COMMUNICATIONS ACT 2003 s12 & 13 – OFCOM BROADCASTING CODE – SANCTIONS IMPOSED FOR BREACH OF CODE. MORE FM LTD 29 JULY 2011

1. More FM Ltd, formerly One Gold Radio Ltd, operates a local radio service Total Star – Somerset. It is a local commercial radio station licensed by Ofcom to serve Bridgwater and West Somerset using three transmitters, one located near the coastal town of Minehead. While this service operates using three transmitters the service is  not licensed to serve the wider county of Somerset which would include the towns of Taunton and Weston-super-Mare.
 
2. Ofcom’s field engineers took measurements and visited the Minehead transmission  site and reported that a new transmitter and antenna array had been installed, without consultation with Ofcom – itself a breach of the Code -  and that the station  was transmitting a directional high powered signal several times greater than that  permitted under the terms of the Licence. This created a risk to the safety of  members of the public which Ofcom’s Senior Radio Monitoring Broadcast Engineer described as being of “major concern”. Ofcom’s field engineers also found other transmission related irregularities.
 
3. The Licensee was found in breach of two of its Licence Conditions outlined in paragraphs 9 and 10 below. In accordance with Ofcom’s Procedures for the  consideration of statutory sanctions in broadcasting or other licence-related cases1 the Ofcom executive referred the breach to the Chair of the Broadcasting Sanctions Committee (the “Chair”). The Chair accepted the breach for consideration of a statutory sanction.

Sanction – Reduction of Licence Period by 12 months

http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/enforcement/content-sanctions-adjudications/bangmedia-revocation.pdf

http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/enforcement/content-sanctions-adjudications/More-FM-Ltd.pdf

Satellite Entertainment Ltd, Breach of SEL’s Television Licensable Content Service Licences Condition 11, 26 June 2011

Licensee had failed to comply with the retention and production of materials which are subject to a complaint to OFCOM. Such material must be retained for a period of at least 60 days and produced on demand to OFCOM when a complaint is made about the material – this was not done by the licensee in this case.

Decision: Fine of £90,000.
Bang Channels Ltd & Bang Media (London) Ltd – Breaches of OFCOM Broadcasting Code Rules 1.3, 1.17, 1.18, 1.24, 1.25 2.1 and 2.3.

A range of complaints relating to broadcasting prohibited R-18 material and the rules relating to protection of children from being exposed or having access to such material.

Decision by Broadcasting Sanctions Committee, 29 July 2010
http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/enforcement/content-sanctions-adjudications/bangchannels.pdf

Notice of Revocation of Licences, 26 November 2010
http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/enforcement/content-sanctions-adjudications/bangmedia-revocation.pdf

SANCTION: Revocation of Licences.

DM Digital Television Ltd – Co-regulatory system of regulation of broadcast advertising – Reference by Advertising Standards Authority (Broadcast) to OFCOM.
The ASA (B) referred what they considered a very serious breach of the code for the regulation of broadcasting advertising to OFCOM for the consideration of a financial penalty.

During this 30-minute advertisement viewers were invited to contact the company, Snober Heights, and invest in a range of properties in Turkey.
 
The programme-style presentation of the advertisement gave the impression that it was providing an impartial review of properties for sale abroad. The lengthy advertisement contained the following claims:  

• "This message is for those looking for a short term investment, wanting to make quick money" 
• "By just paying a small deposit you can own them and when the company increases the value before that you can switch from one bedroom to two bedrooms, if the company increases values by l0%, you double your profit" 
• ". .. I can give you this inside information...you will have a 10% profit straight away . . ." 

The ASA found that there was insufficient separation between the style of the advertisement and the editorial style of programmes, and the advertisement was misleading because the broadcaster had been unable to provide objective evidence to substantiate the claims. The ASA found the advertisement breached the following BCAP Code rules: 

• 2.1, 2.1 .I and 2.1.2 (b) and 2.1.2 (c) (Separation of advertisements and programmes)
• 5.1 (Misleading advertising);
• 5.2.1 (Evidence); 
• 5.3.1 (Accurate pricing); 
• 9.5 (c) (Unacceptable categories); and
• 5.4.2 (Superimposed text). 

Decision: Fine of £17,500.
http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/enforcement/content-sanctions-adjudications/dmdigitalltd.pdf

Communications Act ss 319, 320, 321, European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights Article 10 – Broadcast political advertising ban - R (on application of Animal Defenders International) v Secretary of State for Culture, Media & Sport [2008] 1 AC 1312

A feature of the regulation of radio and television advertising, as opposed to press advertising, has been a ban on political advertising – not merely advertising for political parties or during election campaigns but at any time on anything that could be considered a political matter even when by a charity. It has been argued that such a blanket ban is disproportionate and an undue restriction of freedom of speech under Article 10 ECHR 1950. This ban is reflected in the broadcasting regulation of most Council of Europe states and a recent decision of the ECtHR, Vgt Verein gegen Tiefabriken v Switzerland (Case 24699/94) (2002) 34 EHRR 4, striking down a ban on an advertisement by a group opposing the use of factory-farmed pigs for food production in Switzerland as contrary to Article 10, raised some hopes that advertising, particularly of the social advocacy kind, not tied to a particular party and responding to commercial advertisements in relation to the same subject matter might be acceptable. However the House of Lords has reaffirmed the validity of the blanket ban in the Animal Defenders International case. In this case an animal welfare charity sought to broadcast an advertisement attacking the use of primates (chimps) for entertainment purposes, particularly in circuses. The Broadcast Advertisement Clearance Centre refused to accept it on the grounds that it infringed the OFCOM Code of Broadcasting on the grounds that it was a ‘political’ advertisement in that it was pursuing legislative changes in relation to animal welfare legislation. In judicial review proceedings the House of Lords rejected the view that the complete ban in the UK was contrary to Article 10. It was accepted that the policy reasoning behind the ban were still valid. The Vgt case was regarded as unclear and best confined to its own facts. In their Lordships’ view impartiality principles and proper ventilation of controversial issues could be jeopardized if wealthy groups could buy up large amounts of air time to propagate their views – clearly the massive sums being expended in the USA and the ineffectual attempts to limit expenditure there were in the back of their Lordships’ minds. Neither did any intermediate system of access seem feasible.

Students may wish to read ‘Balancing freedom of political expression against equality of political opportunity: the courts and the UK’s ban on political advertising’, Lewis & Cumper, Public Law, 2009 Jan 89-111 (available on Westlaw).

European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights 1950 Article 10 – blanket ban on political advertising – TV Vest AS & Rogaland Penjoinistparti v Norway (2009) 48 EHRR 51.

Subsequent to the House of Lords decision in the Animal Defenders International the issue of political advertising came back before the European Court of Human Rights in TV Vest case. During a period of the 8 days running up to local and regional elections in Norway a television company broadcast three 15-second advertisements by the Norwegian Pensioners Party seven times a day. The television company was fined 35,000 NOK for breach of the ban on all political advertising and the fine was upheld by the Norwegian Supreme Court. The ECtHR held the fine and the blanket ban to be a disproportionate breach of Article 10. In the court’s view a ban was justified on two grounds, firstly that it would reduce the quality of political debate and secondly that it would allow the financially powerful greater opportunities for promulgating their views. In the court’s view neither of the grounds applied here given the status of the Pensioners Party and that the short messages contained in the advertisement merely stating their core values. More significantly, in relation to the approach of the House of Lords in the Animal Defenders case, the court rejected the view of the Norwegian Government that no viable alternative to a blanket ban could be found.

Communications Act 2003 – ss3, 198, 319 – OFCOM Broadcasting Code –Rule 2.11 - Clauses 46, 93 & 94 BBC Licence Agreement - Decision of OFCOM Sanctions Committee.- Comic Relief, Sport Relief, Children in Need, Tmi (Television), Liz Kerhsaw Show – The Jo Whiley Show – Russell Brand Show – The Care McDonnell Show (BBC Radio), 30/7/08

S198 CA 2003 subjects the BBC to regulation by OFCOM in relation to so-called Tier One (general standards of decency, privacy, accuracy, fairness and protection of children etc) and Tier Two obligations (quotas re European Broadcasting, independent and regional productions etc). This included the requirement under rule 2.11 of the OFCOM Broadcasting Code that 'Competitions should be conducted fairly..' The BBC can be fined a maximum of £250,000 for each separate infringement. In these cases involving a range of viewer participation programmes there had been incidents of faking winners of competitions and deliberately conducting competitions unfairly – in some instances involving pre-meditated decisions to broadcast competitions and encourage viewers to enter in the full knowledge that none of them could win and in other programmes where technical problems had occurred naming non-participants as winners. Systemic failures of management oversight and training in compliance procedures were found by the OFCOM Sanctions Committee. In the light of the fact that the BBC itself received no money from the participation competitions in question fines were imposed ranging from £115,000 to £17,500, the combined fine amounting to £400,000. Important emphasis was placed by OFCOM on the need to ensure that freelance staff are fully aware of the regulatory obligations (80% of production staff on Comic Relief, for example, were freelance).

Decisions of the OFCOM Content Sanctions Committee can be seen on their website: www.ofcom.org.uk

Broadcasting Directive 89/552/EC (as amended by Broadcasting Directive 97/36/EC), Articles 1(c), f),10 , 18 - Kommunikationsbehorde Austria v Osterreichischer Rundfunk (ORF) (Case C-195/06), 18/10/07 – definition of teleshopping and television advertising in relation to conduct of prize games.

The Austrian broadcaster ORF broadcast a viewer participation quiz programme, Quiz-Express, which involved a premium rate telephone call and then, in the second part, a selected caller had to answer a general knowledge question. Callers who did not participate in the programme were entered in a prize draw – the Austrian broadcasting regulator took the view that this was a exercise in teleshopping and prohibited under Austrian broadcasting legislation. The revenues from the call were divided between the broadcaster and the telecoms operator and in part financed the programme. The Austrian court referred the question as to whether these premium call participation quizzes should be interpreted as teleshopping and whether the offering of participation by the broadcaster amounted to television advertising and as such had to be counted in the maximum time that could be allocated to advertising under Article 18. The ECJ ruled that the game could consist of an advertisement if the game consisted of an announcement which seeks to encourage viewers to buy the goods and services presented as prizes to be won or seeks to promote the merits of the programmes of the broadcaster in question indirectly in the form of self-promotion. It would be a teleshopping exercise if the broadcast or part of a broadcast of which the game formed part represented a real offer of services, taking into account the terms of time and of anticipated economic effects in relation to those expected in respect of the broadcast as a whole and also to the type of questions which the candidates were asked. The game had to constitute an economic activity in its own right
(see paras 37 & 38 of Judgment).

Office of Communications (OFCOM) – Broadcasting Code rules 2, 8 & 10 – Ofcom Content Sanctions Committee Decisions – Ant & Dec’s Saturday Night Takeaway (London Weekend Television – Channel 3) May 2008.
www.ofcom.org.uk/tv/obb/ocsc_adjud/yswp.pdf
Richard & Judy Show (‘You Say We Pay’, Channel 4, December 2007
www.ofcom.org.uk/tv/obb/ocsc_adjud/yswp.pdf

A succession of ‘scandals’ in relation to the operation of viewer participation competitions have swept through all the major public service television broadcasters – these two involving fines of £3m and £1m respectively are merely illustrative of the problem and in particular major breaches of Rule 2.11: Competitions should be conducted fairly, prizes should be described accurately and rules should be clear and appropriately made known.’ Rule8(2)(b) Use of Premium Rate Telephone Services in Programmes: ‘The licensee must retain control of and responsibility for the service arrangements and the premium line messages (including all matters relating to their content’).
The misdemeanours were extensive:

1. allowing viewers to participant when prize winners had already been selected or pre-selected or further participation in the quiz closed for technical or timing reasons;
2. structuring the quiz so not every entry had a equal chance of winning;
3. pre-selection on basis of geographical location, telegenic qualities or for editorial reasons all of which overrode the random equal chance requirements;
4. nominating members of the staff of the programme, their friends or members of the studio audience as ‘pretend winners’ when technical problems prevented the carrying on of the competition;
5. in poll contests rejecting the viewers choice where it was felt it was not appropriate and substituting an editorial choice
6. failure to audit and monitor systems operated by the telephone companies and internet service providers to see that they were operating fairly and according to the rules;
7. failures by the telephone companies and internet service providers to operate the systems fairly either through inadvertence, technical incompatibility with how the television company wanted to operate the quiz, inexperience, incompetence, and possibly in some cases overt fraud.

The various investigations have lead to tightening up of compliance procedures, written and oral warning about conditions and closures of lines and a tightening up of the Code of Practice of PhonepayPlus formerly the Independent Committee for the Supervision of Standards of Telephone Information Services (ICTSIS) and greater monitoring by OFCOM of the operation of that Code and its implementation. Generally broadcasters have reacted by introducing more formal compliance, line management and internal and external audit procedures.

The PhonePay Plus Code regulating operation of premium rate telephone lines can be accessed at: www.phonepayplus.org.uk/CodeOfPractice/default.asp
and its adjudications at: www.phonepayplus.org.uk/business/adjudications/default.asp

Office of Communications (OFCOM) – ss 1(7), 6,  236-238, 319(2)(h), 321 & 325 – Television Advertising Standards Code Rules 3, 5, 8 & 10 – Ofcom Content Sanctions Committee Decision – Venus Television Ltd (December 2008)
www.ofcom.org.uk/tv/obb/ocsc_adjud/venustv.pdf

Venus TV were a digital channel largely aimed at Asian viewers. Complaints had been in respect of a number of advertisements relating to herbal remedy capsules to allegedly treat depression, weight loss tablets, astrology, and face cream. The nub of the complaints were that they breached the Television Advertising Standards Code in relation to misleading claims, improper medical claims and improper advertising of occult and physic services. Under the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994 and The Contracting Out (Functions Relating to Broadcast Advertising) & Specification of Relevant Functions Order 2004 SI 1975 a co-regulatory system exists in relation to television and radio broadcast advertising – in effect the formulation of the code and day to day administration of the complaints system is delegated to the Advertising Standards Authority (Broadcast) and Broadcast Committee of Advertising Practice. However OFCOM retains back stop powers to fine and revoke licences – in particular here where there are repeated breaches of the Code and the advertiser or broadcaster does not properly comply with the decision of the self-regulatory Advertising Standards Authority. It is a condition of every commercial channel’s licence that they will comply with the code. In view of the repeated breaches and the failures of the channel’s compliance policy OFCOM imposed a fine of £35,000.

For Broadcast Code go to the ASA Web Site: www.asa.org.uk/asa/codes/
For Memorandum of Understanding between OFCOM and ASA on advertising controls see: www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/reg_broad_ad/update/mou/mou.pdf

Office of Communications (OFCOM) – Rules 2.1 & 9 OFCOM Broadcasting Code - Ofcom Content Sanctions Committee Decision  – DM Digital Television Ltd (October 2008)
www.ofcom.org.uk/tv/obb/ocsc_adjud/dmdigital.pdf

A strict demarcation line is supposed to be maintained between advertising and sponsorship and substantive programme content in British broadcasting. To stray over that line is to invite a financial penalty from OFCOM. In this case a channel mainly in Urdu aimed at the British and overseas Asian communities was fined £15,000 when it allowed a doctor, who was sponsoring the programme, to make unchallenged medical claims that his homeopathic treatments, available from his medical clinic in Pakistan, could cure cancer, diabetes, and hepatitis, as well as other medical conditions. In effect the programme was being used as a promotional platform for the sponsor to advertise his products and without any requirement of substantiation of his claims and attempt by channel to exercise any proper editorial control over the content. The OFCOM Sanctions Committee agreed and imposed a fine of £15,000.

Office of Communications (OFCOM) – Rules 5 & 6.1 OFCOM Broadcasting Code – OFCOM Content Sanctions Committee Decision – TalkSport Ltd (December 2008)
www.ofcom.org.uk/tv/obb/ocsc_adjud/talksport.pdf

Unlike the printed media which can be as partisan as it likes in supporting political parties and/or specific candidates broadcasters must observe strict impartiality and balance in reporting elections and election campaigns. Certainly presenters and announcers should not indicate support for a specific candidate – Rule 5.5: Due impartiality on matters of political or industrial controversy and matters relating to current policy’ and these rules are specifically applied by Rule 6.1 to elections and referendums. This lead to a fine of £20,000 on the radio channel TalkSport when, in his show ‘The James Whale Show’, Mr Whale criticized the incumbent Ken Livingstone (Labour) and urged voters to vote for Boris Johnson (Conservative) in the 2008 London mayoral election campaign, despite the protestations of the programme producer who was in the studio at the time. The channel had also fallen foul of these rules previously in a show broadcast by the controversial Respect Party MP George Galloway – stern critic of Tony Blair and the Iraq war. For his pains Mr Whale’s contract of employment was terminated for gross misconduct.

BBC Royal Charter for the Continuance of the British Broadcasting Corporation 2006 – Articles 7-11 & 22-25.

In the 2006 Royal Charter a major reform took place in the governance of the BBC with the separation out of the oversight role – given to a newly created BBC Trust – and the executive running of the BBC given to an Executive Board - his was to avoid conflicts of interest – previously the BBC Governors had a dual role of oversight and executive responsibility. The BBC Trust also deals with complaints against the BBC that have not been satisfactorily dealt with at a lower internal level. The BBC Licence Agreement of 2006 imposes a number of specific obligations on the BBC including an appropriate representation of the UK, its nations and regions (Article 9 Licensing Agreement) and ensures that controversial subjects are treated with due accuracy and impartiality in all relevant output (Article 44 Licensing Agreement). In relation to these objectives the Trust have commissioned and published reports on ‘BBC Network News and Current Affairs, Coverage of the Four UK Nations’ (June 2008) - www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/research/impartiality/nations.html and ‘From Seesaw to Wagon Wheel – Safeguarding impartiality in the 21st century’ (June 2007) www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/research/impartiality/century21.html
The second of these reports sets out 12 guiding principles on pages 6-8 of the Report and, while at a fairly high level of generality, seek to ensure across the range of BBC activities appropriate impartiality is maintained while seeking to ensure that a ‘safety first’ and insipid programming policy is not adopted – the Report stresses impartiality is not to be bought at the price of abandoning controversial and thought provoking programming. The report on the regions does throw up concerns that the BBC is too ‘Westminster’ based in its focus ‘the review highlights concern that the BBC network news and current affairs programmes taken as a whole are not reporting the changing UK with the range and precision that might reasonably be expected given the high standards the BBC aspires to’ (@ p 6). The Trust requests the Executive to produce an action plan and to work with the Audience Councils of the constituent nations to redress the perception and in 18 months to conduct further research to see whether the diversity goals are being met.

Office of Communications (OFCOM) – Ofcom Sanctions Committee – s198 Communications Act 2003 – Rule 2.11 Ofcom Broadcasting Code – BBC in Respect of its Service Radio Two - (www.ofcom.org.uk/tv/obb/ocsc_adjud/BBCRadio2.pdf)
& BBC in Relation to its service BBC Radio London (www.ofcom.org.uk/tv/obb/ocsc_adjud/BBCLondon94.9FM.pdf)
(December 2008)
BBC Trust –  Article 45 BBC Licensing Agreement (Fairness Code) & BBC Editorial Guidelines - Editorial Standards Committee – Tony Blackburn (BBC London 94.9FM) five editions 2005/6 & Dermot O’Leary (Radio 2) eight editions (December 2008)
www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/appeals/editorial_appeal_findings.html

Breach of editorial guidelines on fairness – in essence in certain pre-recorded programmes participants from previous live programmes were invited to play the part of ‘live’ contestants on the pre-recorded shows and all received a ‘goody bag’ for doing so. In addition listeners to the programmes were invited to ring in – the phones were not answered so no money lost but money might have been lost on wasted mobile phone texts of answers. Incident not separately reported in the spate of scandals about conduct of broadcast competitions. Findings: (i) in future the BBC Executive should inform the Ethical Standards Committee of all serious breaches of the any Code or Editorial Guidelines and (2) an on-air apology should be made at an appropriate date and time with wording agreed by the BBC Trust’s Editorial Standards Committee and at the time OFCOM published its inquiry into the same matter.
The BBC is subject to the jurisdiction of OFCOM in relation to its Tier One obligations which include an obligation to comply with fairness provisions of the OFCOM Broadcasting Code (see Articles 91-95 BBC Licensing Agreement) and OFCOM can impose fines up to a maximum of £250,000 (s198 CA 2003).
In respect of both the above complaints OFCOM found that there had been clear and serious breaches of Rule 2:11 of the Broadcasting Code: Competitions should be conducted fairly, prizes should be described accurately and rules should be clear and appropriately made known.
The Content Sanctions Committee took the view @ para 1.10 ‘the Code breaches in this case constituted a significant breakdown in the relationship of trust between a long-established public service broadcaster and its audience. The breaches of the Code and of its own fundamental principle of straight dealing with its audience, were unacceptable.’  Fines of £70,000 (BBC2 case) and £25,000 (Radio London case) were imposed taking into account the remedial steps and apologies instigated by the BBC Trust.

Following this and numerous other fairness complaints about the conduct of viewer competitions and operation of premium rate telephone lines in connection with this the BBC has set up a specific Unit to monitor competitions etc – the Interactive Advice and Compliance Unit (IACU) -
www.bbc.co.uk/guidelines/editorialguidelines/advice/interactivity/awards/itacu.shtml

BBC Trust – Article 45 Fairness Code & Article 46 Programme Code Standards  (November 2008) Complaints against conduct of Russell Brand (Radio2), Chris Moyles (Radio1) and Jonathan Ross (Friday Night with Jonathan Ross)
www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/appeals/editorial_appeal_findings.html

In one of the most highly publicized incidents of recent years the BBC received approximately 43,000 complaints in relation to a pre-recorded edition of the Russell Brand Show on Radio 2. This was a programme made by an independent production company. It had been agreed previously that there would be a telephone interview with Mr Sachs but he was not available and this then lead to the leaving of several unsolicited messages containing sexual innuendo about his granddaughter, Ms Baillie, including the suggestion that Russell Brand had had sexual relations with her. The Committee found that the content of the programme ‘was humiliating to Andrew Sachs [well known actor, aka Manuel from ‘Fawlty Towers’] and Ms Baillie [his granddaughter] and their families and represented an unacceptable and deplorable intrusion into their private lives. Even on the assumption, which the Committee found to be false, that implicit consent to the broadcast of these messages was permissible it was not suitable material to be placed on air at that time or indeed any time. The outcome, which is being separately investigated by OFCOM as a Tier One infringement of the Broadcasting Code, was the three month suspension of celebrity co-host Jonathan Ross and the resignation of Russell Brand from his position on the programme and a personal apology by him to Andrew Sachs. The Committee also ruled that there was a failure to assert editorial control, a failure to follow the compliance systems in place and a failure of editorial judgment. The relevant overseeing producer resigned as well as the Controller of Radio Two.

For BBC Editorial Guidelines go to: www.bbc.co.uk/guidelines/editorialguidelines/edguide/

Implementation of Audiovisual Media Services Directive 2007/65/EC in UK

1. Legislative Amendments to Communications Act 2003 – the Directive establishes a ‘lighter touch’ regulation of television-like services – on so-called ‘non-linear’ services and these provisions have now been enacted in the UK [see Legislation section]. The most controversial innovation has been the introduction of the concept of ‘product placement into certain designated categories of domestically produced programmes for the first time in the UK.

2. Co-regulation – OFCOM have decided to enter into a co-regulatory arrangement in relation to the regulation of non-linear services under ht AVMD 2007/65 which provides for an extension EU broadcasting regulation to web and internet based television-like services. OFCOM already operates one co-regulatory regime in relation to the regulation of broadcasting advertising with the Advertising Standards Authority. The body selected is the Association for Television on Demand – ATVOD. ATVOD set out on their website the objective of the new relationship.

“ATVOD is the independent co-regulator for the editorial content of UK video on demand services that include TV-like programming (On Demand Programme Services).
Its duties and powers derive from the Communications Act 2003, as amended by the Audiovisual Media Services Regulations 2009 and the Audiovisual Media Services Regulations 2010 which came into force on 19 December 2009 and 18 March 2010 respectively. The Act confers functions on the Office of Communications (Ofcom) for the regulation of On Demand Programme Services, and gives Ofcom power to delegate certain functions to an appropriate regulatory authority.

On 18 March 2010, Ofcom delegated certain of its functions and powers in relation to the regulation of On Demand Programme Services to ATVOD by means of a formal designation.

To manage its new responsibilities ATVOD has restructured, to ensure independence from the industry’s commercial interests and to make sure that protection of the public is its top priority. The new ATVOD will be led by a newly appointed independent Chair and has a new Board comprising five independent and four industry members. A new Chief Executive has also been appointed. Details of the appointments can be found here.

ATVOD Rules and Guidance setting out the new regulatory requirements and advice on how to comply with them will be published on this website shortly. In the meantime, the statutory requirements with which providers of On Demand Programme Services must comply can be found in the two sets of Regulations cited above. Ofcom has also published a summary of the requirements, and guidance on whether a service needs to be notified, on its website: http://www.ofcom.org.uk/tv/ifi/vodservices.pdf

Existing service providers must comply with their statutory duty to notify ATVOD before 30 April 2010 as soon as possible. Providers of On Demand Programme Services starting after 18 March 2010 must also notify ATVOD before the service begins.

Users of an On Demand Programme Service who believe that the service is in breach of the Regulations should, until further notice, and for a brief and interim period only, continue to complain to Ofcom. See http://www.ofcom.org.uk/complain/vod/ for details. ATVOD will assume responsibility for receiving and investigating complaints very shortly.

ATVOD was originally created as a self-regulatory body at the time of Communications Act 2003, with the support and encouragement of the Government.

BBC ROYAL CHARTER (2006) clause 4(d) and Licence Agreement clauses 9 & 44 – Impartiality – ‘Thought for Day Ruling’

Under the new Governance procedures introduced by the new Royal Charter and Licensing Agreements introduced in 2006, the BBC Trust was set up and has overall responsibility in ensuring that the BBC meets its public sector broadcasting requirements and obligations under the Charter and Agreement (see clauses 7-11 & 22-27 of the Royal Charter). In this case the BBC Trust General Appeals Panel & Editorial Standards Committee rejected arguments that the BBC had breached its public purpose (clause 4 Royal Charter, clause 9 Framework Agreement and the impartiality guidelines set out in clause 44 Framework Agreement) in not allowing non-religious representatives to appear on the programme ‘Thought for the Day’ which was open to representatives of a range of religions and denominations – no Richard Dawkins on ‘Thought for the Day’!

See Summary: www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/assets/files/pdf/appeals/esc_bulletins/2009/tftd.pdf

See Full Report: www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/assets/files/pdf/appeals/esc_bulletins/2009/tftd.pdf

BBC Trust – Independent Review of Radio Audio and Music Editorial Guidelines – March 31 2010

One of the biggest broadcasting ‘scandals’ of recent years was the behaviour of Russell Brand and Jonathan Ross in making lewd calls to the actor Andrew Sachs with reference to the sexual behaviour of his granddaughter. The fallout saw Russell Brand leave BBC Radio and focused the spotlight on the high salary of Jonathan Ross who is now also leaving the BBC – though it should be stressed not directly because of the ‘Sachsgate Affair’. The BBC Trust commissioned an independent review into editorial standards in the audio and music area of the BBC in the light of changes introduced as a result of the ‘Sachsgate Affair’ and the review has basically welcomed the editorial changes introduced and the ‘cultural changes’ in attitude which are taking place.

www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/assets/files/pdf/review_report_research/am_compliance/am_compliance_review.pdf