BACVA

Ofcom not to investigate This Morning's sex-themed week

2010-03-16T17:30:00.003Z

Yet more inconsistency from Ofcom. Despite a number of complaints (the exact number of which will be released by Ofcom tomorrow) regarding the content and timing of the show, Ofcom say they will not be investigating the programme.
The show featured elderly clothed models performing a variety of sexual positions, including the 'spoon', and a clothed younger couple performing more complex positions.
The show went out between 10:30am and 12:30pm and was watched by just under 1.2m (22%).
So let's consider the facts and their relation to the babeshows. A handful of people (maybe as few as 2 or 3) complain to Ofcom about Bangbabes - an adult channel, in the adult section of Sky's EPG which goes out after the watershed - and Ofcom launch an attack to such a degree that the owners Bang Media have now recieved a formal order to promise that they'll tone down content. This Morning - which goes out, well, during the morning - gets several complaints (and you can bet your botom dollar it's more than a handful) about content and the timing of the show and Ofcom do nothing.

Pressure on Bang Media to 'tone down' increases

2010-03-15T14:04:00.006Z

The pressure on Bang Babes is mounting. Today Ofcom issued a formal direction notice - they're concerned that the Bang channels are continuing to transmit material to the same level of raunchiness as that
which resulted in previous adverse judgements.
Unless Bang confirm in writing by 3.30pm today that
they will stop being naughty, Ofcom will impose statutory sanctions, including possible revocation of their licences.

Bang certainly haven't tamed their output much since recent Ofcom bollockings so I wonder if something else is going on? Are Bang pushing things to the brink deliberately?
Ofcom Formal Direction

Are Ofcom Prejudice?

2010-03-14T15:48:00.004Z

Let us look at why Ofcom's stance on these channels is so wrong by first posing a question: Why do they (Ofcom) insist on treating them differently, expecting them to conform to the various rules and regulations for normal tv, whilst imposing fines and sanctions on them for material that
is not even as strong as you can find elsewhere on the Sky platform?

The absurdity of the situation was there for all to see on Friday night. At around midnight, there were 6 soft porn films concurrently running amongst the 320 channels on Sky Movies. Between them the various films showed full frontal nudity, scenes of sex between male and female and female and female, and scenes of simulated oral sex that were not brief in nature.

These films are quite obviously made for the purpose of sexual arousal and yet if any of the babe channels had shown ful frontal nudity for any length of time - over the same period as these other films were airing similar content, they would have been facing a large fine. This is despite being contained in an adult section which clearly sends the message, "we show scenes of sexual activity designed for sexual arousal" as opposed to the message, "we show films" and therefore become that much easier to avoid for anyone who finds such material offensive.

The first thing that struck me about this was that there is quite obviously a large market for this kind of stuff. The various movie channels are obviously not afraid of their advertisers being put off by the kind of films being shown at that time of night.

The second thing that struck me yet again was just how absurd the situation actually is. We are at a stage where one of the channels is currently facing the prospect of tougher sanctions for showing various scenes that are exceeded frequently by the movie channels. Every single argument that Ofcom uses against the babe channels falls flat on its face whilst such contradictory and biased action is allowed to continue. The whole 'minors may be watching', 'harm and offence' and 'justified by context' become completely redundant.

So, Ofcom would seem to face a choice. Either they employ the same draconian measures they do for the babe channels to every channel across the board, or they allow the babe channels to operate on a level playing field.

And as I've said before, they are not stupid enough to consider the first option, knowing full well that would be likely to inflame far more people about the imposition of censorship on them than Ofcom care to deal with. Once that happens, and Ofcom will be fully aware of this, their comfortable gravy train will grind to a shuddering halt.

One has to wonder why these channel continue to accept such blatant prejudices.

What if...

2010-03-12T01:32:00.007Z

Why hasn't Bang Media denied Ofcom's claim that BM were allowing under 18s access to hardcore material on their website? It's odd I think.
Maybe there's
an explanation? If Ofcom deem the 'in-breach' broadcast material to be R18 eqivalent then, by virtue of the live TV stream on the website, Ofcom can also claim this to be a source of child exposure (if it wasn't after midnight then maybe but...).

However, Ofcom also have research that shows 11-17 year olds claim to know their parents' creditcard numbers (so they can buy PPV porn of course). Ofcom probably believe a creditcard subscription isn't a guranteeed means to prevent under age access. That's stretching the bounds a bit. I mean I usually check my creditcard bill - make sure there's no signs of ID theft and cyberthieves nicking yer credit - "Err, what's that?"

It still smells like week old kippers to me.

Unqualified and Untruthful. Ofcom are unfit to regulate themselves let alone TV

2010-03-10T18:15:00.004Z

Ofcom have done it again. Despite my previous post on this matter, in the latest Bulletin Ofcom persist in claiming that the Bagbabes website
(http://www.bangbabes.tv/) has/had "R18-equivalent" material available for persons under 18 to freely view. This is quite simply UNTRUE.

Ofcom are neither qualified nor legally empowered to make such judgements or place (even tentative) ratings on material. The published BBFC guidelines on what constitutes R18 material are clear and concise - i.e. R18 is "strong sexual material" featuring "real and explicit sexual acts" for the purpose of sexual arousal.

Anyone who knows the Babgbabes website will be in no doubt whatsoever that R18-equivalent material is simply not available to anyone without a creditcard (and hence age-verified) monthly subscription.

Ofcom have either NOT visitied the site as they claim or, are making FALSE claims based on a complete misunderstanding and/or ignorance of the BBFC's published guidelines. Either way Ofcom are committing FRAUD by deceit or negligence. Moreover, Ofcom COULD seek the expert opinion of BBFC examiners themselves as the BBFC run a voluntary website rating scheme, BBFC.online. Indeed, it seems more than reasonable to suggest at least one member of the Ofcom Content Board should be an experienced BBFC examiner to help the unqualified and inexperienced members of the Content Board understand a) BBFC ratings and b) the attutidues of the vieweing public - as ALL BBFC guidelines are based on regular public consultations.

I conclude that Ofcom are assuming powers they do not have and are acting dishonestly or fruadulently - i.e. illegally!

Bangbabes Feel Ofcom's Wrath Once Again

2010-03-08T12:18:00.005Z

Ofcom's latest bulletin (see link in sidebar) singles out Bangbabes and is almost novel-length, and yet manages to trot out the same old bollcoks and lies.

Discuss.

What is Obscene?

2010-03-05T17:37:00.013Z

There are some things I do not want to see on British television at any time regardless of who the audience is. Ofcom Broadcast
Bulletin 152 (see link in sidebar) found several shows in breach:
ARY Digital:

"a contestant came on stage with a live snake and proceeded to bite the live snake's head off, and then skin the snake with his hands and teeth while continuing to eat it"

This from a talent show on 3 December 2009 at 11am when children could have been watching. This was a repeat of a show broadcast at 10pm the previous evening - not a one off.

Tease Me TV accidentally broadcast one sexually explicit phone call at 5am on 3 November 2009. The broadcaster accepted there had been a mistake and said 'the language had been picked up by a "distant microphone" by accident. In addition, whilst acknowledging the language was audible, the broadcaster said "it would have been apparent only to a viewer who was listening intently with their television at high volume".'

One of these channels has been warned that it may face a statutory sanction - a fine or even being closed down. The other has not.

Ask yourself which of these is more offensive in any sane and rational society. Multilation of live animals particularly when children could be wartching, or bedroom language late at night on a channel clearly labebelled as having adult content? Which activity is strictly illegal in the UK - causing suffering to animals or rude language?

Now turn your answer on it's head - Ofcom being obsessed with sex instead of protecting children has threatened Tease Me TV with a sanction.

Are these fit and proper people to be controlling UK broadcasting?

Bogus Claim by Ofcom?

2010-02-26T04:38:00.007Z

In bulletin 152, and regarding the promotion of the Bangbabes website, Ofcom said:

In addition, after viewing the content complained of Ofcom noted that
during all three broadcasts the website 'www.bangbabes.tv' was promoted. When accessed by Ofcom this website featured images of a strong sexual nature equivalent to BBFC R18-rated material ("R18-rated equivalent material") which could be readily viewed without appropriate protections. Although this R18-rated equivalent material was not broadcast on-air, Ofcom was concerned that it appeared on a website being promoted on Ofcom licensed services freely available without mandatory restricted access from 21:00.

This is simply untrue. The Bangbabes website does not contain any R18 material outside of the membership area. Membership to these websites requires the user to submit their credit card details, thus verifying their age.

Furthermore, the BBFC already have online content covered in a voluntary scheme (BBFC Online) that likely excludes Ofcom applying any UNPUBLISHED guidelines they might be applying, in reaching their bogus classification anouncements.

Explicit softcore where the sex is not real or not shown in graphic detail fall under 18 'sex works'. Cut R18 also falls into this category.

Only strong, explicit, genuine sex rates as R18 - and there is none of that available for free without adult verification by means of a credit card subscription on any of the babe channel websites.

Viewer Expectation Poll

2010-02-26T03:08:00.007Z

In a recent bulletin, Ofcom claimed that

The material shown was so strongly sexual that it would have exceeded the likely expectation of the
vast majority of the audience

One wonders where this evidence came from, but a poll conducted at babeshows.co.uk suggests otherwise, with a tiny 1% saying that the material exceeds their expectaions, and a not much bigger 6% claiming their expectaions are often met.

What would we expect from a poll in which all the voters are adult channel watchers, I hear you ask. But look again at Ofcom's claim

... the vast majority of the AUDIENCE"

And surley it is precisley the audience who should be asked?

Ofcom Hypocrisy

2010-02-23T03:07:00.003Z

If Ofcom said to you, as they did to BangBabes in Bulletin 120 that, "close-up breast fondling, over-knicker pussy rubbing and inside-knicker
'simulated masturbation' should not be broadcast before 22:00", wouldn't you take it as read this would be fine after 22:00? Indeed, taken 'as a whole', you might even interpret it to mean no 'sexualised action' before 22:00?

What really strikes me as very odd indeed is that there's no appeals process against what are ostensibly arbitrary rules in Ofcom's guidelines/Code. The Code is not law, it's not been round the Houses of Parliament, it's not been declared compatible with the HRA and it sure as hell hasn't been granated Royal Assent - it's not even a Statutory Instrument. It is simply a set of guidelines laid down without proper legal and Democratic scrutiny and, as such, there should be a completely independant body to deal with appeals against Ofcom's rulings. Failling this, the only recourse to the law a broadcaster has is to take it to court and let the letter and precedents of the law decide if an unelected, unaccountable bunch of cretins can act as legislator, judge and jury with out evidence to back up their position (and we all know how the BBFC faired in the same circumstances).

One complainant does not represent widespread harm and offence, indeed, unless thousands complain to Ofcom about something there is no evidence any real and substantial harm or offence is being done or even being perceived to be done.

And Ofcom's hypocrisy is self-evident. Of the dozens of hardcore channels available in the UK via non-$ky satellite systems, Ofcom have proscribed (banned) just one in the last 5 years, despite the fact these systems have no mandatory PIN protections and children under 18 could easily access them. Moreover, Ofcom received over 30,000 complaints re the BBC airing Jerry Springer:The opera and did nothing, nada, zip, ziltch. Yet they get ONE complaint from some over-sensitive desexualised cretin and launch a full frontal attack on programmes many tens of thounds of people are quite happy with. It's not Democratic, balanced or remotely right. Indeed, it is discriminatory and likely illegal sexual discrimination on the grounds of our orientation toward open acceptance of sexually explicit material in favour of those who wish to restrict and control our enjoyment of life - there's a reason many of us are angered by Ofcom's actions, and this is it! Our rights are being ignored and abused!