Ofcom - Current Investigations

(15-07-2011 17:53 )IanG Wrote:  OFCOM claim that PIN protection doesn't work to protect the under eighteens from adult material. They then proceed to demand mandatory PIN protection on everything from 12 rated movies before 8pm to broadcasting softcore shite on so-called 'adult channels' after midnight.

I know I'm only echoing your thoughts here, Ian, but I think it's worth highlighting because I believe this alone proves their utter incompetence... if any more examples were at all necessary.

(15-07-2011 18:42 )StanTheMan Wrote:  

(15-07-2011 17:53 )IanG Wrote:  OFCOM claim that PIN protection doesn't work to protect the under eighteens from adult material. They then proceed to demand mandatory PIN protection on everything from 12 rated movies before 8pm to broadcasting softcore shite on so-called 'adult channels' after midnight.

I know I'm only echoing your thoughts here, Ian, but I think it's worth highlighting because I believe this alone proves their utter incompetence... if any more examples were at all necessary.

The competence of the people posting in this thread is also in question.
The recent posts have nothing to do with the Current investigations.

Why don't you use one of the other ofcom threads, and leave this one for new info about current investigations?

TheWatcher.. that's a fair comment. I hold my hands up - guilty!

(Although i was just responding to another's comments in my defence!)

(15-07-2011 18:49 )TheWatcher Wrote:  The recent posts have nothing to do with the Current investigations.

I blame Ofcom.

With a fine of £90,000 issued against Satellite Entertainment Limited on the 24th June 2011 for not providing recordings against nine broadcasts, the regulator has struck again.
Ten more investigations against the licensee for channels 967 Sport XXX Girls, 954 Essex Babes and 955 Northern Birds have been concluded and ALL found 'In Breach'.

Office Girls, SportXXX Girls, 5 April 2011, 22:00: Breach of BCAP Rule 4.2 & Licence Condition 11.
40+ Readers Wives, Essex Babes, 5 April 2011, 22:00 to 23:00: Breach of BCAP Rule 4.2 & Licence Condition 11.
Office Girls, Sport XXX Girls, 6 April 2011, 22:00 to 23:00: Breach of BCAP Rule 4.2 & Licence Condition 11.
40+ Readers Wives, Essex Babes, 7 April 2010, 22:00 to 23:00: Breach of BCAP Rule 4.2 & Licence Condition 11.
Sport XXX1, Northern Birds, 8 April 2011, 22:00 to 00:00: Breach of BCAP Rule 4.2 & Licence Condition 11.
Sport XXX1, Northern Birds, 10 April 2011, 22:00 to 00:00: Breach of BCAP Rule 4.2 & Licence Condition 11.
Office Girls, SportXXX Girls, 10 April 2011, 21:00 to 22:00: Breach of BCAP Rules 4.2 & 32.3 & Licence Condition 11.
40+ Readers Wives, Essex Babes, 10 April 2011, 22:00 to 23:00: Breach of BCAP Rule 4.2 & Licence Condition 11.
Office Girls, SportXXX Girls, 13 April 2011, 21:00 to 22:00: Breach of BCAP Rules 4.2 & 32.3 & Licence Condition 11.
Office Girls, Sport XXX Girls, 14 April 2011, 00:00 to 01:00: Breach of BCAP Rule 4.2 & Licence Condition 11.

Rule 4.2 of the BCAP Code provides that:
“Advertisements must not cause serious or widespread offence against generally accepted moral, social or cultural standards.”

Rule 32.3 of the BCAP Code states:
“Relevant timing restrictions must be applied to advertisements that, through their content, might harm or distress children of particular ages or that are otherwise unsuitable for them.”

Licence condition 11 requires that copies of broadcasts must be retained for 60 days and provided upon request.

Ofc@m has stated that it will not tolerate serious and/or repeated breaches of the BCAP Code in this area by services operating in the sector of daytime and adult chat and will not hesitate to take robust enforcement action where necessary. In the breach finding against SEL published in Broadcast Bulletin 185, Ofc@m warned SEL that we would not expect further breaches of the BCAP Code to occur again. In light of the serious and repeated Code breaches recorded in this finding SEL is put on notice that these present contraventions of the BCAP Code are being considered by Ofc@m for statutory sanction.

Having already issued a financial penalty of £90,000 as recently as June then i can only assume that either a further, more substantial penalty will be issued or revocation of all licenses.
My money is on revocation and the reason i say this is that SEL did not respond to Ofc@m in defending the content of the shows allowing the regulator to make all sorts of ill judged and biased comments. Ofc@m do not like or tolerate licensee's who do not cooperate with their investigations.

Ofc@m have firmly made SEL responsible for content compliance this time following SEL's previous defence that they were let down by a third party.

It is not known who made the complaints but the way Ofc@m have stated this leads ne to believe it is from a rival broadcaster.

Ofc@m received a number of complaints about the content listed above. The complainants were concerned about the level of sexual content which they considered was capable of causing offence.

So the complainants were not offended but stated what the BCAP code says about capable of causing offence.

Latest Bulletin
http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binarie...obb186.pdf

Previous 'In Breach' finding.
http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binarie...inment.pdf

You will also notice that the Broadcast Bulletin now contains more information concerning Ofc@m's current investigations list as well as a list of complaints received but with no further action.

Elite TV are mentioned in both the Complaints Assessed, not Investigated list as well as the Other Programmes Not in Breach, is this due to the tameness of their shows or a more robust defence being put to the regulator.

id say the former since jamie said he'd tamed the shows to comply with ofcom

(19-07-2011 00:08 )Gold Plated Pension Wrote:  Elite TV are mentioned in both the Complaints Assessed, not Investigated list as well as the Other Programmes Not in Breach, is this due to the tameness of their shows or a more robust defence being put to the regulator.

(19-07-2011 00:19 )Rammyrascal Wrote:  id say the former since jamie said he'd tamed the shows to comply with ofcom

I'd say both, plus perhaps better negotiation between Elite and Ofcom. Maybe something along the lines of: 'work with us here, we're clearly putting in the measures and it has already reduced the number and severity of the breaches. We are trying to relearn our habits within the guidelines, unlike other channels before now. Plus we have taken disciplinary actions against employees who have overstepped those guidelines on occasion. If you punish us for these smaller breaches, then you dont effectively encourage any channel to adapt.'

Its not hopeful for our taste to push boundaries, but probably working. I have no basis for my guess here, just experience of the way people work in bureaucracy, lol.

Ofcon are certainly pulling out all the stops to impress their paymasters.

(19-07-2011 17:32 )blackjaques Wrote:  Ofcon are certainly pulling out all the stops to impress their paymasters.

Id be more impressed if the concentrated their efforts on the decline of kids TV, the almost total absence of anything worth watching on ITV, the dull "worthy" drama on the BBC, ITV dropping regional programming, and the dominance of US imports on almost every other channel.

And offence caused by programmes with millions of viewers who complain in their hundreds.

(21-07-2011 03:38 )eccles Wrote:  

(19-07-2011 17:32 )blackjaques Wrote:  Ofcon are certainly pulling out all the stops to impress their paymasters.

Id be more impressed if the concentrated their efforts on the decline of kids TV, the almost total absence of anything worth watching on ITV, the dull "worthy" drama on the BBC, ITV dropping regional programming, and the dominance of US imports on almost every other channel.

And offence caused by programmes with millions of viewers who complain in their hundreds.

Well said. Seem to be concentrating on the soft targets rather than dealing with the major issues.