SAVE FOR A FEW ISOLATED PATCHES OF SNOW, NOT TO MENTION ON THE BLUFFLANDS, snow has basically melted here in the Minnwissippi--or is starting to.

And is likely to be all the more so with milder weather, not to mention rain, making its presence felt as March prepares to segue into April.

*************

YOUR CORRESPONDENT COULDN'T HELP BUT BE AMUSED @ THE NEWS OUT OF WAUSAU, WISCONSIN about police being called to what neighbours claimed was an underage drinking party, replete with the inevitable pony kegs and red plastic cups.

Only it emerged that the pony keg was full of 1919 Draft Root Beer, never mind that police were called to conduct breathalyser tests on all participants--all negative.

You may have heard about it on the news--and heard about (let alone) seen the video of the police raid on YouTube (which you can see below):

So who says teens have to drink beer or take illicit drugs to have a good time? (The above disproving this contention.)

*************

IT LOOKS AS IF THE WORLD'S SMALLEST SOVERIGN ENTITY, THE STATE OF VATICAN CITY (A/K/A THE HOLY SEE), may be about to become the world's first smoke-free soverign state.

Expect pretty much all the other vest-pocket soverign entities the world over to follow suit quickly--as in:

• Andorra
• Ellan Vannin (the Isle of Man)
• Gibraltar
• States of Guernsey and Dependencies
• States of Jersey
• Principality of Liechtenstein
• Principality of Monaco
• Republic of San Marino

But then again, you have to wonder how these same entities will compensate for loss of revenue from tobacco taxes, never mind in particular Andorra and Monaco being centres for black-market cigarette sales (Andorra especially, what with their having no GST yet embracing the Euro as legal coin of the realm, so making the tiny state rather popular among Euroshopping types looking for amazing values in top-of-the-line consumer goods).

*************

DOWN ZIMBABWE WAY, GENERAL ELECTIONS ARE BEING HELD TODAY--ELECTIONS WHICH COULD BE TAINTED, AS SEEMS TO BE USUAL, by corruption, vote-rigging and wholesale manipulation on the part of President Robert Mugabe's ZANU-PF party, widely blamed for all manner of corruption, socioeconomic mismanagement and creation of a climate for to breed social disorder and the old ultraviolence.

Never mind where Mugabe, who's seeking his sixth term in office since suceeding in ending white-minority rule under name and stylee of Rhodesia in 1980, is now 84 years of age and may be dropping hints of senility or lapses of memory ... let alone the fact of Zimbabwe's Central Election Commission banning foreign observers seen to be "meddling in [Zimbabwe's] internal affairs" as much as their "antient and pecuilar soverignty and soverign identity," thereby raising further fears of said elections being neither free nor fair.

Certain to be of interest to the GOP and their Religiopolitical Right droogs as are probably looking for new and innovative ways for which to manipulate and pervert Indecision 2008; seems they must be acting as unofficial observers, howbeit incognito and keeping a low profile to avoid arousing suspicions with Zimbabwean police and/or immigration officials.

Is it any wonder that these elements weird and unwholesome must be having such an especial interest in the Zimbabwean Presidential elections, particularly from the standpoint of tactics and strategems for to pervert the electoral process (and excuse such as being for G-d, Country and Family Values)?

*************

PATRIOTIC FANATICISM TAKEN TO A NEW AND POTENTIALLY DANGEROUS LOW IN THE MAKING: In the waning days of World War II in the Pacific, the Japanese military recruited young men to act as suicide pilots who could be easily trained and manipulated to crash-dive their bomb-laden aircraft into American naval vessels, hoping their sacrifice in the name of their super-divine Showa Emperor would save Japan from imminent American "annhilation."

Otherwise known as kamikaze ("divine wind"), such goes down in history as perhaps one of the crudest attempts @ patriotic fanaticism based on taking one's life to save others from further misery and hardship.

Your Correspondent had this fantasy the other day about where certain overzealously "patriot" types might prostate themselves before Old Glory in an attempt @ self-abasement before the Greater Collective Good of the Nation, seeing in Old Glory something akin to a Fiery Cross or the Nazis' swastika (i.e., a symbol of National Salvation and Honour) ... only to have the whole result in an episode of emotional hysteria not unlike the Old Testament prophet Job lamenting his own lot resulting in suicide, hoping such an exercise would be seen as one with "saving America from herself" ahead of a "New World Order" "takeover of American soverignty and soverign identity."

Especially so among "patriot" elements tending to attract vulnerable and easily-influenced elements of society by exploiting their easily-influenced patriotic feelings and sentiments--same tending all the more to jingoism and xenophobia.

*************

AND ONE THING MORE, as Paul Harvey is fond of closing out his radio news bulletins absent a "For What It's Worth" item, by way of the BBC World Service programme From Our Own Correspondent, which had this interesting item about troops from the United Arab Emirates serving alongside NATO forces in Afghanistan (and actually gaining some confidence and trust among Afghani Muslims who are otherwise resentful of especially American Occupation Troops, never mind their mostly serving a humanitarian role):

This week the BBC's Frank Gardner revealed that a contingent of Arab troops from the United Arab Emirates (UAE) has been secretly operating alongside the Americans in Afghanistan. But getting access to them took months and was fraught with hurdles, especially as our correspondent is in a wheelchair.

Out on the tarmac at an Abu Dhabi airbase, in the slowly-building heat of the Gulf, my heart sank.

The UAE Airforce Hercules transport plane that was supposed to fly us up to Bagram base had its engines running, the pilot was in his cockpit, but I could not see how I was supposed to wheel myself up into it.

"No ramp!" shouted a crewman above the roar of the engines, "all full with cargo!"

So the crew had to lift me bodily out of my wheelchair and carry me through a tiny hatchway like a baby.

Four hours after take-off the first snow appeared, dusting the mountaintops and filling the north-facing ravines of Waziristan, home to those elusive pockets of Taleban and al-Qaeda insurgents.

"Thirty minutes to landing," shouted the airforce crew.

Hospitable reception

We flew low over the foothills of the Hindu Kush, then the green crops and dusty villages gave way to what looked like a purpose-built new town, a clean and tidy place where the buildings were all in neat lines.

It was Bagram airbase, home to 11,000 coalition troops.

A reception committee of beaming Emirati officers had driven out to greet us, led by the Taskforce Commander, a slight man from Sharjah with a quiet intelligence and a twinkle in his eye.

"Welcome back to Afghanistan, Mr Frank," he said, extending his hand.

To my embarrassment, the ever-hospitable Emiratis had insisted on allocating me the VIP hut, a sort of miniature villa with faux columns amid rows of sandbags.

They had even got their Afghan carpenters to construct a wooden ramp so I could wheel up to the raised doorway and I could see it had been freshly painted.

That evening the Emiratis gave us a presentation on the humanitarian projects they were undertaking: a mosque here, a school there, wells dug in this village, a clinic set up in that one.

It did not seem vastly different from what other countries were doing but we were soon to see for ourselves that as Muslims, the UAE soldiers were welcomed and trusted in places where the rest of the US-led coalition frankly was not.

Knowing how important Islam was to most Afghan villagers, the Emiratis would address their religious needs first, either by building them a small mosque or just by distributing freshly-printed Korans.

Only then, said the Emiratis, could they discuss other secular projects like building a school or a hospital.

Frustration

Of course in an ideal world I would get out and see all this with my own eyes but safety concerns meant I had to stay behind on-base - "in the rear, with the gear, where there is no fear" - while our crew went off to film.

To say this was frustrating was an understatement.

In the village of Qalat Baland, my companions watched as boxes of sweet, sticky dates were handed out to grey-bearded elders, and children were given school notebooks while a tall, charismatic Emirati army officer sat cross-legged in a courtyard, listening as a young boy chanted verses from the Koran by memory.

From the pictures they brought back it all looked a vision of harmony, but then I could see it began to go wrong - word spread that there was not enough to go round

Suddenly the crowd surged, pushing and elbowing their way past the uniformed troops to get at the plastic-wrapped goodies.

The Afghan police, who had now turned up, weighed in with unrestrained brutality and it took all the Emiratis' diplomacy to restore calm before the scene descended into a riot.

Back in the Emiratis' camp I had not been completely idle.

Part of the plan was that they brought in a succession of prominent Afghans for me to interview, all people who had worked with these fellow Muslims from the Gulf on humanitarian projects.

In their smart grey business suits the Afghan officials looked quite out of place here in this dusty, sandbagged camp.

There was the chancellor of Khost University and a junior minister for orphans, widows and the disabled. There was also an elderly but energetic member of President Karzai's government who had some outspoken views about his fellow governors.

No respect

"They are drug runners," declared Meraj Uddin Patan flatly, as he reeled off a list of provincial governors he said were all up to their necks in the opium poppy trade.

"How can people respect our government when you have people like these in charge of them?" he said, swatting away a fly that had emerged into the early spring sunshine.

"When I took over as governor of Khost in 2004," he continued, "I started a campaign against the sort of thugs who intimidated the population and do you know how?"

"No I didn't," I said. By now he was in full flow and a small group of Emirati soldiers had gathered to listen.

"When we caught a Taleban insurgent," said governor Meraj, "we would shave his head and put him on a donkey facing backwards and parade him round the city. But now," he paused, a look of genuine sadness on his face, "now it has gone back to being a very bad situation".

I asked him why the Taleban had been so successful in making a comeback since they were defeated here in 2001.

"There are three reasons" replied Meraj "weak government, no unity among the police, national army and the coalition allies, and, the Taleban has unrestricted freedom of movement in their rear area in Waziristan. Solve these problems," he said "and Afghanistan has a bright future."

Satisfied, ye Zealots and True Believers in ur-RAHOWA Against International Terrorism and "healthy [and] patriotic" Islamophobia?

Besides, "it's a small world, after all...."   

RECENT ADJUDICATION FROM OFCOM, THE BRITISH BROADCASTING REGULATOR, involving an online broadcaster between Land's End and John O'Groats featuring viewer-generated comment submitted through the broadcaster's website (with necessary deletions):

Sumo TV - User Generated Content
Andy Milonakis clip, 6 July 2007, 23:46; and Parent/Carer and child clip, 22 July 2007, 00:34

Introduction

Sumo TV is the broadcast arm of a website called Sumo.tv. Contributors to the website are able to submit material, which may end up on the digital television service. Submissions range from home-produced material recorded on mobile phones or webcams through to items from professionally-produced programmes and music videos from around the world.

Two viewers complained about two separate items of user-generated content shown on Sumo TV, as described below.

6 July 2007 , 23.46, Andy Milonakis

This sequence involved what appeared to be a webcam performance featuring a person called Andy Milonakis. This person appears to be an adolescent, although the presenter introducing the item said that he was actually 30 years old. In this video, he performed a rap, which included a steady stream of the strongest language and graphic sexual references and which lasted over three minutes. An extract, from the 500 word rap, follows:

“…I’m a little boy and I got little toys but I’m in a big world, yo. I [N4BSK] big girls coz I like earthquakes…my [N4BSK]ing flows run through you…I give you a piggy back ride if you [N4BSK]ing wanna do some fun. I sniff some cocaine off your mother’s navel…my son is ugly, he looks like my nipple, I [N4BSK]ed him in the [N4BSK] now he’s cripple and he’s in a wheelchair…I [N4BSK]ing gave him some weave, I gave him some beeve on his sixteenth birthday yo but he’s still gay, he likes to [N4BSKx2] a lot, yo that’s alright I feed him mine…I’m gunna holler coz I’m getting [N4BSK]… all the [N4BSK]ing inmates are gay. …[N4BSK] you [N4BSK], [N4BSK] you…[N4BSK] it I’ll make you a [N4BSK]…oh my god I’m gunna lather myself…”

One viewer, believing Andy Milonakis to be an adolescent, complained that this material, which included explicit sexual references, some appearing to provide graphic descriptions of under-age sex, was inappropriate for broadcast.

Ofcom asked Sumo TV to respond to complaints with regard to Rule 2.3 (“In applying generally accepted standards broadcasters must ensure that material which may cause offence is justified by the context”).

Context includes various factors such as: the editorial content of the programme; the service on which the material is broadcast; the time of broadcast; the degree of harm or offence likely to be caused; the likely expectation of the audience; the extent to which the nature of the content can be brought to the attention of the potential audience; and the effect of the material on viewers who may come across it unawares.

22 July 2007 , 00:34 , Parent/Carer and Child

This sequence appeared to be a mobile phone video of an adult frightening a young child (approximately five years old). The sound quality was poor, but the adult appeared to ask the child: “…do I know it’s so scary?” The adult then tried to terrify the child by pulling faces, yelling and shrieking. The child was clearly extremely distressed and started screaming, crying and at one point attempted to run away. In the final moments, the child was seen holding his ears, in a gesture which suggested a need to comfort himself, and sobbing.

One viewer complained that this material could be said to be condoning child abuse, and was inappropriate for broadcast.

Ofcom asked Sumo TV to respond to the complaints with regard to the following Code Rules:

• Rule 1.26[^(-1-)](“Due care must be taken over the physical and emotional welfare and the dignity of people under eighteen who take part or are otherwise involved in programmes. This is irrespective of any consent given by the participant or by a parent, guardian or other person over the age of eighteen in loco parentis”);
• Rule 1.27 (“People under eighteen must not be caused unnecessary distress or anxiety by their involvement in programme or by the broadcast of those programmes”); and
• Rule 2.3(generally accepted standards; justification by context).

Response

Sumo TV responded to the concerns raised over the broadcast of these two items as follows.

6 July 2007 , 23.46, Andy Milonakis

The broadcaster argued that the concerns over the material were related to the fact that the complainant had assumed that Andy Milonakis was a “boy…no older than 14”. Mr Milonakis was in fact considerably older[^(-2-)], and a well-known figure in this particular genre of entertainment. Sumo TV acknowledged that the language used was explicit and was clearly intended to create a reaction in the audience. It considered that some would find it humorous, others would find it tediously repetitive in its profanity. It said that the “rap” was not concerned with under-age sex and, in its opinion, to suggest otherwise clearly acted “…so as to distort the nature of the artistic work”.

Sumo TV went on to say that the text of the “rap” was clearly addressing a whole range of individuals, their proclivities and religions, and “was patently non-specific”. It believed the material was entirely justified by the context since, in the nature of its programming, Sumo TV frequently looked to give a platform to subjects popularly described as an “internet phenomena”. The broadcaster said that, given the time of the broadcast, the context of the programme and having regard to the above comments the content was not beyond the bounds of generally accepted standards.

22 July 2007 , 00:34 , Parent/Carer and Child

Sumo TV responded, with regard to Rule 1.26, that the sequence depicted “…an adult pretending to act in a ‘scary’ manner”. It said the words “…do I know it’s so scary?” clearly indicated that the adult had been engaged in a playful act. This was reflected in the adult putting his tongue out of his mouth, holding back his ears and having widened eyes. In Sumo TV’s view, “…it was clearly the case that the adult had been engaged in a type of humour witnessed in households throughout the UK , day in and day out”. There was no physical contact between the adult and the child and nor did the adult at any time raise his voice or otherwise act in a menacing manner toward the child.

In this context, Sumo TV argued that the broadcast of the clip did not indicate a lack of due care over the physical and emotional welfare of the child. To imply that there was, it said, would be to suggest that behaviour of this type – misguided though it may be on occasion – should be banned throughout the UK . Sumo TV also noted that this particular sequence followed immediately after another sequence which showed a sleeping adult being suddenly woken up by someone who was making “scary” noises. The two sequences were, it said, therefore complementary to one another. This, the broadcaster believed, emphasised that the intention behind the item was humorous.

Where Rule 1.27 was concerned, Sumo TV stated that any perceived distress or anxiety on the part of the child would be entirely consistent with the intention to show a humorous role play between adult and child. In this context, it believed, that the apparent fright of the child was entirely necessary and consistent with its dramatic purpose.

The broadcaster also believed that the sequence complied with Rule 2.3 in that it was justified by its context. The style of the programme was well known to, and popular with, Sumo TV’s viewers; it was scheduled well after the watershed; and viewers were given information about the programme before it was shown.

Decision

The Code was drawn up by Ofcom to secure the standards objectives set out in section 319 of the Communications Act. These standards apply to all broadcast material whatever its origination: whether material is user-generated content or derived from more traditional sources. Broadcasters should therefore apply the Code equally and in the same way to all material broadcast on its licensed television and radio services, including material originating as user-generated content on the internet. Ofcom expects all such material to be complied with the standards required by the Code.

Notwithstanding this, Ofcom acknowledges and welcomes the fact that, to some extent, user-generated content provides opportunities for a more interactive experience for viewers and listeners, offering the ability to contribute more to programming than was previously possible. However, broadcasters remain responsible for ensuring with user-generated broadcast content, as with other material, that it conforms to the Code and that checks are made as necessary to ensure that any appropriate consents are obtained, especially regarding the involvement of under-eighteens[^(-3-)].

Broadcasters are required to take due care to protect the interests of anyone under eighteen who appears, or participates, in any respect in its programmes. This applies whether the material is originally produced, or is acquired from another source. In Ofcom’s view, concern for the child’s welfare should be at the heart of the broadcaster’s consideration when producing or acquiring content and this is made clear in the introduction to the guidance on this specific Code Rule.

Moreover, responsibility for compliance rests with the broadcaster, who will need to decide what measures are appropriate in the particular circumstances of individual programmes, genres and formats. Relevant factors also include the participant’s age, maturity and capacity to make judgements about participation and its likely consequences.

Central to Rule 1.26 is the concept of “due care”. Here “due” is used in the same way as in other areas of the Code. It indicates that the level of care must be “appropriate to the particular circumstances”. It is for the broadcaster to judge what is appropriate in each case to ensure compliance with the Code.

Rule 1.27 states that under-eighteens “must not be caused unnecessary distress or anxiety by their involvement in programmes or by the broadcast of those programmes”.

Broadcasters who transmit user-generated content have no direct control over the making of content featuring under-eighteens. It is Ofcom’s view that controls which can be exercised by the broadcaster over the making of material submitted to the website are clearly limited. Nevertheless, when such material is subsequently considered for broadcast, the broadcaster needs to be mindful of the appropriate Rules. In considering these Rules, the broadcaster must take into account whether it can reasonably be inferred from the material that it may have been acquired at the expense of the distress and anxiety of any participants aged under eighteen. Broadcasters should also take into account whether the broadcast of the material might cause further distress and anxiety to the participants, for example, through the possibility of bullying. In these circumstances, the broadcaster may be able to fulfil its duty of due care required by Rule 1.26 and its obligations under Rule 1.27 by choosing not to broadcast the material.

To help ensure fair and just treatment of individuals, for those under sixteen, the Code (Practices to be followed: 7.4) requires that broadcasters should normally obtain consent from a parent, guardian or other person over eighteen or in loco parentis. However, the Code makes clear that the obligations under Rules 1.26 and 1.27 apply irrespective of such consent.

6 July 2007 , 23.46, Andy Milonakis

Ofcom considered this sequence against Rule 2.3 of the Code (generally accepted standards; justification by context). The material broadcast included repeated and excessive strong language, with graphic references to incest, anal sex and illicit drug use. This had the potential to cause offence. Ofcom therefore considered whether the broadcast of this material was justified by context.

In coming to our decision, we took into account the fact that the sequence was broadcast well after the watershed on a service at the fringes of the mainstream, where more challenging material might be expected; and Sumo TV regularly broadcasts a warning message (every half hour according to the recordings selected for monitoring). This warning message is broadcast both before and after the watershed, and indicates that Sumo TV is clearly aware that the content may be offensive and contain strong language, at all times of day:

“…This programme may contain clips and strong language that some people might find offensive. Viewer discretion is advised.”

However, the warning was shown at regular intervals, rather than immediately preceding items that might cause particular concern, such as that showing Andy Milonakis. We note that there was further limited information offered immediately preceding the item by the presenter, who referred to: “…it’s the one you all love… it’s the fat kid who’s really thirty…”. Whilst this may have helped viewers understand that Andy Milonakis was not under-age, we believe that overall the information offered to viewers was too general.

Further, Sumo TV’s output at this time of night includes a wide range of material, little of which is offensive. However, graphic sexual references and strong language were included in this item, for example:

“…my son is ugly…I [N4BSK]ed him in the [N4BSKx2] now he’s cripple and he’s in a wheelchair…”;

“…I gave him some beeve on his sixteenth birthday yo but he’s still gay, he likes to [N4BSK] a lot, yo that’s alright I feed him mine…”; and

“…I’ll [N4BSK]ing scour your wishes…I’ll [N4BSK] you in my button…[N4BSK] you [N4BSK], [N4BSK] you… [N4BSK] it I’ll make you a [N4BSK], I’ll make you my [N4BSK] snake slither into your blither blather oh my god I’m gunna lather myself…”

Bearing in mind the service provides a string of discrete items, viewers may have come across the item unawares and so may not have been prepared for this extremely strong and sexually graphic language.

There is no absolute restriction on the use or repeated use of the strongest language and very graphic sexual references. However, it is clear that the stronger (and more frequent) the use of such material, the greater the need for clear and effective contextualisation. Sumo TV’s justification by context in broadcasting this item was neither clear nor effective.

The material was therefore in breach of Rule 2.3 of the Code.

22 July 2007 , 00:34 , Parent/Carer and Child

We do not agree that the child in this sequence was “pretending” to be frightened, or was, in some way, participating playfully and responding to “…a type of humour witnessed in households throughout the UK, day in and day out…” The child was clearly seen and heard to be crying, yelling and sobbing. In our view, the boy was very distressed by the behaviour of the person recording the clip. Ofcom is extremely concerned that Sumo TV chose to interpret these scenes in what appears to be a dismissive way; they could not, in Ofcom’s view, considered to be playful scenes. This attempt to play down what is, in Ofcom’s view, a very serious matter raises concerns about the compliance processes in place at Sumo TV. In the light of the above, we considered whether the broadcaster fulfilled its duties to the child of due care and to avoid unnecessary distress or anxiety.

The Sumo TV website’s Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) state that items uploaded to the website which conform to its “terms of acceptability” will most likely be broadcast on the TV channel. Sumo.tv’s terms and conditions explain what these “terms of acceptability” are, stating:

“We want everyone to enjoy the SUMO.tv services and for that to happen. We need Your co-operation. We will regard as unacceptable and constituting a breach of this Agreement if You send to us video content or any communication of whatsoever description which in Our absolute opinion is unacceptable (Unacceptable Material) including by way of example (but not limitation) content which is:

• obscene (as interpreted from time to time) by the laws of England and Wales …
• excessively violent
• racist
• defamatory, libellous, threatening or abusive
• in breach of another’s rights or obligations, including any right to privacy…
• a breach of any law, rule or regulation to which SUMO.tv services may from time to time be subject including by way of example (but not limitation) the latest versions of the Ofcom Broadcasting Code (the Ofcom Code)…”

The terms and conditions on its website also state that:

“…You have sole responsibility for the Content that you submit to Us and have obtained all necessary and appropriate permissions of any person (Person) who appears in the Content You submit to Us and that accordingly We and our affiliates may use it without restriction in connection with any aspect of the SUMO.tv services...”

This approach to complying material for broadcast is wholly inadequate. We are particularly concerned that, in another response to Ofcom, Sumo TV informed the regulator that it considers that it has “…no control over the actual physical and emotional welfare and dignity of people under eighteen who may come to take part or are otherwise involved in its programmes” . The broadcaster appears to place the onus of ensuring any material broadcast is compliant with the Code on suppliers such as the general public. Sumo TV also appears to be unreasonably reliant on its terms and conditions, seemingly at the expense of appropriate compliance processes.

It is not clear what processes are in place at Sumo TV to ensure the items submitted are fully checked against the “terms of acceptability” before broadcast. It is also not clear what measures the broadcaster takes to be able to demonstrate satisfactorily to Ofcom that that any consents have in fact been obtained, and in particular if the content features someone under sixteen that informed consent has been given by the appropriate person before broadcast. Whilst we understand the nature of user-generated material and the complexities of acquiring consent when material is submitted to websites in this ad hoc way, we would expect appropriate steps to be taken as necessary before broadcast. If a broadcaster is unable to demonstrate satisfactorily to Ofcom that any necessary consents have been in fact obtained, Ofcom would expect it to take a view whether the material should be broadcast at all.

Furthermore, Sumo TV’s terms and conditions do not state that: users must be over a certain age, or if appropriate have parental consent, to upload videos; or that in recording material featuring under-eighteens due care must be taken and no unnecessary distress or anxiety is caused, and that Sumo TV will not show material which appears to breach these conditions.

In the case of the adult scaring the child, Ofcom considers the item clearly shows that the child’s involvement caused it unnecessary distress or anxiety. In light of this, by relying on the assurances of the person who submitted the clip to the Sumo.tv website that the appropriate consents had been obtained, and broadcasting the clip on this basis, Sumo TV did not take due care of the welfare of the child involved. Further, in Ofcom’s view, it was implicit that the broadcast of this material had the potential for unnecessary anxiety or distress to be caused to the child who, it is evident from the material, had already been caused unnecessary anxiety or distress in the recording. The broadcast of this material was therefore in breach of Rules 1.26 and 1.27.

Further, the broadcast of this material, showing a child being severely distressed by an adult, was offensive. We therefore also considered whether its inclusion in Sumo TV’s schedules was justified by the context. The broadcaster argued that the preceding material, involving a person being frightened awake, contextualised this clip. They also argued that the time of broadcast and the nature of the service was sufficient context and that the material did not go beyond the expectations of viewers of Sumo TV. Whilst there was a general warning some two minutes before this clip was shown (“This programme may contain items that some people might find offensive”) in our view this, together with the other factors discussed above, did not sufficiently contextualise this particular sequence in which a child was deliberately distressed by an adult. The material was therefore also in breach of Rule 2.3.

Ofcom is extremely concerned at the compliance decisions Sumo TV has made in these cases. In light of this finding, the measures taken and the reasoning it has used to interpret the Code, Sumo TV should be advised that any future breaches of this nature may result in further regulatory action being considered. Further, Sumo TV is reminded that having appropriate compliance procedures in place is a requirement of its licence conditions.

6 July – Breach of Rule 2.3

22 July – Breach of Rules 1.26, 1.27 and 2.3

Footnotes: 

1.- Ofcom recently published additional guidance to broadcasters on Rules 1.26 and 1.27. This is available at: http://www.ofcom.org.uk/tv/ifi/guidance/bguidance/guidance1.pdf

2.- The presenter of the programme in fact said Andy Milonakis was aged 30 – see the Decision section below.

3.- See http://www.ofcom.org.uk/tv/ifi/codes/bcode/protectingu18/ and accompanying guidance (see footnote 1 above); and http://www.ofcom.org.uk/tv/ifi/codes/bcode/fairness/

As a sidebar to the issue, so to speak, Ofcom issued this related Note to Broadcasters regarding User-Generated Content:

Ofcom is concerned that some channels broadcasting considerable amounts of user-generated content may attempt to place too much responsibility for ensuring compliance with the Code with the individual user, and not perform sufficient checks themselves. Responsibility for compliance with the Code always remains with the broadcaster. Proportionate but robust pre-broadcast checks may impose extra costs on the broadcaster, and limit the amount of user-generated content it can air. However, it is clearly important to ensure that people aged under eighteen are appropriately protected, and that individuals appearing in items are not unjustly or unfairly treated or have their privacy unwarrantably infringed. Ofcom therefore reminds licensees who broadcast user-generated content of their responsibilities to ensure full compliance with the Code, and in particular with the sections in respect of Protecting the Under Eighteens, Harm and Offence, and the Fairness and Privacy.

Broadcasters need to be aware that simply because material is available on the web, this does not mean that it is automatically suitable for broadcast on a licensed service which has to comply with the standards as set out in the Communications Act.

So don't expect this kind of channel here in the "morally superior" United States lest the Kulturkrieg element starts complaining just as quickly about certain content elements....

see more crazy cat pics

• interracial ("miscegenation");
• pedophilia;
• bestiality/zoophilia;
• water fantasies (including "anthropological" such supposedly involving Polynesian communities); and
• other perversions, especially BDSM, scatology and non-consenual cosplay.

see more crazy cat pics

• "Please keep calm when there is a fire. The hotel will ensure your safety in [N4BSK] with advanced fire facilities.
• "Please go to the exit according to the instructions, so that our staff will lead you to safe zone.
• "Point profess your excellency."

…You know why people think of Wal-Mart and evil in the same sentence? Because of the crap you guys do like this. Instead of letting this one go, and maybe even putting out a press release saying "we take care of our own" - maybe you get $470,000 worth of good publicity – NO. Now you get this. Wal-Mart's profit last year was over $11 billion – including $470,000 it got back from Mrs. Shank, who is, between the truck that hit her, and what you amoral Wal-Mart trolls did to her, she is so confused that she doesn't really understand that six days after you beat her in court, her 18-year-old son was killed fighting for this country in Iraq.

Wal-Mart: may your stores melt in the hot sun. Today's worst persons in the world.

Also from Mr. Countdown himself, his announcing that Wally World will remain his "Worst Person in the World" until further notice:

If your website or blog is in the Wal-Mart Affiliate Programme through LinkShare.com, may I suggest dropping same as a show of protest @ its business practices and disregard for ethics and common sense for the sake of profit above all else. And if you're considering so joining--may I suggest reconsidering, for much the same reasons.