The State of the Easily Offended Nation…Annual Ofcom survey of being offended by what’s on telly

Read more Ofcom Watch at MelonFarmers.co.uk

See article [pdf] from stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk

Ofcom commissioned a public survey of 1830 UK viewers aged 16 and over. A similar survey is published each year so as to be able to track trends. Ofcom’s summary of results of relevant topics is as follows: Levels of offence on TV Less than a fifth of UK adults say they have been offended by something on TV in the previous 12 months a similar proportion to the previous year. Almost a fifth (18%) of respondents said they had been offended by something on TV in the previous 12 months, a similar proportion to the 2011 results.   Older respondents were more likely than younger people to say they had been offended (27% of over-65s compared to 13% among 16-34s).    As in the two previous years, among those offended, language (47%), violence (33%) and sexual content (32%) were the most common causes of offence. But among those offended, fewer people (10%) said they were offended by nakedness than in 2010 (14%) and 2011 (16%).   Among those who had been offended, four in ten (39%) agreed with the statement such things should only be shown when viewers are likely to expect them (e.g. after a clear warning), followed by 36% who agreed that others should be allowed to see these things , whereas 20% thought that it should not have been shown .   The main reaction on seeing something that caused offence was to switch channel (50%). Almost a quarter (22%) said they switched off, 15% continued watching the programme and 15% discussed it with others.   Audiences today are less likely than in 2008 to switch off when they see something that offends them (32% in 2008 vs 22% in 2012) and more likely to continue watching (5% in 2008 vs 15% in 2012). Attitudes towards sex, violence, swearing and harmful content on TV Opinions about the amount of sex, violence and offensive language on TV look to have shifted since 2005; with the proportion saying the amount is about right having steadily increased for each type of content, while the proportion stating too much has declined. The majority of respondents felt that current levels of sex (67%), violence (56%) and swearing (56%) on TV are about right . One in four (24%) felt there was too much sex and just over two in five felt there was too much violence (39%) and swearing (39%). This compares to 36% of adults saying there was too much sex on TV in 2005, with 56% for violence and 55% for swearing.   Older respondents were more likely than younger respondents to think levels were about right for each type of content.   16% of respondents said they had seen something on TV in the past 12 months that they thought was harmful, either to themselves, to other adults or children; a similar proportion as in 2011. Protection of children and the TV watershed Audiences today are more likely than in 2005 to think the 9pm watershed is at about the right time 50% of respondents felt it was the responsibility of both broadcasters and parents to make sure that children do not see unsuitable programmes. Just under half (45%) felt it was mainly parents responsibility and 4% mainly broadcasters .   Parents were more likely than those without childcare responsibility to feel it was the responsibility of both broadcasters and parents to ensure that children do not see unsuitable programmes (53% vs 48%), and less likely to say mainly parents (42% vs 46%).   Most (96%) were aware that broadcasters are required to show television programmes that are not suitable for children only after a certain time in the evening.   Audience today were more likely to think the 9pm watershed was at about the right time, with three-quarters (75%) of respondents saying so. This compares to 64% in 20052 . Internet Censorship Opinions that the amount of censorship for the internet is too little have increased since 2010. The majority of respondents (88%) thought TV programmes were censored, an increase from 85% in 2010. 74% felt that current levels of TV censorship were about right .   40% thought the internet was censored. Almost half (47%) felt that current levels of internet censorship were too little , (increasing to 54% among parents), 23% said about right and 28% said they didn’t know whether it was about right or not. Since 2010 the proportion of respondents who said they did not know has declined (from 38%).   Since 2010 opinions that the amount of censorship for the internet is too little have increased from 41% in 2010 to almost half (47%) of UK adults in 2012. This rises to more than half (53%) among parents.   73% of respondents were aware that it is possible to watch/download programmes online. Awareness declined with age (81% of 16-34s vs 53% of 65+) and parents’ awareness was higher than among those not responsible for children (80% vs 70%).   Among those aware that it is possible to watch/download programmes online, 55% thought that the content was censored and 10% thought that it was not. Awareness was higher among 16-34s (57%, compared to 50% of over-65s)

New Extension of PC Censorship…Ofcom whinge at jokey sponsorship advert immediately after rape scene in film

Read more Ofcom Watch at MelonFarmers.co.uk

See broadcast Bulletin 229 [pdf] from stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk

Phones 4U’s sponsorship of network films on Channel 4 Channel 4, 26 December 2012, 23:32 Phones 4U, an independent mobile phone retailer, sponsors drama and films on Channel 4, E4 and Film 4. A total of 17 complainants contacted Ofcom about a Phones 4U sponsorship credit broadcast on Channel 4 on 26 December 2012 during the film The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo . The complainants felt that the scheduling of the sponsorship credit was inappropriate and belittled the serious issues being dealt with in the film’s content. Ofcom viewed the sponsorship credit and noted that it started with a close-up shot of a woman’s face in bed with a man, apparently having sex. The woman paused and leaned towards the camera and said: I’m faking it, can I upgrade?   Immediately before the credit the film showed a prolonged attack and disturbing rape on a young woman, the film’s main character. This included a close-up of her face while she was screaming. The effect was to cut from the face of the screaming woman in the film’s rape scene to the face of the woman in bed in the sponsorship credit In addition, we noted that the next sponsorship credit, leading out of the same advertising break back into the film, continued the sexual theme and returned to the scene of the man and woman in bed used in the sponsorship credit described above. In this credit the man looked at the camera and said I’ve still got my pants on, can I upgrade? Ofcom considered Rule 9.17: Sponsorship must comply with both the content and scheduling rules that apply to television advertising. The UK Code of Broadcast Advertising ( the BCAP Code ) states in Section 4 that: Advertisements must not be harmful or offensive. Advertisements must take account of generally accepted standards to minimise the risk of causing harm or serious or widespread offence. The context in which an advertisement is likely to be broadcast must be taken into account to avoid unsuitable scheduling Rule 32.1 of the BCAP Code states that: Broadcasters must exercise responsible judgement on the scheduling of advertisements and operate internal systems capable of identifying and avoiding unsuitable juxtapositions between advertising material and programmes, especially those that could distress or offend viewers or listeners. Channel 4 said that after the broadcast it had issued an apology to viewers who had complained directly to Channel 4. The Licensee explained that there are 37 different Phones 4U sponsorship credits and those with a more adult nature are scheduled for post-21:00 broadcast. Channel 4 said that the sponsorship credits complained about were played in random rotation across all sponsored films on Channel 4 and Film 4 and had a post-21:00 restriction. Channel 4 said it regretted what had occurred and acknowledged that Unfortunately, the juxtaposition between the credits and this particular film inadvertently caused offence to viewers. Ofcom Decision: Breach of Rules Ofcom considered that the juxtaposition of a light-hearted sponsorship credit featuring a woman during sex with a disturbing and distressing rape scene in a film was clearly unsuitable. In Ofcom’s view this clearly had the potential to be offensive to viewers. As set out in the BCAP Code, broadcasters are required to have processes in place to ensure advertising material is scheduled appropriately and unsuitable juxtapositions between advertising and programmes which may cause offence are avoided Ofcom has taken account this action by Channel 4 and the apology it issued to viewers. However we considered that, in this case, Channel 4 had had insufficient processes in place to prevent the unsuitable juxtaposition of advertising and programming material, as required by Rule 32.1 of the BCAP Code. Ofcom therefore considered that both sponsorship credits were in breach of the relevant rules Breaches of Rule 9.17 of the Code, with reference to Rule 32.1 of the BCAP Code

Bad Language…US TV censor bins 70% of queued complaints and reconsiders its censorship of fleeting nudity and strong language

Read more US Censorship News at MelonFarmers.co.uk

See gobbledegook news release from fcc.gov

After the US Supreme Court’s decision in FCC v. Fox Television Stations in September 2012, FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski has initiate a review of the Commission’s broadcast indecency policies and enforcement to ensure they are fully consistent with First Amendment principles. In the interim, the Chairman directed the Enforcement Bureau to focus its indecency enforcement resources on egregious cases and to reduce the backlog of pending broadcast indecency complaints. The Bureau has reduced the backlog by 70% so far, more than one million complaints, principally by binning them on the grounds that it had taken so long to process them that they were too stale to pursue. The FCC now seek comments on whether the full Commission should make changes to its current broadcast indecency policies or maintain them as they are.

Possessed by Mean Spirits…Ofcom claim that Most Haunted was too scary for kids

Read more Ofcom Watch at MelonFarmers.co.uk

See article [pdf] from stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk

Most Haunted Pick TV, 17 October 2012, 18:00 Most Haunted is a well-established series which takes viewers to locations where in the past, according to the programme, there has been reported supernatural activity. The series is presented by Yvette Fielding and celebrity psychic Derek Acorah. The programme involves trying to film paranormal activity, as well as attempting to demonstrate possible paranormal activity through seances and possession by spirits at the location. Most Haunted was last made in 2010 but repeats of episodes continued to be broadcast regularly on the Living TV channels and, since July 2012, on Pick TV, a channel which offers repeats of popular programming. Pick TV is broadcast free-to-air on all platforms. Sky holds the licence for Pick TV. A complainant alerted Ofcom to this episode because of concerns regarding the suitability of the content before the watershed when children might be watching. In this episode, Most Haunted investigated Chatham Dockyard in Kent where, over a number of years, there had been several accounts of malevolent spirits and dark evil shadows…wandering around as well as more benign ghostly sightings. Ofcom provided several examples of programme content: Members of the production team, who were conducting night-time vigils in various locations in the dockyard, reported on their experiences of dragging sounds, doors slamming, changes in atmosphere and calling on the spirits to make themselves visible. These sequences were replayed a number of times. A scene of a seance in which Derek Acorah was possessed , firstly by a nine-year-old boy called Barney Little , and spoke in a childlike voice to say he had been treated cruelly and whipped by a woman called Lizzie . Secondly, Derek Acorah, who was then possessed by Lizzie , referred to as an obnoxious entity , contorted his face and spoke in a rasping and aggressive voice: What’s your name, leper? Bleeps were used to mask offensive language. In response to the Lizzie possession, one of the employees at the Dockyard, not associated with the production, started to cry because she recognised Lizzie as the person responsible for the death of one of the children who had resided in the building, called Isabelle. Ofcom considered: Rule 1.3 : Children must…be protected by appropriate scheduling from material that is unsuitable for them. Rule 1.27: Demonstrations of exorcisms, occult practices and the paranormal (which purport to be real), must not be shown before the watershed (in the case of television) or when children are particularly likely to be listening (in the case of radio). Paranormal practices which are for entertainment purposes must not be broadcast when significant numbers of children may be expected to be watching, or are particularly likely to be listening. Given this episode included paranormal practices and was broadcast pre-watershed, Ofcom also considered the broadcast should be investigated under Rule 1.27 of the Code: Ofcom Decision: Breach of Rule 1.3 and Rule 1.27 In Ofcom’s view, the cumulative effect of the malevolent nature of the spirits who appeared either through Derek’s possessions or were recounted in the experiences presented, and the repeated references to children being harmed, mistreated or murdered resulted in this particular episode being consistently dark and menacing. Therefore it had the potential to cause distress to younger members of the audience. Further, while an adult may have picked up on the signposting throughout the programme, and particularly in the last five minutes, and concluded the programme was entertainment, children may not have understood this and could have been left feeling fearful of what they had viewed. Ofcom noted Sky’s view that because children aged 10-15 viewing this programme may have been fully aware of the nature of the content, the assertion that this programme would have been distressing to this age group is not correct . However, it is Ofcom’s view that even if children are old enough to understand, and also be scared by, paranormal activity, it does not necessarily follow that they are old enough to understand various statements made by some of the contributors suggesting this programme was for entertainment purposes. Ofcom therefore considered that this material was unsuitable for children. Ofcom was of the view that the nature of some of the content in this particular case (especially the nature of the alleged possessions by malevolent spirits and the fact they concerned children), and its scheduling in a teatime slot, meant it was likely that the expectations of viewers (and particularly of parents) of this channel at that time would have been exceeded. In the circumstances of this case the material was therefore not appropriately scheduled and breached Rule 1.3. In this particular case, Ofcom noted that this episode did not feature any demonstrations of exorcisms, occult practices and the paranormal which purported to be real. We were of the view however that it did include paranormal practices, such as possessions and a seance, for entertainment purposes. Ofcom also noted that in this case these paranormal practices were broadcast at teatime, when children were likely to be viewing, and on Pick TV, which is a general entertainment channel. Consequently, in Ofcom’s view, a significant number of children could have been expected to view this episode. Therefore, in this case, Ofcom concluded that Rule 1.27 was breached. Breaches of Rules 1.3 and 1.27

Pantomime Censors…Ofcom find WWE wrestling sequence too violent for Saturday mornings

Read more Ofcom Watch at MelonFarmers.co.uk

See Broadcast Bulletin [pdf] from stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk

WWE Superstars Sky 1, 10 November 2012, 09:00 Worldwide Wrestling Entertainment ( WWE ) matches are broadcast on Sky 1 during the morning at weekends. A complainant alerted Ofcom to the violent content in a pre-recorded sequence featuring WWE contestant Wade Barratt broadcast at the beginning of the second segment of the programme at around 09:20 on a Saturday. The sequence, lasting approximately one and a half minutes, depicted Wade Barratt in several underground wrestling and bare-knuckle fights surrounded by a group of men who appeared to be betting money on the outcome. It featured several close-up punches and kicks to the head and chest in slow motion with dramatic sound effects to underline the impact and, on one occasion, a bloody bruise on the chest of a competitor. The scene was set to a track of rock music and was accompanied by the following voiceover: Where I come from the grim realities of life smack you in the face at every turn. An onslaught of fury is the only way to survive. I am Wade Barratt and my barrage has just begun. It doesn’t matter if I’m fighting on the street or if I’m fighting in the ring. If I’m fighting I might as well make as much money as I possibly can. I decided I’d had enough of not getting my own way. I came here with one goal only. That was to become a world champion. One way or another I’m going to get to the top. I’m relentless. I am remorseless. I am Wade Barratt and my barrage cannot be stopped. Ofcom considered rules: Rule 1.3 Children must be protected by appropriate scheduling from material that is unsuitable for them. Rule 1.11 Violence, its after affects and the descriptions of violence, whether verbal or physical, must be appropriately limited in programmes before the watershed and must also be justified by the context. Sky explained that WWE has broadcast on Sky 1 since 1999 and is widely known for its outrageous storylines and pantomime characters. It said the fights themselves are only one element of the show as it also focuses on the backstories and feuds between wrestlers, and that the sequence involving Wade Barratt was intended to portray him as a dark and dangerous character. The Licensee said that the fights in the arena are highly dramatic and pantomime, and that most of the violence shown is not graphic. It added, however, that due to the family nature of the audience, it carefully edits WWE for daytime transmissions on Sky 1. Sky said repeated kicks or punches and explicit shots are removed along with scenes including weapons and violence that occurs outside the arena. Scenes that involve blood are shot in black and white to minimise detail. Ofcom Decision: Breach of rules 1.3 and 1.11 Ofcom noted that the scene in question depicted bare-knuckle fighting in an underground setting, clearly distinguishing it from staged competitive wrestling that takes place in a ring with a referee. The dark, aggressive and realistic nature of this scene combined with close-up slow-motion punches and kicks to the head and chest with powerful sound effects to underscore the impacts to make the material, in Ofcom’s view, clearly unsuitable for children. We took account in particular of the high likelihood of children watching this channel early on a Saturday morning, the strength and brooding nature of the images exemplified by the slow-motion shots of impact, and the fact that in Ofcom’s opinion this content exceeded the likely expectations of the audience. Ofcom noted Sky’s acceptance that the material may not have been suitable for a Saturday morning audience, and its decision to review its compliance guidelines for all future WWE broadcasts. However, in this case, particularly given the violent content of this sequence and the very high proportion of child viewers, Ofcom decided that the material breached Rules 1.3 and 1.11.

Martyrs…Ofcom warns the Sikh Channel about positive references to a leader of a banned terrorist organisation

Read more Ofcom Watch at MelonFarmers.co.uk

See Broadcast Bulletin [pdf] from stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk

Sikh Channel Report Sikh Channel, 18 October 2012, 21:40 The Sikh Channel is in the religious section of the Sky Electronic Programme Guide (EPG), and the channel is aimed at the Sikh community in the UK. The licence for the Sikh Channel is held by TV Legal. This programme was a live transmission, broadcast in Punjabi, and consisted mainly of the performance of commemorative songs broadcast from a Gurdwara located in Coventry. A complainant alerted Ofcom to a lecture which was also included in the programme. According to the complainant, a speaker appeared in front of a poster which had the words Babbar Khalsa International ( BKI ) written on it, and talked effusively about the Sikh militant Talwinder Singh Babbar, the founder of the BKI, which is a proscribed terrorist organisation in the UK. The speaker introduced his lecture as follows: This programme has been arranged in the memory of the martyrs and what they did, and in particular I want to tell you about the martyr Brother Talwinder Singh Babbar. During the lecture the speaker recounted moments from Talwinder Singh Babbar’s life . For example, we noted that the speaker made the following statements: The Sikhs who lived with [Talwinder Singh Babbar] tell that if you told him that there were 32 policemen with AK-47 rifles outside waiting to arrest him, the respected Brother [Talwinder Singh Babbar] was the sort of person who would go out to meet them; he wouldn’t stop and sit there but say, Let’s go and fight with them. He had so much courage! You can see when you look at his face that his forehead reflects glory. His face reflects divine illumination. These are pure martyr devoted Sikhs. They have the Sikh spiritual narration inside them and a trust in this spirit. Ofcom considered that the material raised issues warranting investigation under Rule 2.3 of the Code: In applying generally accepted standards broadcasters must ensure that material which may cause offence is justified by the context…Appropriate information should also be broadcast where it would assist in avoiding or minimising offence. Ofcom Decision: Breach of Rule 2.3 In this case, we noted that a programme contributor gave a lecture in which he made a number of statements that could be interpreted as being strongly positive, or being otherwise supportive of actions taken by, the leader of a terrorist organisation (the BKI), which is proscribed in the UK. Ofcom considered that these statements were not sufficiently contextualised to justify the potential offence caused by positive references to the leader of a proscribed terrorist organisation. The man who delivered the lecture spoke directly to camera and to the audience in the Gurdwara. Also, the lecture was delivered in front of a poster referring to the BKI and depicting the armed founder of that proscribed terrorist organisation. In Ofcom’s opinion, these factors increased the impact of his words and so the potential for offence. At no point was the lecturer challenged to justify his unqualified praise for Tavinder Singh Parmar, by referring for example to the acts of terrorism with which he is alleged to have been involved. Also neither the Licensee nor the lecturer himself attempted to place his positive statements in praise of Tavinder Singh Parmar in some form of context by acknowledging, for example, the deaths for which Tavinder Singh Parmar is widely held responsible. For these reasons, Ofcom’s view is that the offence caused by the lecturer’s comments was not justified by the context. Ofcom is putting TV Legal on notice that any future similar breaches are likely to result in Ofcom taking further regulatory action. Breach of Rule 2.3

Banned Babe Links…Ofcom whinges at babe channels for promotion of related porn websites

Read more Ofcom Watch at MelonFarmers.co.uk

See Broadcast Bulletin [pdf] from stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk

Northern Birds, Essex Babes, Sportxxx Girls, and Livexxx Babes 24 September to 8 February 2013, various times throughout the day The services all transmit interactive daytime chat and adult chat advertising content. These services are freely available without mandatory restricted access and are situated in the adult section of the electronic programme guide of the Sky digital satellite platform ( Sky EPG ). Viewers are invited to contact on-screen presenters via premium-rate telephony services ( PRS ). The female presenters dress and behave in a sexually provocative way while encouraging viewers to contact the PRS numbers. The licencesare all held by Satellite Entertainment Limited ( SEL ). Ofcom received a complaint that, throughout the day and across all these channels, on-screen references were made to the website bluebird.tv by means of a graphic giving the URL of the website positioned in the bottom left-hand corner of the screen. The complainant said that on accessing the website there were no access restrictions, and that users were directed to freely accessible R18 equivalent content by clicking on any number of links . From Ofcom’s examination of the broadcast material, it appeared that no verbal references to the website URL were made by the presenters. The bluebird.tv website consisted of a homepage containing a number of tab-style links to Bluebird branded content. There were no access restrictions other than responding OK to a pop-up box on first visiting the site to confirm that the user was over 18 years of age. Ofcom observed that this website contained explicit pornographic material (equivalent to the British Board of Film Classification ( BBFC ) R18-rated content 1 ). Registration and age verification by means of using a credit card (holders must be over 18 years of age) was only required if the user wished to become a member of the premium Bluebird service. Two types of explicit pornographic material could be accessed and viewed from the Bluebird Films homepage. The first type, on initially accessing the Bluebird Films website, consisted of an embedded video player positioned in the centre of the screen, which automatically played a video clip. The player showed a 50-second video clip, the first 30 seconds of which featured edited glamour shots of scantily clad or naked women, kissing, touching and posing in an erotic way. The final 20 seconds of the clip, however, featured explicit sexual material involving shots of oral sex, vaginal penetration, and the use of sex toys for sexual stimulation or penetration some of which were in close-up. The second type of pornographic material was accessible at the bottom of the page and consisted of 17 photographic hyperlinks under the heading Bluebird Films Hot Movies . These links promoted pornographic films that could be viewed in full by purchasing premium Bluebird membership or by purchasing the associated DVD product (from the Buy DVD’s [sic] tab positioned at the top of the page). Clicking on these photographic hyperlinks led the user through to teaser videos, each between about one and two minutes in length, promoting the full film to which the photographic hyperlink corresponded. These teaser videos featured explicit sexual material including vaginal penetration, oral sex, and masturbation some of which was again in close-up. Ofcom considered BCAP Code Rule 30.3, which states: Advertisements for products coming within the recognised character of pornography are permitted behind mandatory restricted access on adult entertainment channels only. [After an initial approach from Ofcom the company reorganised the website so that the first website which would be accessed by viewers does not contain adult material itself but links though to another related website that does. Ofcom judged that this technique does not circumvent the ban on links to porn sites]. Ofcom Conclusion: Brach of Rule 30.3 The broadcast of an advertisement, on channels without mandatory restricted access, for a website containing pornographic material, is a serious breach of the BCAP Code. Ofcom is particularly concerned that the Licensee in these instances broadcast, for extended periods both during daytime and immediately after the watershed when children were available to view (some unaccompanied), on-screen references to a website which led to R18 equivalent material without any access restrictions. Ofcom therefore puts the Licensee on notice that it will consider these breaches for the imposition of a statutory sanction. Breaches of BCAP Code Rule 30.3

3 Minute Whinges…Ofcom has another knock at Studio 66 for porn video download ads

Read more Ofcom Watch at MelonFarmers.co.uk

Broadcast Complaints Bulletin [pdf] from stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk

Studio 66 Nights Studio 66 TV4 (Channel 927), 10 October 2012, 21:00 to 21:30 Studio 66 Nights is a segment of interactive adult chat advertising content broadcast on the licensed service known as Studio 66 TV4 (Sky Channel 927). The female presenters dress and behave in a sexually provocative way while encouraging viewers to contact the PRS numbers. The licence for Studio 66 TV2 is owned and operated by 965 TV Ltd. Ofcom received a complaint that content on this service, broadcast between 21:00 and 21:30, contained explicit sexual images that were too strong to be shown at this time. Ofcom noted that the advertising content featured a female presenter onscreen but, from approximately 21:07 onwards, the presenter was replaced with an advertisement shown full screen for three minute uncensored videos , downloadable to a mobile phone. The advertisement, which was repeated three times comprised a series of short clips taken from these uncensored videos , which included the following images: full screen close ups of bare breasts being massaged with oil and rubbed together; full screen close ups of a woman’s buttocks being massaged with oil and cream and being slapped, and of women pulling down thongs between their buttocks; two females kissing and touching each other’s breasts and buttocks; naked images of female presenters with their legs open or bending over to camera with a censored overlay placed on the genitals and anal area; naked images of presenters with hands or legs concealing the genital area; and an image of a presenter pulling down her bikini pants with a censored overlay which only partially covered her genital area. The clips were accompanied by advertising straplines including: get this filthy video ; xxx content and more ; and get this video uncensored . These images were also accompanied by shortcode numbers which viewers could text to receive pictures. Ofcom considered BCAP Code Rule 30.3: Advertisements for products coming within the recognised character of pornography are permitted behind mandatory restricted access on adult entertainment channel only. 965 TV explained that the onscreen promotional video containing the clips taken from the uncensored videos was broadcast as a result of two errors. The first related to the promotional content that was broadcast and the other related to the product that was advertised. Ofcom Decision: Breach of Rule 30.3 To assess the product being advertised, Ofcom sent a text message to a sample of the shortcodes shown onscreen with the same number 899**. As a result, Ofcom was sent details of a URL which gave access to explicit video and explicit still images. Some of these images were in close up. Ofcom notes that the Licensee has stated this content could only have been received by a handset which was age- verified by the mobile network operator. Indeed, Ofcom did receive a text message requesting age verification but we 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 to call the onscreen shortcode. In Ofcom’s opinion, this explicit sexual material was clearly equivalent to adult sex material 6 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 . Any advertisement for this type of content is prohibited on a free-to-air service without mandatory restricted access. Having reviewed the numerous onscreen images shown in this video promotion (which included: close-up images of bare breasts and buttocks with oil, mud and cream being applied and massaged into bare skin and the women’s nipples; women slapping their buttocks; and naked women touching and kissing one another intimately), Ofcom is of the view that this material broadcast as part of an adult chat service would have breached BCAP Code Rule 32.3 if broadcast before 22:00 (as in this case), but, even if it had been broadcast after 22:00, it would potentially have been in breach of Rule 4.2. Rule 32.3 states that: Relevant timing restrictions must be applied to advertisements that, through their content, might harm or distress children…or that are unsuitable for them. Rule 4.2 states that: Advertisements must not cause serious or widespread offence against generally accepted moral, social or cultural standards. This is a serious breach of the BCAP Code. Ofcom therefore puts the Licensee on notice that it is minded to consider a statutory sanction if there is any recurrence of this, or similar, compliance failings. Breach of BCAP Code Rule 30.3 Ofcom also recorded a code breach for similar content on Studio 66 TV2 (Channel 938),

Used, Abused and Annihilated…Ofcom whinges at Studio 66 babe channel as nutters don’t go to bed for an hour after the watershed

Read more Ofcom Watch at MelonFarmers.co.uk

See Broadcast Beulletin [pdf] from stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk

Studio 66 Nights Studio 66 TV 1 (912), 13 September 2012, 21:15 to 21:40 Studio 66 Nights is a segment on the babe channel Studio 66 TV 2 (Sky Channel 938). The female presenters dress and behave in a sexually provocative way while encouraging viewers to contact the premium rate telephony services ( PRS ) numbers. The licence for Studio 66 TV 1 is owned and operated by 965 TV Ltd. Ofcom received a complaint that content on this service, broadcast shortly after the watershed, contained sexual images that were too strong to be shown at this time. Ofcom noted a female presenter on screen wearing a pink, sleeveless one-piece outfit. In addition, she wore a white bra under the one-piece outfit and white high- heeled shoes. From around 21:15, and until at least 21:40, the presenter adopted various sexual positions: she sat with her legs open to camera; knelt facing away from the camera; and at various points during the broadcast moved onto all fours with her legs apart and thrust her bare buttocks to mime sexual intercourse. We also noted that the camera focused on her crotch, at various points throughout the broadcast, for varying lengths of time, while she adopted those positions. For much of the time and when the presenter was talking to callers, the studio sound was muted and music was played over images of the presenter. However the presenter occasionally talked directly to the audience to attract PRS calls and we noted the following statements were broadcast at 21:18 and 21:27 respectively: Boys, come on you have got to do better than that, I want your filthy phone calls right now. Like I always say boys, I’m here to be used, abused and absolutely annihilated by you. So let’s do this, you sexy things. Phil, where did you go? You sound like you know exactly how to work your way around a woman’s body…Come and tell me every dirty thing you want to do with me boys and I will tell you every fantasy that I have, every way that I want you to have me. Ofcom considered BCAP Code Rule 32.3: 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. Ofcom Decision: Breach of Rule 32.3 Ofcom noted that between 21:15 and 21:40 the camera focussed on the presenter’s crotch area when her legs were spread open to camera and when she knelt facing away from the camera. In addition she stroked her breasts and inner thighs, adopted various sexual positions and repeatedly mimed sexual intercourse, such as: kneeling on all fours and thrusting her bare buttocks up and down; and kneeling upright and moving her body up and down. The presenter also sat, sometimes for prolonged periods, with her legs open to camera, although her crotch area was obscured at times by the on-screen graphic showing the premium rate number. We noted that the presenter made the statements at 21:18 and 21:27 set out above, when she was kneeling on all fours with her buttocks angled to camera and sat with her legs wide open to camera, respectively. In Ofcom’s view, these images, combined with the on-screen graphics of women with bare breasts and the sexual language noted above used on occasions, resulted in the material being sexually provocative in nature. This behaviour and imagery is clearly prohibited by the Chat Service Guidance. Therefore Ofcom concluded that this material was clearly unsuitable for children. Breach of BCAP Code Rule 32.3.

Elitist Censorship…Ofcom claim sexy material causes widespread offence amongst viewers watching babe channels at 3 in the morning

Read more Ofcom Watch at MelonFarmers.co.uk

See Broadcast Beulletin [pdf] from stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk

Elite Nights Studio 66 TV 2 (938), 15 July 2012, 03:00 to 03:55 Elite Nights is a segment on the babe channel Studio 66 TV 2 (Sky Channel 938). The female presenters dress and behave in a sexually provocative way while encouraging viewers to contact the premium rate telephony services ( PRS ) numbers. The licence for Studio 66 TV 2 is owned and operated by 965 TV Ltd. Ofcom received a complaint that content on this service, broadcast from 03:00, contained images that were inappropriate on a free-to-air service. Ofcom noted there were two female presenters on screen at this time. The first female presenter was wearing black shoes, a pair of yellow knickers with party all night printed on the back and a black top pulled down to expose her breasts. The second presenter was wearing a pink thong under a pink one-piece outfit, which was pulled down to reveal her breasts. During the broadcast the presenters stroked each other’s thighs, buttocks, stomachs and breasts. They also adopted sexual positions, such as on all fours with their buttocks to camera and also lying side by side with their legs intertwined, and while in these positions mimed sexual intercourse, sometimes for quite prolonged periods. Ofcom also noted that while the female presenters filled most of the screen there were graphics on the right of the screen showing still images of women, all of whom were topless and in some cases naked, although their genitals were obscured. These images were accompanied by short code numbers which viewers could text to receive pictures and video content of the women, for example TXT XXX to 899** and TEXT FERNANDA TO 899** . In the bottom left-hand corner of the screen we noted there were graphics that were text only, such as FILTHIEST X RATED VID OF THE MONTH! TEXT JULY TO 899** , and TEXT BABE TO 899** . Ofcom considered BCAP Code rules: Rule 4.2: Advertisements must not cause serious or widespread offence against generally accepted moral, social or cultural standards. Rule 30.3: Advertisements for products coming within the recognised character of pornography are permitted behind mandatory restricted access on adult entertainment channels only. Ofcom Decision Widespread Offence On 27 July 2011, Ofcom published revised rules on the advertising of telecommunications-based sexual entertainment services and PRS daytime chat services. For example the rules explicitly state that adult chat broadcasters should: [T]ake particular care if two or more presenters appear together on screen. If there is any contact between the presenters of an erotic or sexual nature (for example kissing, stroking, or contact between thighs, breasts or genital areas) or any miming or simulation of a sexual act performed by one presenter on another, in Ofcom’s view there is a high risk of causing serious or widespread offence against generally accepted standards. Sidebar Adverts The still graphics included in these advertisements comprised still images of women, all of whom were topless and in some cases naked. In addition, the on-screen graphics were accompanied by text which included: FILTHIEST X RATED VID OF THE MONTH! TEXT JULY TO 899** and TXT XXX to 899** . This in Ofcom’s view clearly indicated to the viewer that if they texted the relevant word or term to the on-screen short code number they would be provided with access to explicit adult material. To assess the product being advertised, Ofcom sent a text message to a short code shown on-screen. As a result Ofcom was sent details of a URL which gave access to explicit video images of a female masturbating. Some of these images were in close- up. Further, although we received a text message requesting age verification, we were able to access the explicit sexual content without being required to provide any proof of age. We noted the Licensee’s argument that viewers would only have been able to obtain the video clips and images if their handset had been age-verified by the relevant mobile network operator. However, we considered this did not remove or weaken the duty on the Licensee to ensure that the products advertised on this channel were acceptable on a free-to-air service. In Ofcom’s opinion this explicit sexual material was clearly equivalent to that which would be given a British Board of Film Classification ( BBFC ) R185 rating. Both R18 equivalent content and adult sex material 6 are clearly within the recognised character of pornography . Therefore any advertisement for this type of content was prohibited on a free-to-air service without mandatory restricted access, regardless of whether the images featured in the on-screen advertisement were edited or masked in an effort to make them non-explicit and suitable for broadcast on a freely available service or whether handsets to which the clips were downloadable had been age-verified by the relevant mobile network operator. Rule 1.18 of the Broadcasting Code makes clear in giving the meaning of mandatory restricted access that this must consist of a PIN protected system (or other equivalent protection) which cannot be removed by the user, that restricts access solely to those authorised to view [i.e. adults] . As Ofcom’s assessment of the on-screen promotions demonstrated (see above), we were able to freely access the explicit sexual content which was being advertised without being required to provide any proof of age. These advertisements for products within the recognised character of pornography were therefore shown on these channels without mandatory restricted access as required by Rule 30.3 of the BCAP Code. Advertising for pornographic content is not suitable for broadcast at any time on any interactive adult chat service available free-to-air, regardless of the type of images broadcast as part of the advertising content. Breaches of BCAP Code Rules 4.2 and 30.3