Zed FM/Scrollside Supreme Court appeal to Phantom FM licence heard - FEBRUARY 17

Smurfpiss

projectmayhem wrote:

the interweb dude. they say it's the way of the future

You hook me up with a broadband connection and a laptop for my squalid house then will ya?!

SimonMaher

Just to let you know, this thread has been divided into the Supreme Court/ZED FM thread (this one) and another one dealing with Music, Selling Out, Nazi-ism etc.

Regards,

Pete Reed
reed@phantomfm.com
www.phantomfm.com

Torque

Seems fair enough.

Dudess

Yeah, we're slightly veering off the point here. What was the point again? Oh yeah - go Phantom!

Raggamuffin

yeah one thing i definately disagree wth is the whole license application process... i still can't believe spin103.8 is on the air still and that woeful country fm i mean when you think back t the last two times it's really quite awful that it's actually taken this long and cost so much money for phantom to get this far.

But i'm sure i'm just repeating myself by saying that the bci is a joke and should be replaced.

Tell you what first thing i'd do is get rid of 2fm and kick gerry "fat ****e" ryan out on his ear and then force it to go private. Waste of money

Shanannigan

ya know what ya should do.. do what Dave McSavage did to the Garda that arrested him... invite them to the launch party of Phantom FM... cos there WILL be one

Smurfpiss

Shanannigan wrote:

ya know what ya should do.. do what Dave McSavage did to the Garda that arrested him... invite them to the launch party of Phantom FM... cos there WILL be one

and then spike their drinks with ex-lax?

Shanannigan

wow.. never thought of that... give them a break from the verbal diarrhea

Niall_Skylight

Niall Here, Long time listener first time poster. I think it is the perfect example of how businesses run themselves in this country. BADLY. I love Phantom, I thought it was the only thing worth listening to on air, but then it went came back went again came back again went again and so on so fourth. But soon yee shall return and once again we will have steve conway on in the morning helping us get up and then the two Pete's talk rubbish all quality. I remember when phantom played our demo and then it went to 6 in the irish charts, I have phantom to thank for everything as I am sure we all do really. Phantom you were a breath of fresh air on the radio waves and we can't wait to hear you again.

http://www.skylightband.com

OFDM

The case was up "for mention" in the Supreme court last Thursday according to courts.ie - any excitement out of the "mentioning" like a date for the Supreme Court hearing?

SimonMaher

Hello there,

Case set for full hearing on February 15th, the day draws near

Regards,

Pete Reed
reed@phantomfm.com
www.phantomfm.com

BrianD

The date is Feb 15th.

dera

how long is it listed for, do you know? I'm curious what possible argument they could have.

BrianD

We understand that one day has been set aside for the appeal.

As you are probably aware, Phantom FM is not involved in any of these proceedings. It is between the BCI and Scrollside Ltd. (Zed FM).

scarfacemj

Best of luck (although it's out of your hands) on the 15th guys!!

butterfly

good luck tomorrow lads, lassies, folks and folkettes, hope everything goes as it should.
and a happy VD to all.

Dudess

Yeah, I second that. Here's hopin'...

Wacker

Anyone read Fintan O'Toole in the Irish Times today? It was about the case. I agree with most stuff he says, but he was VERY critical of Phantom FM. I disagree with his main point though, which was that it would be unfair for Phantom to benefit from their time broadcasting illegaly. The high court rejected Zed FM's appeal based on those grounds, so I imagine the Supreme Court will too.

windowcleaner

Wacker wrote:

Anyone read Fintan O'Toole in the Irish Times today? It was about the case. I agree with most stuff he says, but he was VERY critical of Phantom FM. I disagree with his main point though, which was that it would be unfair for Phantom to benefit from their time broadcasting illegaly. The high court rejected Zed FM's appeal based on those grounds, so I imagine the Supreme Court will too.

read that earlier today and was going to see if anyone else here had seen it.

Like Wacker said, O'Toole was really off the mark. *****(Edited by Pete Reed for legal reasons)**** After all, he didnt mention that Mr Hanrahan would have benefitted hugely from ex-pirates back in the Capital/FM104/whatever it was called then days.

Plus O'Toole could also have had a pop at various legit stations who've run rings round the BCI with how they have bent the rules (including hanrahan's previous halting sites on the dial)

It smelt to me like O'Toole had an anti-Phantom agenda before he started writing, rather than an anti-BCI one.

Anyone out there want to start a conspiracy theory? I mean, it appears the day BEFORE the supreme court case and theres very little other anti-Phantom blather out there.

Dudess

Yeah, I read it too. Wow. Thought O'Toole was the type who'd champion the likes of Phantom.

JJ

Wacker wrote:

Anyone read Fintan O'Toole in the Irish Times today? It was about the case. I agree with most stuff he says, but he was VERY critical of Phantom FM. I disagree with his main point though, which was that it would be unfair for Phantom to benefit from their time broadcasting illegaly. The high court rejected Zed FM's appeal based on those grounds, so I imagine the Supreme Court will too.

I was talkin' with my father-in-law about Supreme Court appeals (he's a barrister) and he said that when you make an appeal of this type, you can only appeal upon a point of law of the decision made by the High Court. Also, no new evidence can be introduced. I think that's the gist of what he said. I haven't read that article but I think I'll pick me up a copy of the Slimes.

JJ

I found this on the Irish Independent website:



Supreme Court hears appeal against radio licence award

13:02 Wednesday February 15th 2006


The appeal by a consortium against a decision to grant Phantom FM Dublin's alternative rock radio licence is underway at the Supreme Court.
Zed FM - headed by Bob Geldof - claims the Broadcasting Commission inappropriately relied on Phantom's experience as a pirate to conclude it was the better applicant for the radio licence.

Phantom FM, which is backed by U2 manager Paul McGuinness, was awarded a license by the BCI in November 2004, but its start-up date was delayed because a legal challenge was brought by the Zed FM consortium.

A year later, the High Court dismissed this judicial review challenge, clearing the way for the new rock station to begin broadcasting this year.

Now this High Court decision is being appealed at the Supreme Court.

On opening, lawyers for the Zed FM group stated that the BCI inappropriately relied on Phantom's experience as a pirate in concluding they were the better applicant.

They said that surely it wasn't intended by the Oireachtas that those who abuse the legislation by broadcasting illegally should be in a better position to get a license than those who obey it.

Mully

Wacker wrote:

Anyone read Fintan O'Toole in the Irish Times today? It was about the case. I agree with most stuff he says, but he was VERY critical of Phantom FM.

Regulator that likes to say 'yes'
© The Irish Times



What, apart from the Government itself, is the most powerful public body in Ireland? Arguably at least, it is the Broadcasting Commission of Ireland. It licenses 54 independent radio and TV services. Its decisions are relatively unaccountable, writes Fintan O'Toole.

Both the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Broadcasting and an independent report for the Department of Communications have in recent years expressed concerns about the transparency of its decision-making processes.

Those decisions, moreover, are subject to no appeal except to the courts, and they, in turn have taken the view that so long as the BCI stays within the law and acts in good faith, its decisions are its own business. The BCI is likely to get even more powerful: Government policy is to establish a single Broadcasting Authority of Ireland, which would effectively give a super-sized BCI control over RTÉ as well.

The BCI is run by decent, public-spirited people who make decisions in good faith. It is, however, shaped by a Government-led belief that it should take, to quote the hideous jargon, a "facilitory approach . . . leading to a light touch, broad principled operation".

It is expected, in plainer English, to be nice to the companies it regulates. It is expected to fulfil two potentially contradictory functions: to regulate the broadcasting industry on the one hand and to promote it on the other. That the helpfulness can get in the way of the regulation is clear from a case that is currently before the Supreme Court in which Zed FM, a consortium which failed in a bid for an alternative rock radio licence, is challenging the awarding of that licence to Phantom FM.

At one level, the outcome of this case (which the High Court has previously decided in favour of the BCI on the grounds that it acted in good faith) is of relatively little concern. Two groups of wealthy people are fighting for control of a potentially lucrative asset - who cares? But leaving aside all the rival claims, what is of real public interest is the BCI's own account of the award of the licence and the way it illustrates what a "light touch" means in practice.

In this case, it has meant a willingness to forgive and forget a history of defying regulation.

Phantom FM had functioned as a pirate radio station for five years before it applied for the alternative rock licence in 2003. Far from being a disadvantage to its application, however, this seems to have been a help. The BCI has stated that its policy is to allow pirates to apply for licences so as to "encourage the cessation of illegal activity and to encourage people into the statutory regime". The implication seems to be that if you flout the law successfully, the BCI acquires an interest in encouraging you to go legit by granting you a licence.

Phantom had previously tested the BCI's patience by twice going back on air as a pirate after it had failed to secure a licence, but the BCI proved its patience to be almost infinite, and allowed it to keep applying. In its application for the licence under dispute, moreover, Phantom put forward its illegal activities as a big argument in its favour, claiming long experience and brand recognition.

When the new licence came up, Phantom went off air again. The BCI, however, allowed the station back on air by means of so-called Special Event licences. These are normally granted in relation to short-term events like festivals - Phantom was given a licence without specifying any such event. The law is quite specific in stating that the recipient of these licences can broadcast for "no more than 30 days in any given 12-month period".

In fact, Phantom got licences for 60 days within a 12-month period. The law was circumvented by applying for the licences under the names of two different companies. The BCI, in the words of Mr Justice O'Sullivan's High Court ruling, was "aware that in effect the same people were getting the benefit of two licences and that this was contrary to the spirit if not the letter of the (Broadcasting) Act". Phantom was indulged even further. A station operating under a Special Events licence cannot accept ads - Phantom did so.

Phantom was supposed to submit sponsorship messages to the BCI for approval. In one four-day period monitored by the BCI, Phantom carried messages from five sponsors, none of which had been submitted for approval. The station was supposed to have libel insurance in order to indemnify the BCI. It actually broadcast for a period without libel insurance, and when it got the insurance, it covered only one of the two companies that held the licences.

This is what a "light touch" actually means: you can get a licence even if you've flouted the law by broadcasting illegally and even if you have a record of being rather less than punctilious about previous licences. If this is what happens before you get your licence, you might reasonably assume that the BCI will not be too hard on you after you've got it. Is it any wonder that the companies it supposedly rules have so little fear of the BCI, the regulator that likes to say "yes".

TrickyKid

that's pretty serious stuff all right. If the stuff that he says it's true, it's clear that one side was given an advantage by the very people who are supposed to be sure the race that's run is fair.

I suppose it was like the Pier Luigi Collina giving Man Utd a 1-0 lead in a football match before it started.

wunderzwiebel

Good news ted?

Wacker

So, how did today go?

Rockiemalt

supreme court decision is now due in a few weeks time

jsut to point out that members of the Zed fm consortium were also involved in pirate broadcasting, not that this makes it right but jsut to make people aware

SimonMaher

Hello all,

Long day, just a quick update. All went well in Supreme Court today. Case took just over three hours in front of the three judges. Judgement was reserved and will be delivered in the near future. The judges seemed to understand the case very well and I feel sure will come to the right decision.

Regards,

Pete Reed
reed@phantomfm.com
www.phantomfm.com

SimonMaher

TrickyKid wrote:

that's pretty serious stuff all right. If the stuff that he says it's true, it's clear that one side was given an advantage by the very people who are supposed to be sure the race that's run is fair.

I suppose it was like the Pier Luigi Collina giving Man Utd a 1-0 lead in a football match before it started.

Will keep this one really brief! Lots of factual inaccuracies in that piece which is a pity and a real surprise.

To fill in some blanks:

1. Article states that "when the new licence came up, Phantom went off the air again". Nope, Phantom closed FM operations on May 28th 2003 almost a year before the licence was advertised on May 5th 2004!

2. Article states that "Special event licences...Phantom was given a licence without specifying any event". Nope, the statuatory provision for temporary sound broadcasting contracts is that they are limited purely by time, and absolutely not by use. In the last year Premier FM (oldies), Choice FM (easy listening), Sunrise FM (Ethnic) and others have used these licences.

3. Article states bafflingly that "A station operating under a Special Events licence cannot accept ads - Phantom did so." Nope again, Phantom did not take advertisements on either temporary licence. Sponsorship is however allowed which includes mentions (pre-recorded or otherwise) of a Sponsors Name, slogans and contact details.

We getting the gist of this now? I will continue..

4. Article states that "Phantom was supposed to submit sponsorship messages to BCI for approval". Nope yet again, there is no requirement at all for sponsorship messages to be submitted to the BCI for approval.

5. Article statest that Phantom FM did not have libel insurance for a period. This insurance indemnifies the BCI against any potential legal actions arising from the broadcasts. "It actually broadcast for a period without libel insurance". Nope, and double nope. Insurance cover was in place for the entire duration of the broadcasts for both temporary contracts.

Somehow I dont reckon we were the "punctilious" ones here!

Regards,

Pete Reed
reed@phantomfm.com
www.phantomfm.com

Wacker

Pete, you should send that in to the Irish Times. Just to get balance out there.