Opinion

Proving Rights Abuse by the DCMS

The Christian Institute of Political Activists

Re the Christian Institute taking the BBC to High Court

I am appalled that an organisation with charitable status can abuse its position in this way.

They aren't the only ones who pay for the BBC. We ALL have to pay, as well you know.

I made a complaint to the charity commission. I suggest other Melon Farmers might wish to do the same, and let The Christian Institute know about it...

To the Charity Commission

I understand that the Christian Institute, reg Charity number 1004774 is attempting to seek the imposition of censorship on us, by complaining about "Jerry Springer" the Opera, via a Judicial Review in the High Court.

As this is a political act, (because of the possible result of increased censorship of television) I understand that under your rules such acts should not be undertaken by organisations who have the benefit of charity status.

The BBC is paid for by all licence payers, not just by Christians, and not all Christians want such censorship of the BBC in any case. Many have indeed stated they do not want it. I certainly contribute to the BBC by paying my television licence, and I do not want such censorship. It is my opinion therefore that the Christian Institute are abusing their charitable status, and are in violation of their obligations under it.

I therefore request that you investigate this and ask the Christian Institute to either withdraw their High Court Action against the BBC, or risk losing their charitable status.

I would like to point out that the censorship group "MediaWatch" (formerly the National Viewers and Listener's Association) was refused charity status, because their work was held to be political in nature. Yet the Christian Institute carries out many political functions including trying to impose (by persuading politicians to impose restriction and censorship) their so called standards of morality and values on the rest of us.

I would be grateful if you could investigate this.

To the Christian Institute

I have made a formal complaint to the charity commission, because of your attempts to censor the BBC using a judicial review.

I believe this, and some of your other activities are certainly political in nature, and I understand that political institutions do not (and certainly should not) get the benefit of charitable status.

I have asked them to investigate, in the hope that you either withdraw your action, and cease involving yourselves in political matters, or lose your charitable states.

It may interest you to know that the censorship group Mediawatch (UK, formerly the National Viewers and Listener's Association ) could not achieve desired charitable status because their activities were held to be political in nature by the Charity commission.

Proving Rights Abuse by the DCMS

To the Department of Censorship, Media & Sport

Dear Mr. Bone,

I refer you to the proscription order for Extasi TV detailed in web document:
www.legislation.hmso.gov.uk/si/em2005/uksiem_20050220_en.pdf

This carries your name and email address, so I presume you are the correct person to contact regarding this proscription

How can you state in the above document that The Human Rights Act (which provides for free expression, and the right to send and receive information etc.,) is "not applicable" to this proscription order ?

Of course it is applicable, and it is QUITE WRONG of you to simply discount and dismiss the provisions of the Human Rights Act, as if the Labour Government introduced it, to serve no real purpose whatsoever!

Indeed one of its prime purposes is to protect the public from excessive restriction in several areas, by the authorities of the state, and this is one of those restrictions, which would have to be justified according to the Human Rights Act.

So I would suggest the HRA is _very_ applicable in this case, and although it may be correct that violent extreme pornography is harmful, I would imagine the proscription order still has to be justified, according to the allowed "get out" clauses in the Human Rights Act. Free expression of course, requires both a person doing the expression, and the people observing the expression. In this case, the television audience, who make a conscious choice to view certain material are part of that.

It is clear from Human Rights case law, and opinion of eminent legal men, such as Lord Bingham, the former Lord Chief Justice that:

The restriction (of freedom of expression etc.) must fulfil a pressing social need, and the government is required to demonstrate this.

Regardless of how distasteful the material may be, what evidence do you actually have, that even ONE child has been harmed, or is likely to be harmed by the material to justify the restriction the government has imposed ? Where is the "pressing social need" in evidence ?
Is there evidence of harm from abroad, where there is clearly less concern about such material ?

The restriction must be proportionate, and the Human Rights Act implies the interference must be the minimum necessary, and (more than justified.

It seems that in rushing this order through, and completely failing to consider the ramifications of the Human Rights Act you've failed justify anything, and therefore the order could be invalidated.

I would remind you, that when imposing any kind of censorship on people, it surely must be properly justified. The Human Rights act implies that people should not have to beg for their freedom. Those who wish to take it away, must justify why that is necessary, and the restriction is the minimum needed.

It may be that in this case the restriction is indeed the minimum needed. But will you kindly prove it please, and not discount the provision of the Human Rights act, when censoring foreign television broadcasts ?

You cite part of the Explanatory Memorandum about this Order which the Government laid before Parliament. Under the procedures which we follow for the laying of an Explanatory Memorandum, the Government makes a formal statement of compliance with the European Convention on Human Rights only in connection with instruments which amend primary legislation or require an affirmative resolution. That does not apply to this particular Order, which is why the Memorandum says 'not applicable' in its section on the ECHR.

This does not mean that no consideration has been given to the question of compatibility. The Government takes the Covention very seriously and is in fact quite clear that the Order is compatible with it.

The Order affects economic activities connected with the Extasi TV service. Article 1 of the First Protocol to the ECHR (peaceful enjoyment of possessions) may therefore be engaged, as may Article 10 (freedom to impart and receive ideas and information). The case law under Article 1 of the First Protocol requires a "fair balance" to be struck between private rights and the public interest, and article 10(2) recognises that a state may have legitimate grounds to impinge on freedom of expression, so long as it does so in a proportionate manner. The Government is clear, on legal advice, that this proscription order is likely to be regarded as a justifiable interference with any rights of viewers or broadcasters under the ECHR.

Interesting to note that the Government is avoiding its responsibilities by not bothering to justify secondary legislation. No wonder each item of primary legislation is so keen to set up carte-blanche options for secondary legislation.

It seems even more important to apply Human Rights justifications to non primary legislation issues. Eg the proscription of Extasi is down to a Minister. It is not discussed in Parliament, there is no opportunity for the public to be consulted , it could be left to a single minister. Surely when the forum is so small that is exactly when decisions should be justified.

At the end of the day freedoms of the UK public have been removed without providing any justification what so ever. In my opinion this still constitutes an abuse of our Human Rights.

In defence of Playboy TV

To Ms Obrien, and the content (pre-censorship) department at Ofcom -

In anticipation of the content of a reply I shortly expect from you - and in response to the recent overly draconian sanctions involving a 25,000 pound fine levied against Playboy TV, and in regard to other censorship (imposed by pre-restriction and broadcasting prohibition) issues:

1: The material which Playboy TV broadcast to their subscribers, encrypted, on their Sky Digital adult subscription satellite service and then later fined for, was NOT R18 material, because as far as I know, it was not ACTUALLY classified as such by the British Board of Film Classification.

ONLY the BBFC, (and neither Ofcom, NOR playboy TV) are qualified or legally empowered to decide what is, or is not R18 material. I believe the BBFC have already made that quite clear to you. This is especially so under their latest R18 guidelines, which have just been published on their web site, www.bbfc.co.uk

Quoted from the published response (available on your web site) by the BBFC, to the Ofcom broadcasting code consultation: The BBFC, under the Video Recordings Act, is the only arbiter of whether something is of R18 standard. "

2: Other Ofcom licensed broadcasters regularly and consistently currently broadcast material, which, if it WAS to be submitted to the BBFC, would CERTAINLY be classified by them as being R18 material. I have been in discussion with the BBFC about this matter, and they have confirmed this after a concise verbal description of the content of some of the material currently broadcast on certain Ofcom licensed adult channels. I will not assist you to act as a pre-censor by telling you who broadcasts such material, and when it was broadcast. I am sure you are quite capable of doing that for yourselves.

3: If any material broadcast would be (or is) classified as "18" rated, then there should be no prohibition on broadcasting it after 22.00 hours, nor any requirement to encrypt such a service. Therefore I do not understand why there is a requirement to encrypt such ("18" rated) material, and the possibility of sanctions, for not doing so after 22.00 hours. BBFC 18 rated material can be broadcast on any Ofcom licensed service after 22.00 hours. Ofcom publish no special guidelines about any content in "18" rated material, which carries special conditions or restrictions. If they do, it is done in a clandestine manner, and it is unavailable at least in a clear form, to the viewing public.

4: If you really are seriously considering allowing R18 EQUIVALENT material on subscription channels, then fining PlayBoy TV 25,000 pounds is extremely disproportionate and draconian, unless you have proper evidence of REAL and MANIFEST harm caused by their actions, (or most likely to be caused) which I am certain you do not. In your broadcasting code consultation you even ADMIT you do not. Or does Ofcom simply pay pretend lip service to the requirement to act in accordance with the Human Rights Act ? How many people really were harmed, to justify (in proportion) such a draconian and repressive act of fining this broadcaster ? Or is it a case of do as we say, even though we aren't going to openly tell anyone what our rules really are, or what they mean ?

In short it is obvious, that Ofcom, and the ITC before it, is operating a clandestine prohibitory pre-censorship regime, involving content limits which are utterly unclear especially to the viewing public and perhaps even to broadcasters too. This is unacceptable, because the Human Rights Act requires clear laws, so we can find out what the limits are, and **why** they are.

You simply cannot state that "An R18 version cannot be transmitted at any time", and then allow some broadcasters to broadcast material...(which I know has been examined in the past by Ofcom because of other issues)...which WOULD be classified "R18" (but isn't because it was never submitted for classification), but then fine other broadcasts, for doing exactly that. Also the viewing public (in whose interests you are supposed to be acting) have a right to know exactly what they can, and cannot expect to see, when subscribing to these channels, and why any restrictions imposed by Ofcom, are there. This is not happening, and current delays in doing so, are not acceptable. I would ask you, to properly consider what the public who **choose** to subscribe to any adult television channel, really expect to see on their TV screens, when they make such a choice ?

You cannot have rules and then interpret them differently simply to suit yourselves, and your own biases. If you expect broadcasters to abide by certain rules, you cannot then allow other broadcasters to bend them with impunity.

If the rule: No R18 version may be transmitted at any time
Actually means: No (if it was submitted to the BBFC would be classified as) R18 version may be transmitted at any time, then you need to make that clear, and deal with the broadcasters who transgress this rule.

However, if it simply means:
No R18 version (and classified as such by the BBFC) may be transmitted at any time then you've acted incorrectly, by taking sanctions against Playboy TV.

What does the statement ACTUALLY mean, and where is that meaning published (and easily accessible to the viewing public) by Ofcom ?

Given the BBFC's response, I suggest it expressly means, and can only mean, that material ACTUALLY classified AS R18 content BY THE BBFC ITSELF may not be transmitted.

Ofcom should therefore apologise to Playboy TV and refund their large sum of money. It seems obvious you have your own internal unclear rules, which you do not make available to others such as myself. This is unfair, and a violation of Human Rights. I make no apology whatsoever for this assertion, because of what I've seen of Ofcom in action, so far, despite what your stated intentions actually are, and are legally supposed to be.

It also seems to me, that the extra delay in publishing the new programme code, has everything to do with the forthcoming election, to serve the interests of politicians rather than any other matter, or to act in the interests of the public.

I would also like to be convinced that the religious beliefs of some members of the content board, and sanctions committee play no part in the decisions Ofcom make. I currently am not so convinced.

Please also read the web page: http://www.ofwatch.org.uk/

Scroll down to the heading: Playboy fall victim to disproportionate regulatory nonsense


To my MP:

It's about time an end was put, to this censorious repressive "R18" regulatory nonsense, which imposes censorship where *harm* cannot be shown to exist. A fact that the BBFC and Ofcom, at least do openly admit. It's more like something you'd expect to be imposed on citizens in Iran, or China, than in a so called free democratic country.

Illegal ban on transmission of R18s

To: The Chairman, Ofcom Content Board
Re: Ofcom Plan 2005 and other issues

Dear Mr Hooper

I am somewhat perplexed and dismayed at the Board's recent delays in issuing the revised Broadcasting Code. I am even more annoyed at the apparent lack of understanding the Board display in it's interpretation of the Law and the overall treatment of adult viewers.

If I may draw your attention to this statement in the Plan for 2005, section 2.12:

"A presumption that over time well informed adult individuals should exercise more responsibility and choice in determining the content they consume, or the communications services they choose to buy."

I assume members of the Board do not place themselves outside the definition of 'well informed adult individuals'. The question then arises as to how much time the Board think they, or any other adult, should have to wait before exercising their legal right to view any services they choose to buy? Wouldn't it be fair to say that the Board themselves should exercise more judgement in the types of statements they make and in the decisions they take that affect the rights of adult individuals?

It is a matter of law that any person over the age of 18 is defined as an adult. It is also a matter of law that any adult, 'well informed' or not, has a right to buy anything they wish to view without any further interference or delay.

Should members of the public now be given to understand that Ofcom do not agree with the law and that you believe some extra time is required for legal adults to become more qualified in exercising their rights and responsibilities as adults? As an adult of more than double the age of majority, I do believe I have served my 'apprenticeship' in the area of adulthood. Oddly enough, I believe I served that 'apprenticeship' by the time I reached 18 years of age, and the law of this land tends to agree with me.

Given that I am more than familiar with my rights and responsibilities as an adult, I believe it may be prudent to suggest you amend the above statement in 2.12 such that it reads:

"The realisation that adult individuals are entitled to choose the content they wish to consume on any services they choose to buy."

This then recognises every adult's right to freedom of expression as granted in the Human Rights Act. May I point out that the Human Rights Act is superior to the Communications Act and that, as a public body, the law dictates any decisions made by Ofcom must comply with the Human Rights Act and case law of the ECHR. Your rather cursory acknowledgement to respect freedom of expression in your policy documents should be an absolute statement of this fact as a requirement of law.

This brings me to my final point. The ECHR have decreed that to impose censorship of any legally available material by way of a broadcast licensing system is illegal (Groppera AG v Switzerland (1990)). It is beyond the scope of Ofcom's remit to rewrite or reinterpret the laws of this land and, as R18 is a recognised legal standard in video entertainment, Ofcom have no legal precedent to impose an outright ban on the transmission of such material on services available only to adults. It may also be prudent to point out that R18 is only viewable in the home and as such the law already places the onus on the viewer to ensure minors are protected from it. In short, children do not require any additional protection from Ofcom and, Ofcom are ill-placed to offer that protection and still respect the rights of adult viewers. It should also be stressed that freedom of expression exists to 'shock and disturb opinions' (Handyside v UK (1976)), it is therefore ridiculous to believe any material can be suppressed simply because it may be offensive to some individuals.

If we are to suffer a further delay in the publication of your revised Broadcasting Code (which I sincerely hope will recognise the legal rights of adult viewers) then may I suggest you amend the existing ITC Code forthwith and remove the illegal ban on transmission of R18-strength material over adult entertainment services. There can be no doubt in anyone's mind that the provisions already in place to protect minors from exposure to adult material are working. By continuing this ban you are doing 'well informed adult individuals' a great disservice - something many of us find absolutely intolerable and completely unjustifiable, especially since the DCMS now seem reluctant or unable to proscribe European-strength adult services.

Illegal ban on transmission of R18s

To: The Chairman, Ofcom Content Board
Re: Ofcom Plan 2005 and other issues

Dear Mr Hooper

I am somewhat perplexed and dismayed at the Board's recent delays in issuing the revised Broadcasting Code. I am even more annoyed at the apparent lack of understanding the Board display in it's interpretation of the Law and the overall treatment of adult viewers.

If I may draw your attention to this statement in the Plan for 2005, section 2.12:

"A presumption that over time well informed adult individuals should exercise more responsibility and choice in determining the content they consume, or the communications services they choose to buy."

I assume members of the Board do not place themselves outside the definition of 'well informed adult individuals'. The question then arises as to how much time the Board think they, or any other adult, should have to wait before exercising their legal right to view any services they choose to buy? Wouldn't it be fair to say that the Board themselves should exercise more judgement in the types of statements they make and in the decisions they take that affect the rights of adult individuals?

It is a matter of law that any person over the age of 18 is defined as an adult. It is also a matter of law that any adult, 'well informed' or not, has a right to buy anything they wish to view without any further interference or delay.

Should members of the public now be given to understand that Ofcom do not agree with the law and that you believe some extra time is required for legal adults to become more qualified in exercising their rights and responsibilities as adults? As an adult of more than double the age of majority, I do believe I have served my 'apprenticeship' in the area of adulthood. Oddly enough, I believe I served that 'apprenticeship' by the time I reached 18 years of age, and the law of this land tends to agree with me.

Given that I am more than familiar with my rights and responsibilities as an adult, I believe it may be prudent to suggest you amend the above statement in 2.12 such that it reads:

"The realisation that adult individuals are entitled to choose the content they wish to consume on any services they choose to buy."

This then recognises every adult's right to freedom of expression as granted in the Human Rights Act. May I point out that the Human Rights Act is superior to the Communications Act and that, as a public body, the law dictates any decisions made by Ofcom must comply with the Human Rights Act and case law of the ECHR. Your rather cursory acknowledgement to respect freedom of expression in your policy documents should be an absolute statement of this fact as a requirement of law.

This brings me to my final point. The ECHR have decreed that to impose censorship of any legally available material by way of a broadcast licensing system is illegal (Groppera AG v Switzerland (1990)). It is beyond the scope of Ofcom's remit to rewrite or reinterpret the laws of this land and, as R18 is a recognised legal standard in video entertainment, Ofcom have no legal precedent to impose an outright ban on the transmission of such material on services available only to adults. It may also be prudent to point out that R18 is only viewable in the home and as such the law already places the onus on the viewer to ensure minors are protected from it. In short, children do not require any additional protection from Ofcom and, Ofcom are ill-placed to offer that protection and still respect the rights of adult viewers. It should also be stressed that freedom of expression exists to 'shock and disturb opinions' (Handyside v UK (1976)), it is therefore ridiculous to believe any material can be suppressed simply because it may be offensive to some individuals.

If we are to suffer a further delay in the publication of your revised Broadcasting Code (which I sincerely hope will recognise the legal rights of adult viewers) then may I suggest you amend the existing ITC Code forthwith and remove the illegal ban on transmission of R18-strength material over adult entertainment services. There can be no doubt in anyone's mind that the provisions already in place to protect minors from exposure to adult material are working. By continuing this ban you are doing 'well informed adult individuals' a great disservice - something many of us find absolutely intolerable and completely unjustifiable, especially since the DCMS now seem reluctant or unable to proscribe European-strength adult services.

Parliament, Mumbo Jumbo & Fawning

Responding to Andrew Selous' question in Parliament: What account she will take of standards of public decency in programmes screened by the BBC as part of her decision on whether to renew the BBC charter.

I would like Mr. Selous, to know, in his campaign for censorship of the BBC, that I resent MY licence payer's money, being used, to promote religious mumbo jumbo, hymn singing, and other such ridiculous fawning grovelling.

HOWEVER I do accept however that SOME people may well enjoy such programmes.

Perhaps Mr. Selous, in turn will accept that SOME licence payers actually like programmes such as Jerry Springer the Opera, and if they pay their licence fee, they should be entitled to have them broadcast now and then. Sadly, it currently seems that Mr. Selous would prevent them viewing such programmes, if he could.

Censorship is an evil, and it should be kept to an absolute minimum, not demanded as Mr. Selous seems to be doing.

Mr Selous may be religious, but his religion is no reason to restrict my freedom. We do not live in a theocracy such as Iran Mr. Selous. We live in a free country, and we have Freedom of Expression. Even in our public media.