Ofcom Discussion

Ofcom's latest broadcast bulletin is out today, issue number 224 and dated 18/02/2013 .
Just had a quick look for anything concerning the babe channel and there is .
Studio 66 has been found in breach again on two separate occasions (found in breach twice in the previous bulletin),
Studio 66 was found in breach for content broadcast on the 10th of October between the hours of 21:00 to 21:30 , they were found in breach for showing topless uncensored full screen adverts for pic/vid downloads etc, Ofcom once again downloaded these vid/pics and discovered Studio 66 were still sending R18 material to viewers mobile phone .

Studio 66 were also found in breach for material broadcast on the 25th of October 2012 between the hours of 21:00 to 21:30, this was something to do with the sexual positions a girl was taking up and flashing her boobs etc to soon after the watershed, and once again for advertising explicit pic/vid downloads, Ofcom once again downloaded the pic/vids and found Studio 66 were still sending R18 vid/pics to viewers mobile phones .
Ofcom have said they have put the licencee on notice that they are minded to consider a statutory sanction if there is any recurrence of this or similar compliance failings .

The only other thing i could find concerning the babe channels was that Chat Girl has once again had more complaints made about them, four separate complaints in total but Ofcom thought the complaints weren't worth investigated .

(18-02-2013 14:57 )mr mystery Wrote:  Ofcom's latest broadcast bulletin is out today, issue number 224 and dated 18/02/2013 .
Just had a quick look for anything concerning the babe channel and there is .
Studio 66 has been found in breach again on two separate occasions (found in breach twice in the previous bulletin),
...

For those interested here's the link to the bulletin :

http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binarie...obb224.pdf

As with last month, S66 has been found in breach on both occasions for the videos/pictures-by-text service. Ofcom has over-ruled their argument that to receive these vids/pics the phone must be age verified and so they are within regulations.
S66 has also pleaded that the vids/pics downloaded were not intended for that service, but were only meant to be available via the website. They are trying to say that less graphic material was supposed to be supplied instead despite the manner of their advertisements :

Quote:“EXPLICIT XXX PICS! TOO HOT FOR TV TEXT HOT to 899**”
“HARDCORE VIDS TXT HARD TO 899**”

In other words, their case rests on the argument that they were actually supposed to be blatantly false advertising softcore vids/pics as hardcore

So, don't bother wasting your 3 bucks from now on as your 'hardcore' vids will be anything but, and the 'explicit' pics will be page3 standard!

Be interesting to see if Ofcom go after the other broadcasters for this as well, particularly babestation, who seem to have made the vids and pics a fundamental part of their business model and revenue stream, and could be hard hit if they have to modify this service.

It's been well documented that ofcom don't have the power or the authority to take on Babestation. Remember they tried last year and failed spectacularly. For all ofcom concerned it was a major embarrassment

First time ever that ofcom were put to the sword. Babestation is protected by it's Dutch licence and nicam (Dutch Censor) have already stated that they are well aware of what is broadcast whether it be content or hard picture selling.

It's also been rumoured that Studio66 have been something of an ofcom snitch in recent times. If that's the case then they deserve everything that comes their way

I might be wrong on this but from what i understand it's OK for channels to advertise on TV and send viewers full frontal pic/vids, but they cannot advertise on TV pics/vids that you can download to you're mobile phone that would be classed as R18 material, Studio 66 seem to have been continuing to over step the mark and have been advertising on TV R18 vids/pics (but not showing the R18 version on TV) downloads and have been sending these explicit R18 style vids/pics to peoples Mobile phone including Ofcom's lol .

BS is regulated by NICAM on some channels but not all, so Ofcom could still check to see if BS are advertising and sending R18 material pic/vid downloads on the Ofcom regulated channels, my own experience of BS pic/vids from a few years ago before i was on the internet was that they didn't send R18 material, some were full frontal but others were just topless, i never received anything that could be deemed as R18 from any Cellcast channel .

(18-02-2013 17:39 )mr mystery Wrote:  I might be wrong on this but from what i understand it's OK for channels to advertise on TV and send viewers full frontal pic/vids, but they cannot advertise on TV pics/vids that you can download to you're mobile phone that would be classed as R18 material,
...

It looks suspiciously like one of those grey areas to me.
Reading the Ofcom bulletin, it refers to material being “within the recognised character of pornography”. They then state regarding the S66 stuff :

Quote:In Ofcom’s opinion, this explicit sexual material was clearly equivalent to ‘adult sex material’ or stronger content such as that which would be given a British Board of Film Classification (“BBFC”) R18 rating. Both R18 equivalent content and ‘adult sex material’ are clearly “within the recognised character of pornography”
(italics are my emphasis)

So the material would be in breach if it is either R18 or ‘adult sex material’ .

In the footnotes, they then give some clarity on what is ‘adult sex material’ :

Quote:See Rule 1.18 of the Ofcom Broadcasting Code, where ‘adult sex material’ is described as
“material that contains images and/or language of a strong sexual nature...for the primary
purpose of sexual arousal or stimulation”.

That leaves the field pretty open for interpretation
There are top shelf mags that pedal 'tasteful' nudity, i.e. no open leg or close-up stuff, but they are still be deemed pornography, so if the channels are sending nude pics/vids, Ofcom may claim that is ‘adult sex material’ which is “within the recognised character of pornography”. Or they may not, it is open to interpretation as they see fit.

Whatever the nature of the actual content though, the fact remains that S66 are advertising it as hardcore :

"2 Hard Core XXX vids"
"Hard XXX to 899**"
"HARDCORE VIDS TXT HARD TO 899**"

Hardcore to me implies R18 material, at the very least I would expect ‘adult sex material’, I certainly wouldn't be wanting anything less strong than that, so unless they change that wording, they could then be false advertising in my view.

(18-02-2013 12:44 )RCTV Wrote:  

(18-02-2013 12:32 )shankey! Wrote:  

(18-02-2013 11:59 )RCTV Wrote:  Why is Ed Richards being the one blamed when it is all committee based...

i would have thought that any final decisions were down to him as a whole,which is why he gets both barrels

No, it's all committee decided, he just happens to be the chair at this time.

Captain of the ship sets the direction.

As has been mentioned before, the BBFC regularly changed the tone of its decisions depending on who was in charge at the time. That was also supposedly run by committee. Why would you believe that Ofcom are any different?

(18-02-2013 12:44 )RCTV Wrote:  

(18-02-2013 12:32 )shankey! Wrote:  

(18-02-2013 11:59 )RCTV Wrote:  Why is Ed Richards being the one blamed when it is all committee based...

i would have thought that any final decisions were down to him as a whole,which is why he gets both barrels

No, it's all committee decided, he just happens to be the chair at this time.

The Content Committee are ALL on temporary contracts. Those contracts get extended from time to time. Less senior adminstrative staff might or might not be on temporary contracts, likewise department heads.

Unlike proper Courts where there is a very well established principle that Judges are appointed on a permanent basis and do not have to worry about contract renewal.

I've worked for ofcom and been on the committee, so I know exactly how it works.

They chair the committee, but all final decisions are decided as a committee, and the chair purely chairs the meeting and has final say, but never known them go against the views of the committee.

(18-02-2013 17:39 )mr mystery Wrote:  I might be wrong on this but from what i understand it's OK for channels to advertise on TV and send viewers full frontal pic/vids, but they cannot advertise on TV pics/vids that you can download to you're mobile phone that would be classed as R18 material, Studio 66 seem to have been continuing to over step the mark and have been advertising on TV R18 vids/pics (but not showing the R18 version on TV) downloads and have been sending these explicit R18 style vids/pics to peoples Mobile phone including Ofcom's lol .

BS is regulated by NICAM on some channels but not all, so Ofcom could still check to see if BS are advertising and sending R18 material pic/vid downloads on the Ofcom regulated channels, my own experience of BS pic/vids from a few years ago before i was on the internet was that they didn't send R18 material, some were full frontal but others were just topless, i never received anything that could be deemed as R18 from any Cellcast channel .

As much as I have respect for NICAM, think they are better than Ofcom, I don't like the fact that ofcom can't overrule NICAM on something that is broadcast and filmed in the UK.

This was suggested to ofcom about a decade ago (it was fairly soon after setup), and various others since:

Anything filmed and broadcast in the UK should have a license in the UK and follow it's rules and be regulated by regulator.

Anything broadcast in the UK should follow regulations and regulator can overall the home countries licence.

Several interesting things in todays bulletin.

PSYCHIC
There are 3 rulings against psychic shows. Two channels hired a company called Peripatos to manage their compliance, and Peripatos has challenged Ofcom on several points. Unsuccessfully, but they have challenged them.

They “tried unsuccessfully to engage Ofcom in debate” regarding the application of the final form of [this] guidance" previously issued. Ofcom refused to discuss what the rules - sorry, guidance - meant while the investigation was ongoing. Ofcom contacted Square 1 on 25 July, almost 7 months ago, so for anything up to 7 months the regulator has refused to clarify what its rules mean, despite new material being broadcast daily. Is that good enough?

It is a well established broadcasting rule that psychics are not allowed to say they are genuine. Psychic call shows are for "entertainment only". This is to stop the feeble minded spending all their money on them, or making life changing decisions (dating, marriage, resigning from work, gambling life savings, getting checked for cancer).

But how far does that go? Does it cover a 20 year old showbiz anecdote? Ofcom says yes. Does it cover what the presenter says when a scrolling message clearly states "This is for entertainment only"? Ofcom says yes. (What happens when a babe looks under 18 but the text says "All 18+"?)

Peripatos claimed Ofcom was "moving the regulatory goalposts" by requiring onscreen warnings at specific times. I am not entirely sure I agree with them, but rule 15.5.2 says "both the advertisment and the product or service must state that the product or service is for entertaiment purposes only." It is not clear that this means a scolling text message - a lawyer might argue that program information and the name of the show would be sufficient.

Peripatos argued that previous rulings did not detail labelling and that guidance was not "clear and unambiguous".

In the third case a psychic stated they had worked with various police forces on cold cases. They did not claim to have solved them, been called in more than once, been paid or even been thanked. To a bear with a very small brain that does not sound like claiming accuracy.

Peripatos said: “We absolutely refute that in stating her [Crystal’s] services have been used by the police the psychic is even approaching making a claim of efficacy or accuracy. She is relating what is to all intents and purposes part of her background... [Crystal] clearly didn’t want to imply anything at all – which is why she drew that bit of the interview to a clear halt. She was acutely aware of the rules and made sure she did not contravene them...Ofcom does not know what police forces felt about the psychic’s service – or indeed how many used her.”

Peripatos argued: “For Ofcom to quote guidelines which are all-embracing by virtue of their ambiguity (and, of course, one cannot be held in breach of guidelines) and claim accuracy is “implied” leaves a situation whereby accuracy can effectively be implied in the very act of psychic reading per se.”

Peripatos added: “Cut-and-paste references to previous cases do not sensibly reflect or mirror the case under consideration but imply regular non-compliance, which is not a fair conclusion.”

It makes a change to see a channel putting forward a clear well reasoned defence and pointing out Ofcoms inadility to publish clear rules (even if they lost).

In general, the rules mean what Ofcom says they mean.

There is of course a terrible conflict of interest - the people intrpreting the rules will have been involved in writing or approving them. They work closely with the staff who prepare Preliminary Views, might even be their managers, and may be tempted to work in harmony rather than independently.

STUDIO 66
Two things leap out from the Studio 66 cases.

No channel can advertise explicit pics or clips for mobile phones.
None of them.
That will hurt the revenues of every channel.

This is despite it being common practice for years. How come Ofcom never noticed before?

Secondly Ofcom say it is not enough that "downloadable pornographic content could only have been received by a handset which was age-verified with the network operator" as Ofcom "were still able to access the explicit sexual content without being required to provide any proof of age and this would have also been the case had a person under the age of eighteen used an adult’s mobile phone".

It is not clear what kind of age verification would satisfy this deranged regulator. Phoning up and speaking to an operator? A child could be using a voice changer. Answering a lot of questions about things that happened a long time ago and how education is not as good as it used to be? Video conferencing so the porn channel can see the purchaser is an adult? But no, it could be a teenager with a ventiliquists dummy. Turning up in person at Ofcom HQ and getting a token? Even that would fail because it could be an adult doing it on behalf of a teen.

Clearly a credit card would not be good enough because "this would have also been the case had a person under the age of eighteen used an adult’s" credit card.

Expect to see encrypted channels stop showing adult-sex content next.

Third* there is the vexed question of what "recognised nature of pornography" means. This has been discussed elsewhere, but in the absence of clear guidance some viewers/censors/housewifes would take it to mean 3 different things - penetration/open leg/page 3.

The rules, regulations and judgements fall well below that standard expected of proper courts.

*I know I said 2 things