egafd.com

It's a broadcasting code of practice, not a statute. (I think).

The Ofcon Code has never been laid before Parliament and therefore is not law and can only be used as a guide and (this is the important bit) should comply to current legislation.

As an example:

The Department of Culture Media and Sport state that "In order to encourage free movement of broadcasts, all broadcasting must comply with the European Directive, "Television Without Frontiers" or TVWF. Broadcasting matters covered by the Directive include sports rights, right of reply, advertising, sponsorship and protection of minors." The key word there is MUST. All broadcasting MUST be compatible with the TVWF Directive.

So if we look at Article 22:

1. Member States shall take appropriate measures to ensure that television broadcasts by broadcasters under their jurisdiction do not include any programmes which might seriously impair the physical, mental or moral development of minors, in particular programmes that involve pornography or gratuitous violence.

2. The measures provided for in paragraph 1 shall also extend to other programmes which are likely to impair the physical, mental or moral development of minors, except where it is ensured, by selecting the time of the broadcast or by any technical measure, that minors in the area of transmission will not normally hear or see such broadcasts.

3. Furthermore, when such programmes are broadcast in unencoded form Member States shall ensure that they are preceded by an acoustic warning or are identified by the presence of a visual symbol throughout their duration.

So by explicit instruction from the DCMS, the above, from the TVWF Directive, must comply with the Broadcast Code and current Broadcast Legislation.


Article 22(1) From the Ofcon Code, R18 strength pornography has been banned by the code.

Now the High Court said this was not obscene and not likely to seriously impair the moral or psychological development of minors. That is the current legal position, it is now a matter of Case Law and legal precedent made at a Judicial Review. And then subsequently ignored by the Ofcon Code.

Article 22(2) extending to 22(1), says that programmes that are `only` likely to impair minors, can be transmitted at an appropriate time when minors are unlikely to be viewing OR, where technical measures prevent likely access.

The PIN system is deemed effective in allowing violent films to go out at times of the day when children ARE likely to be viewing but, deemed totally ineffective for late night broadcasting of R18 type material when minors are NOT likely to be viewing. Now `porn` and `violence` are not allowed to appear together at R18, and the BBFC enforce that rule with truly religious passion. So exactly what did the Ofcom Content Board Members find so `strong`that in their opinion R18 was more harmful to minors than either the BBFC allow or, the High Court could find evidence for?

22(2) actually states that if there is only a likelihood that children could be impaired by certain material, but not `seriously` then, the transmission can go ahead at an appropriate time or at any time where technical measures permit pre-watershed broadcast. For a decision to ban R18 to be legal, it has to be accompanied by proof that there is a likelihood of `serious` impairment, which currently, simply does not exist.


Now we take a look at Article 2:

Article 2(3) At the same time, TVWF requires member states do not restrict the retransmission of TV programming originating in other EU states as long as it meets TVWF rules. ... In this way the TVWF creates a single market in the EU TV industry. So, as none of the foreign adult services (bar one) have been proscribed since 2000, we must assume that these services do indeed comply with the TVWF rules else the DCMS would have acted to proscribe them, as they did with Xtasi.

It follows then that Ofcon cannot have applied the TVWF rules correctly and indeed have created an isolated market actively excluding `EU strength` adult channels being carried by domestic cable and satellite services. This quite obviously goes against the stated objectives of TVWF to create a single market and, affects those `fundamental public interests` such as Freedom of Expression with regard to TV broadcasting.

In other words the Ofcon Code is not worth the paper it is written on.

i work on the house of fun 949 all i can say is its a joke, all the girls r 2 scared to moved as there to happy to dish out the fines! its not as if we r doing freeview b,g on there.
ofcom r making out jobs harder and harder, sky tv wil not let us do the red button with a pin as they have said if we got pulled of the air they can sell 949 on!!!! (as with the others) i 4 one am getting pis*ed off with this i dont c the problem all the girls ask callers (if they sound young) there date of birth and if we dont belive them they get cut off! there is nothing more we can do to make sure underagers r calling!