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.

NORMALLY, ONE DOESN'T CONSIDER THE WHITE RIVER BASIN OF EASTERN ARKANSAS TO BE WHEAT COUNTRY, as opposed to that streak from roughly I-20 in Texas northerly to the Canadian border, encompassing Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska and the Dakotas traditionally associated with wheat cultivation (and the dividing line between such areas suited for winter wheat and spring wheat cultivation roughly being the South Dakota-Nebraska line, much of which is along the Missouri River) ... as well as some areas of irrigated wheat fields in Arizona, California, Oregon and Washington state.

But it turns out that the White River, just as it empties into the Mississippi River in eastern Arkansas, has seen 100-year flooding over recent days to the extent that wheat fields down that way may be out of production once the floodwaters recede--especially if winter wheat has already been planted.

Leaving some to wonder if there could be a major spike in bread prices in consequence--@ least until the main wheat-belt crops come in in the fall.

=============

MEANWHILE, DOWN IN THE ARGENTINE, SCENES NOT UNLIKE THE FARMERS' STRIKES IN 1930'S AMERICA have been a commonplace over recent days, particularly so in response to new taxes announced by Argentine President Cristina Fernandez on beef, soybeans and wheat (in some cases, to as much as 45%) to increase government revenues and control inflation.

Particularly galling is the fact of said taxes having been imposed ahead of the harvest season in the Southern Hemisphere, meaning Argentine farmers could be hit all the more by crop prices further diluted by the new taxes--and consumers have turned to the old-reliable standby of Latin American street protest known as the cacerolazo, where aluminum pots and pans are banged rather loudly, to protest want of food on supermarket shelves and show solidarity with farmers.

The BBC elaborates further:

Protests by farmers in Argentina are nothing new. But what is new is the scale and ferocity of these latest demonstrations.

In just a few days, farmers and their supporters have brought Argentina to a near standstill and pushed the government of President Cristina Fernandez into a corner she will find difficult to escape from.

The farmers are angry at an increase in taxes imposed on beef, soya and wheat - some amounting to 45%.

The rises were imposed to boost the country's coffers and to help in the fight against inflation, which in recent months has shown signs of getting out of control.

But what pushed the farmers and their supporters out onto the streets was the timing of the increases - just a few days before the soya harvest.

Mistrust

Then, to make matters worse, President Fernandez, in a speech designed to deflate the tension, accused the farmers of being greedy and trying to rob the country.

"I won't bow to extortion," she said.

That belligerent tone brought city dwellers out onto the streets in support of the farmers, bashing pots and pans in what has become a common Argentine form of protest.

There is a long history of mistrust in Argentina between city and countryside and this show of support from urban dwellers took many, including the government by surprise.

Each day Argentina is seeing more roadblocks erected around the country. Long-distance buses are cancelling services, food is not reaching the towns and cities, and shelves are emptying.

There have been counter-demonstrations in the capital, Buenos Aires, by government supporters who have clashed with farmers. Riot police are stationed at potential flashpoints.

Malcolm Rodman, a farmer and member of the Sociedad Rural, the main agricultural organisation in Argentina, accused the government of shooting itself in the foot.

"They simply don't understand the countryside," he said. "I think things are going to get a lot worse before they get better."

Marcelo Rasetto, a farmer manning a roadblock in the northern province of Santa Fe, said: "There's no going back. What the government did was harsh - it was insolent. And this won't get them anywhere.

"This is not a countryside rebellion. This is a rebellion by the whole interior of the country. The whole interior of the country is saying 'no'."

Pampas

President Fernandez and the former president, her husband Nestor, are trying to gather their supporters for a show of force.

However, many of their ministers and regional governors are themselves landowners and farmers with loyalties split between the government in Buenos Aires and their constituents and neighbours in the countryside.

Argentina is a country built on agriculture.

Although most Argentines nowadays live in the cities, they idealise the gaucho, the Argentine cowboy, herding cattle on the flat, green plains, the Pampas.

Argentines on average eat 70kg of beef a year, far more than anywhere in the world and the dominant smell across the country at the weekends is that of meat cooking on parrillas or barbecues in back-gardens or balconies.

What happens in the countryside is felt strongly in urban areas.

The farmers also say it was their hard work and investment that helped rescue Argentina from its economic crisis of 2001 and 2002.

They were aided by the high price of soya especially on international markets. Their wheat and beef are also highly sought after.

Adding to the farmers' frustration is their claim that little of the money they pay the government is re-invested in the countryside.

Farmer Marcos Torres told a national newspaper: "The truth is, the government doesn't have a long-term plan for agriculture."

He, like many, is urging the government to admit it was wrong to raise taxes so drastically and to then sit down and negotiate.

The Argentine government says it will not negotiate until the farmers lift their roadblocks. There appears to be little room for compromise. And with both sides planning large demonstrations over the next few days, the tension is only likely to increase.

Meanwhile, the supermarket shelves are emptying and the soya is still waiting to be harvested.

=============

ALSO ON THE FOOD FRONT, DAME RUMOUR, PAINTED FULL OF TONGUES, HATH IT that Cosa Nostra connexions with garbage-removal companies in southern Italy may be to blame for an outbreak of dioxin contamination in Italian mozzarella cheese, traditionally made from water-buffalo milk.

Said water buffaloes usually feed on said trash transported from Sicily to the mozzarella-producing regions, illicitly dumped upon farm fields.

And dioxin is a known carcinogen.

In any case, mozzarella of the Campania region around Naples from 25 producers thereof has been ordered pulled from French and Australian supermarket shelves because of the dioxin risk; additionally, import bans on same have been announced by Japan and South Korea.

How that will affect action @ the National Cheese Exchange in Green Bay during their weekly trading session is hard to gauge, what with North American mozzarella supplies being of domestic origin (Wisconsin in particular).

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

"A Great Stage Where Wings of the World Gather, Flap, and Fly Together."

SO JAPAN'S NARITA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, OUTSIDE TOKYO, DESCRIBES THEMSELVES in an English-language guide to its facilities and services.

And which BAA (the British airports operator) would like to see London Heathrow airport cast with the recent opening of Terminal 5 (for the dedicated use of British Airways, know) to ease pressure on the other four and make such more passenger-friendly.

In theory, @ least.

Now, it turns out that British Airways has had to cancel some 70 domestic flights therefrom or otherwise destined, with more cancellations expected into the weekend. (European and international flights are not afflicted otherwise.)

And plenty of finger-pointing to go around, with blame (depending on who you listen to) going to lack of proper staff training beforehand or failures in the baggage-processing system allowing checked luggage to build up to a point where staff can't get to it timely enough.

Making the embarrassment even more embarrassing is the fact of such coming on the eve (so to speak) of the Open Skies Agreement between the European Union and the United States going into effect, allowing more trans-Atlantic flights vis-a-vis the Old and New Worlds from more carriers (perhaps including cut-price carriers like Ryanair and Air-Berlin) and from more airports (more than likely out-of-the-way such not widely used for international traffic) in both EU member states and the United States.

Which, come to think of it, may actually backfire in the face of the emerging socioeconomic meltdown and increased jet fuel prices which airlines are passing through to passengers as a surcharge.

=============

AND STICKING WITH THE EMERGING SOCIOECONOMIC MELTDOWN FOR THE NONCE, Your Correspondent feels maybe it was time to start asking of the GOP just how exactly the Danger of Homosexuals and Homosexuality threatens socioeconomic stability and social order ... and how imposing restrictive laws against homosexuals would save the economy.    

see more crazy cat pics

...While Huckabee remains bitter over his inability to win over the Right's current leadership, it appears as if various other right-wing outsiders are equally bitter over the prospect of having to support John McCain and are considering defecting to the Constitution Party:

[I]s 2008 the year when a third-party candidate would find some traction among those disaffected by the abortion, marriage and national security stances found in the records of the three front-runners left in the race?

Charles Lewis, national outreach director for Christian Exodus, is one of those behind the launch of the new Save America Summit website, and believes it's not only time, it's overdue.

Among those participating in this third-party-seeking Save America Summit are Flip Benham, Wiley Drake, Bill Federer, Gordon Klingenschmitt, Howard Phillips, Chris Simcox, as well as representatives of organizations such as Gun Owners of America, the Council for National Policy, and Stop the ACLU and others who are convinced that McCain, Obama, and Clinton all plan "an EU-style unification of America with socialist Canada and Mexico during the next administration."

Sadly for Huckabee, he can't seem to get any love from these right-wing activists either, since they seem to have already narrowed down their choices for president to four people: Alan Keyes, Roy Moore, Jerome Corsi, and former Sen. Bob Smith.

To Your Correspondent, such a notion is up there with the 1992 Presidential elections, which saw the third-party bid of H. Ross Perot split the popular vote so much that Bill Clinton indirectly wound up winning the same.

Should the "Save America Summit" succeed in urging the likes of Podunk Center and Doo Wah Diddy to vote the Constitution Party's ticket, and to do so pro Deo, patria et familia, expect a similar fractured popular vote scenario as could--as in 1992--send the vote to the Democrats. As well, such a campaign should be challenged @ any and every opportunity, if such manages to go forward and attract mainstream attention especially in lower-income areas. 

DISREGARD OF TRUTH FOR THE SAKE OF "WINNING HEARTS AND MINDS" OVER TO THE CONSERVATIVE AGENDA is something of an arrogant article of faith among especially the Zealots and True Believers--in particular such seeing "complete, final and binding regulatory relief" to be the Last and Only Hope for saving free-market capitalism from itself.

As well as making such an empowering tool--the "Great White Father," as it were--for the Lower Classes somehow to be seen as "chronically and helplessly dependent" upon "failed and failing systems of State welfare" all the while.

Case in point: In their desiring a "regulatory holiday" (as would review all prevailing specimens of Government regulatory burden to determine such as should be relaxed or otherwise repealed as being "anti-competitive," "outdated," "horse-and-buggy era," "archaic" or otherwise "hinders freedom of choice among consumers") towards a "complete and final" regulatory moratorium (in other words, shifting regulatory onus to industry-sponsored Codes of Good Practice as turn out to secretly condone cartel behaviour), such specimens of free-market Zealotry and True Belief will love to cite a supposed regulation of 26,911 words governing sale and marketing of cabbage.

Which, no doubt, will be likely compared to the Lord's Prayer (66 words--67 if you count "Amen"), the Gettysburg Address (286 words) and the Declaration of Independence (1,322 words) for the sake of comparitive brevity.

And which, sad to say, Snopes.com has graciously debunked and exploded for the sake of Truth made manifest.

Otherwise known as preventing Urban Legend from becoming The Big Lie for conservative "winning of hearts and minds" delusions.

As if that weren't enough, the "26,911 word cabbage regulation" story has been around since World War II, when the same first surfaced in the editorial columns of the New England Farmer magazine--attributed to the wartime Office of Price Administration (OPA), which sought to control inflation, black-marketeering and war-motivated profiteering for the sake of the war effort.

The story regained popularity during the Korean War, with credit this time going to the Office of Price Stabilisation (OPS), which sought to avoid resorting to rationing while concurently trying to control inflation.

And would gain new life in the late 1970's and early 1980's, without attributing such to any particular Government agency and, instead, citing such as an example of Big Government run amuck and uncontrolled, with reckless disregard for national interest.

In any case, those citing this "cabbage regulation" as an example of the need for "regulatory relief" as would benefit businesses and consumers equally (in theory) fail to cite specific citations in either the Federal Register or the Code of Federal Regulations as would substantiate such a claim.

Especially such having a word count of 26,911 such.

So why use an obvious myth to whip up support for a "regulatory holiday" to review to the point of gutting Government regulatory oversight, consciously aware all the while that this "cabbage regulation" doesn't exist in fact?

ABOUT THIS TIME YESTERDAY, MUCH OF THE MINNWISSIPPI REGION WHERE YOUR CORRESPONDENT RESIDETH was bracing for the possibility of another late-season snowstorm, as if Moeder Aard wanted to pull a fast one on an already record-breaking winter after much of the snow from Good Friday's storms was melting, and then some.

WELL------!!!

By about mid-afterlunch, the Weather Service cancelled the Winter Storm Watch previously issued after new forecast models indicated that the risk of heavier snow would be well to the south of us--as in Iowa and northern Illinois, not to mention areas of extreme southern Wisconsin close to the Illinois line.

In the final analysis, though, a sloppy mix could be falling on these parts by Sunday, with milder temperatures (never mind their being close to 50 degrees Fahrenheit) likely as April makes its appearence per the calendar.

Motherdear, for her part, hopes that the frost will leave the ground soon and conditions be calm enough for farmers and planters to get the first of the field work out of the way ahead of planting.

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

WHEN GOVERNMENT-SPONSORED COOK'S TOURS GO WRONG, AND THEN SOME: A Chinese Government-sanctioned tour of Tibet for a select party of foreign journalists was met by a group of irate Tibetan Buddhist monks near beautiful downtown Lhasa, taunting the group with chants like "Don't believe your masters!" and "Tibet is not free!" admidst all manner of devastation and ruin brought about by the late rioting and disorder.

Said disorder still viewed by China as being the work of agents provocateur under orders from the Dalai Lama, which said Dalai Lama denies and shifts blame upon the Chinese. Which, come to think of it, amounts to projection on Beijing's part as it seeks to present a positive and glowing image for the sake of the Beijing Olympic Games later this summer.

=============

AND SPEAKING OF PROJECTION FOR "WINNING OF HEARTS AND MINDS," consider the following exchange (as transcribed by Media Matters for America) between Bill "No-Spin Zone" O'Reilly and Laura Ingraham on the former's Fox Prolefeed Channel show of the 25th, wherein Mr. O'Reilly equates "Secular-Progressive" sites and blogs with Fascism and questions their loyalty and (presumed) want of True Patriot Love in All Thy Sons Command:

O'REILLY: Oh, absolutely. It'll be interesting to see if Obama or his supporters do anything on this. And if they do, it'll be on the far-left blogs, which are really vile--just vile. And on that subject, you broke a story--or you're following a story--about the awful, despicable Media Matters outfit. What are they doing now?

LAURA INGRAHAM (Fox News contributor and conservative radio host): Well, this guy named Paul Waldman, who works for Media Matters, and I don't--I don't--I'm not familiar with his work--but he wrote a piece essentially saying that because conservatives and others are talking about Reverend Wright, they are, quote, "putting down a marker" to bring this--bring the campaign into one of the more ugly aspects of racial prejudice.

In other words, Bill, a guy who wants to be president of the United States, have the ability and the authority to launch nuclear weapons, start a war, veto spending bills, should not be vetted. We should not be able to look at his closest relationships that have followed a course of 23 years, especially when it comes to someone like Reverend Wright. If we do that, we are going to be branded racist. That's how scared they are about this Reverend Wright issue. They know it's explosive.

O'REILLY: Well, they're going to brand people racist anyway. That's what Media--

INGRAHAM: Absolutely.

O'REILLY: --Matters does. That's what they do. But here's the interesting part about this: That outfit has been very, very pro-Hillary Clinton up and to this point; very silent about any attacks on Barack Obama. This is the first time as far as I know--I don't read them all the time; they're just disgusting--but they've been basically in the tank for Hillary Clinton, because the Clintons and John Podesta, their close confidante, were in--and we don't know the extent of it--but did have something to do with the creation of Media Matters. There's very close ties there. But I think you're right. This is basically throwing out the first salvo that if Barack Obama is the nominee, any criticism--

INGRAHAM: Tread carefully.

O'REILLY: Right.

INGRAHAM: Yeah, tread carefully.

O'REILLY: --any criticism you make about him will--that's a racist criticism. Anything.

INGRAHAM: They're inoculating Barack Obama or attempting to do so. And Bill, I think this really shows the weakness of the Obama campaign right now. The fact that Media Matters and other groups like it have to be out there saying, "Hey, don't you do that. You're making this a race thing. And you're showing the country what you really think about black people," when, in fact, Bill, you know this as well as I do, this story about Reverend Wright isn't about race. It's about anti-Americanism.

O'REILLY: Oh, absolutely, absolutely.

INGRAHAM: It's about the vile anti-Americanism spewing forth from that pulpit week after week and a man like Barack Obama, who knows better, sitting there week after week because he thought he would get street credibility by being associated with that Trinity Church. Now he doesn't need them anymore, so it'll be interesting to see how he reacts in the days and weeks to come.

O'REILLY: But Barack Obama--and I don't believe this to be true, I could be wrong--he doesn't have anything to do with what Media Matters or the Daily Kos or any of these people do. And I want everybody to be clear about this. None of the candidates can control the kind of filth and--talk about anti-Americanism. I mean, these Media Matters--

INGRAHAM: Yeah, it's unbelievable. It's unbelievable.

O'REILLY: --Huffington Post, Daily Kos--I mean, these are fascists. They're dishonest people.

INGRAHAM: But, Bill, here's the deal.

O'REILLY: But the candidates--

INGRAHAM: Yeah. OK.

O'REILLY: --don't have anything to do with them other than currying, pandering to them.

(If you'd like to see the segment for yourself, here 'tis:)

1. A governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.
2. The philosophy, principles, or methods of fascism.
3. A fascist movement, esp. the one established by Mussolini in Italy 1922–43.

Its symbol was the fasces, a Roman symbol of magisterial authority and power in form of a battle axe surrounded by a bundle of bound rods, displayed in procession by such serving as attendants for magistrates.

And its articles of faith best considered as Producerist in nature, calling as they did for a "return to the land" excused by the notion that industry was already advanced enough in terms of development.

With that in mind, may I be so kind as to ask Mr. O'Reilly to please "show us your facts" equating Secular-Progressive weblogs and news portals with Fascism, in view of the above definition. Until then, such remarks should be treated as McCarthyism most rank and vile.

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

MEANWHILE, IN THE NEW CAPITAL OF THE SO-CALLED "UNION OF MYANMAR," BY NAME NAY PYI TAW, military majordomo Gen. Than Shwe used the annual Armed Forces Day holiday to, on the one hand, reiterate his past categorical pledge to restore civilan rule in 2010 ... yet, on the other such, called upon the Myanmari people and nation to fight "destructive elements trying to sabotage the stability of the state" (Gen. Shwe's words) preparatory therefor.

And speaking of "destructive elements trying to sabotage the stability of the state:" Doesn't that sound like the sort of language which the conservative prolefeed masheen likes to use in describing real or suspected "secular-progressive" and "liberal" elements to further reinforce their delusion that only conservatives are entitled "as of right" to an exclusive, Government-Protected Monopoly on prolefeed?    

see more crazy cat pics

[S]mall grower Lance Drum, who has a farm between Wagga Wagga and Temora [in New South Wales], told the inquiry on Wednesday that scrapping the single desk because of AWB's actions was like throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

"It will be to the detriment of all young and old Australian wheat growers and their families," Mr Drum said.

"It will just absolutely ruin Australian communities and families, especially those who are least able to have cash flow behind them."

Abolishing the single desk would create greater fluctuation in prices and financial uncertainty for growers, and banks would subsequently have less confidence in farmers, he said.

Velia O'Hare, a grower from south-western NSW, said the changes could destroy rural families and communities and force more people into cities.

"Come January, if there's no buyer of last resort ... you haven't seen anything yet in suicides, because the men out there are just getting so low," she said.

"We don't need this. We're down now, don't kick us in the guts," she said.

But David Ginns, chief executive of the Grains Policy Institute, said such "prognostications of disaster" were wrong.

Mr Ginns said the removal of the single desk would force marketing costs down and put more power in the hands of growers.

Doesn't that last part about "forcing costs down and putting more power in the hands of growers" sound like the usual free-market conservative broken record about the free market being the Great White Father of the Lower Classes--especially so "chronic and habitual" welfare cases expected to be "in clear need of empowerment***after years of unconsciously falling for subtle Socialism" because of welfare dependence, "empowerment which only the free market can make all the more possible"?