes or items or portrayals of factual matters must not materially mislead, but in what way does this "materially mislead"? If they spend more than 30 seconds on this they nead their heads examined.
Seasons Greetings
!
Ofcome is committed to ensuring that Christmas is safe and enjoyable for everyone. Ofcome regulates all public communications.
It has been pointed out to us that some supermarkets are playing the song Santa Baby in their tape loops. This contains the line "Hurry on down the chimney to me" a clear sexual reference, and possibly a reference to anal sex (the opening is small, circular, sooty and designed for use in one direction only). This must stop. Supermarkets must not play the song at all before 9pm, or if children have been admitted, and if played there must be clear sign by the entrance warning shoppers that they may be offended.
![[Image: 091231110436-large.jpg]](http://images.sciencedaily.com/2009/12/091231110436-large.jpg)
Happy and safe for everyone.
Not very festive, but I could hardly let the latest missive from our friends at Riverside House, or Toad Hall as it will be known from now on, go without comment as it gives a fascinating insight into their sense of priorities. Broadcasting Bulletin 196 issued Monday 19 December published the following findings.
Apologies for the length.
SHOWS IN QUESTION
Ummah Talk and Politics and Beyond on the Islam Channel
Muslimah Dilemma on the Islam Channel
Torchwood on Watch at 4pm
The Exorcist on Gem TV at 6:30pm and 11:30am
Big Brother on Channel 5
****Babes on Red Light
Debate Night on the Ummah Channel
Ummah Talk and Politics and Beyond on the Islam Channel
This was the result of an appeal.
A complaint was lodged about perceived bias. in talk & phone in shows discussing Israeli and Palestinian policy re operations in Gaza (Fatah controlled) in 2008/2009. The channel claimed the shows were fact based and not controversial. All but one of the contributions were critical of President Abbas (Hamas) and the Palestinian Authority (Hamas). The channel said it had difficulty getting guests to represent the Israeli government. The discussion was about whether bombing Gaza was a war crime under international law, the legality of killing civilians, and whether the UK and USA might change the law to prevent international arrest warrants for alleged war crimes so Israeli officials can travel. Heavy stuff.
Summary: One sided debate about possible war crimes.
Background: Ofcom has previously fined the channel for bias.
Decision: Breaches of Rule 5.5 (due impartiality).
Action: “Invited” to a meeting to discuss improvements.
Note: Ofcom has not legal powers to order someone to attend a meeting or undergo training.
Muslimah Dilemma on the Islam Channel (12 April 2009)
This decision was the result of another appeal, against a decision published 8 Nov 2010.
The shows was a discussion programme considering topical issues from an Islamic perspective. This particular edition discussed sexual relations within marriage in the context of new legislation introduced in Afghanistan. Ofcom asked for comments on the following statement by a studio guest: “the idea that a woman cannot refuse her husband‟s [sexual] relations – this is not strange to a Muslim because it is part of maintaining that strong marriage. In fact it is a bit strange, the converse is strange. To refuse relations would harm a marriage”. “But it shouldn't be such a big problem where the man feels he has to force himself upon the woman because the understanding should be created within the system through the implementation of all the laws of Islam, that inshAllah marriage is about seeking tranquillity, it's about harmony that should be in the mind of the man and woman alike”.
According to the Islam Channel, the new Afghan legislation was “seen [in the western media] to be condoning rape within marriage, however, according to the Afghan guest on the programme, the law was not seen like that in Afghanistan. The show then discussed why it had been interpreted in that way”.
The Islam Channel said that it is clearly mentioned that the implementation and understanding of the Islamic laws should result in the man not “forcing himself upon the woman”. The broadcaster represented that when asked directly whether this is condoning rape within marriage, The guest did not agree that it does, and that she went on to say that “marriage is about tranquillity”.
Ofcom originally decided that the statement “it shouldn’t be such a big problem where the man has to force himself upon the woman”, when interpreted to have its literal and most straightforward meaning together with the statement that “…the idea that a woman cannot refuse her husband’s relations this is not strange to a Muslim because it is part of maintaining that strong marriage” could be construed as the interpretation of the studio guest that Islamic law does not allow a wife to refuse to have sexual relations with her husband.
The Offence Decision found that the views expressed in the programme might have suggested to many in the audience that it would be permissible for a husband to oblige his wife to have sexual relations against her will, which had the potential to cause offence.
The channel appealed claiming that the studio guests meaning had been misinterpreted.
The channel also complained that the program had not been broadcast for over a year.
In representations the channel said it did not condone or encourage marital rape.
In the broadcast the guest said that seeing this as rape in marriage was a western view and said that “the Qu‟ran that says live with them [women] on a footing of kindness and justice”.
Ofcoms decision hinged on interpretation of “it shouldn’t be such a big problem where the man feels he has to force himself upon the woman”. Ofcom originally decided it was potentially harmful and offensive.
Decision: Upheld Breach of Rule 2.3 – Potentially harmful and offensive.
Action: None listed.
Torchwood broadcast on Watch twice at 4pm
Contained offensive language and violent content in the afternoon.
One use of f-cking, 15 uses of milder language (sh1t, bo11ocks, p1ssed), and a brief mid range scene where a neck was bitten open causing a considerable amount of blood to spray from the wound. The scene then cut between blood splattered mid-shots and close-ups of the manic attacker as he stabbed the man several times in the stomach (but not showing any shots of the point of impact), the face of the victim as he fell to the ground and the reaction of the victim‟s family.
Watch accepted the scenes should not have been broadcast. It pulled the entire series while shows were reviewed. It identified other potentially problematic shows from the same supplier and marked them for review but said the process would take weeks and during this period there was a risk of repeated failure.
Ofcom was concerned about the risk of repeated failure.
What tough action did Ofcom take? They pointed out their guidance and said they “did not expect a recurrence”.
Decision: Breach of rules.
Action: Pointed out guidelines. Nothing else.
The Exorcist on Gem TV at 6:30pm and 11:30am.
Ofcom rules prevent cert 18 films being broadcast before 9pm. (Except on subscription channels – apparently money makes it OK).
The channel accepted it had made a scheduling mistake. It is not clear if this means the broadcast was a one off mistake, or they mean that in hindsight they realise it was wrong. In mitigation they said they were working on Iranian time, but Ofcom pointed out that even allowing for that the broadcast was still before 9pm (3hr30 time difference) and that the channel could be received in the UK.
Decision: Breach of rule 1.23
Action: Warned that a repeat is likely to result in a statutory sanction.
The content was clearly grossly unsuitable for broadcast when young children could be watching.
It is not clear if this was a one off or typical program content.
If an adult channel did something similar it might go straight to sanction, or at the very least to extended monitoring by Ofcom.
Big Brother on Channel 5 two shows at 9pm
These episodes had clips of notable events from the previous week. 18 and 31 seconds into one of the episodes the words “f/ck” and “f/cking” were broadcast.
Channel 5 stood up for itself and said that Rule 1.6 does not “prohibit an "abrupt‟ transition to more adult content nor does it specify…that strong language should not be included in programmes until a certain set time - for example, 9.05 or 9.10pm.”
They also said Ofcoms own research said there were mixed views on the use of these words, and that they were not considered the most offensive particularly when used post watershed.
Ofcom noted that the shows were prerecorded, unlike most episodes of Big Brother.
In a chilling ruling, Ofcom said a broadcaster would need very strong reasons to justify starting to broadcast the most offensive language in the period immediately after the 21:00 watershed.
Then they looked at audience research. The Gadget Show was broadcast before and had just 82,000 and 55,000 4-5 year olds watching on the two dates. However when BB came on the number of children watching INCREASED to 155,000 and 168,000 respectively.
Ofcom felt this meant Channel 5 should have taken account of the number of young children watching.
HANG ON!
The number of very young children watching INCREASED when the shows started.
Their parents specifically changed channel and turned into post watershed content WITH CHILDREN WATCHING.
Suddenly Ofcom are saying broadcasters must take account of children watching and the transition from child popular pre watershed shows to post watershed adult shows EVEN WHEN neither condition was true – the pre watershed show had a small child audience and was not child popular.
Decision: Beach of rule 1.6
Action: Telling off.
****Babes – Red Light 1 and 2 on 4 occasions
Shows at 9:03-9:35pm, 10:32-11:00pm, 10:55-11:05pm, midnight to 1am
“The female presenters dress and behave in a sexually provocative way while encouraging viewers to contact the PRS numbers.”
More on this later, but a few brief points.
Playboy made a good stab at disputing that it had broken rules, and tried to explain Ofcoms own rules to Ofcom. Ofcom didnt listen.
“this material was broadcast on a channel without mandatory restricted access in the period immediately after the 21:00 watershed, when some children may have been available to view, some unaccompanied by an adult”
Really? What would any child be doing watching Red Light before 9pm?
Decision: The shows broke various rules. Surprise.
Action: Put on notice that further contraventions will be considered for sanctions (fines or loss of licence).
Clearly showing a bit a female anatomy is hugely dangerous and must be prevented, so the threat of regulatory action is entirely justified, unlike apparently condoning martial rape, potentially inviting dangerous retaliation against Israelis and Palestinian Authority staff through one sided debate about hugely controversial military action, and apparent incitement to commit violence as in the last item below.
Debate Night on the Ummah Channel
Barelvi Muslims believe that the the Islamic Holiday of Eid should have started on a different day to the one declared by authorities in Saudi Arabia.
17 people complained, some claiming that the show “incited hatred”.
The wording quoted is quite offensive and repeating it hear would only extend that offence without adding anything useful. Particular exception was taken to the phrase “If you see wrongdoing going on, then stop it physically” and “damaging and destroying the worship done” and “If you cannot do so with your hands or tongue then at least condemn them”.
Ofcom investigated whether this apparent call for physical intervention might encourage or incite crime.
In mitigation the channel said the content was only a small part of nine hours of debate over 3 days, and were made “in the heat of the debate [and] were not intended to be interpreted literally”. There were 4 panellists and one presenter, the comments came from only one of the panellists. A letter of apology from the scholar who made the remarks was forwarded (to Ofcom? Or the complainants? It is not clear), and the scholar said his intention had been “to try and create unity in celebrating Eid”.
The scholar had been suspended from further shows.
An apology was broadcast 2 days later.
The channel would be appointing an external compliance consultant.
Ofcom noted that during the programme, there were a number of statements made by an Islamic scholar, and by viewers who contacted the programme by telephone, which were derogatory and abusive about non-Barelvi Muslims in Saudi Arabia, and those who follow that tradition of Islam within the UK
Ofcom welcomed the extra measures put in place, and noted that this was not as serious a breach as a previous one (Broadcast Bulletin 167) but were concerned that there had been a second breach. Further breaches might be considered for sanctions.
Decision: Breach of rule 4.2 but not 3.1
Action: Warned that further breaches might result in a sanction.
This is serious stuff. Substitute any one of Catholic/Protestant/Jewish for the above religious groups and there would be widespread uproar. Its as if a TV show in Northern Ireland told Catholics or Protestants to “physically” stop the other communities “wrong” religious practices. A small number of misguided viewers might misunderstand things said in the heat of the moment and commit violent acts.
Better compliance measures and an apology 2 days later help mitigate the seriousness, but Ofcom don’t take much notice when Babe channels tighten their procedures and apologise.