Search results for:

First I'm not trying to change your decision. It is for you to decide of course!

Just that I'm not sure if you have accurate information as the basis of it. Once you have more accurate information then you can make your decision better.

So that's the only reason for replying again also. I may not have read the situation correctly but if you are interested in more information then this message may help.

But you didn't focus on the risk of criminal liability faced by officers of the entity, which breaks the Ltd structure of a company or a CIC

I did cover the criminality issue in case you missed it. I don't see any need to become a limited company anyway which is a hassle, if the maximum fine is a proportion of your small turnover.

On criminality

But it would be astonishing if they were to spend time fining never mind a court case to imprison someone who does this voluntarily a few hours a month.

I also talked about the many steps they have before they would fine you.

I don't see how it would be criminal if someone in one of your forums shared something you didn't know about and you didn't take it down in time. That would be very hard to establish as criminal surely. Again you should get advice on this if you want to follow it up, I'm not a lawyer or anything.

But with you not even having any evidence of anyone using your forums to share Child Sexual Abuse Material - then when you go through the tool you will likely be asked if anything like that has been shared on your forums and answer no. It will surely rate you as very low risk.

A page or two ago I gave a real-World example of an event that happened on this site when a person who could easily be argued to be vulnerable, faked their own death and attempt to fund-raise for their own funeral... this ticks so many of the "harmful but not illegal" boxes

This wouldn't be harmful to kids so I don't see it as relevant. The Online Safety Bill is about reducing serious risks such as suicide from things that are harmful to kids but not illegal but it doesn't work the other way around that anything that potentially might have small harm to kids is covered. I think when you go through that tool that this wouldn't be something you need to mention.

the argument of "they are understaffed so will only focus on the big tech" rings empty to me,

That wasn't the argument. It is that they would focus on the cases that have most impact for optimal use of their resources including funding. They would focus on the big social media companies. They would just not be expected to and wouldn't have the funding to investigate small organizations like yourself.

You can get an idea of their focus by looking at their complete list of the organizations they fined for various offences, and the amount of the fines in 2024 and 2023.

In 2024 so far they have fined four organizations. TikTok, GB News and BT

GB News £100,000 31 October 2024
TikTok £1,875,000 24 July 2024
BT £17,500,000 22 July 2024
BT £2,800,000 22 May 2024
https://www.ofcom.org.uk/about-ofcom/annual-reports-and-plans/other-financial-reporting

In 2023 they fined
BT £2,800,000 22 May 2024
Big City Radio £1,200 24 March 2024
Shell Energy Retail Limited (Shell Energy) £1,400,000 21 November 2023
Royal Mail £5,600,000 13 November 2023
Islam Channel Limited £40,000 26 September 2023
Revolution Radio Limited £400 20 September 2023
Retrocadia Limited £400 16 June 2023
Bauer Radio £25,000 1 June 2023
Ahlebait TV Networks £10,000 25 April 2023

https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukgwa/20240627152557/https://www.ofcom.org.uk/about-ofcom/annual-reports-and-plans/other-financial-reporting

So fines are rare, they are also smaller for smaller organizations.

Example, this is their decision for Retrocardia:

QUOTE STARTS

Shoreline FM was a community radio service for Dymchurch and the surrounding areas of Romney Marsh, which was provided by Retrocadia Limited ("Retrocadia"). The station is now called Cinque Ports Radio.

Ofcom has imposed a £400 financial penalty on Retrocadia Limited after our investigation found that it had failed to comply with the conditions of its licence.

https://www.ofcom.org.uk/tv-radio-and-on-demand/broadcast-standards/decision-retrocadia-limited/

QUOTE STARTS

Revolution Radio is a community radio service for the diverse ethnic communities of Northampton, which is provided by Revolution Radio Limited ("Revolution").

Ofcom has imposed a £400 financial penalty on Revolution Radio Limited after our investigation found that it had failed to comply with the conditions of its licence.

In our decision published on 10 October 2022 in issue 459 of Ofcom’s Broadcast and On Demand Bulletin, Ofcom found that Revolution had failed to serve its target community as set out in the character of service of its Key Commitments and was therefore in breach of Licence Conditions 2(1) and 2(4) of its licence. This was the second time that Revolution had been found in breach of these conditions of its licence.

This penalty would have been higher had Revolution not taken various additional steps to ensure compliance with its Key Commitments from mid-2022. In light of those additional steps, we do not currently have concerns that Revolution remains non-compliant.

https://www.ofcom.org.uk/tv-radio-and-on-demand/broadcast-standards/decision-revolution-radio-limited/

And I don't think these cases would involve court cases. Just a letter from Offcom and then they pay the £400 fine.

I can't find a list of criminal cases but I expect they would be very rare indeed.

Also there is no way you'd just get a letter out of the blue saying you are summoned to a court for some offence you don't even know you committed.

They would talk to you over a long period of time before doing that.

It is very different from the subpostmaster thing.

So anyway I hope this helps you.

Or someone else if you want to transfer it to someone else in the UK say.

If this was a different situation and you were some close friend or relative say, or I was a long term member of the community you knew well, I'd be willing to take it on with no hesitation and no worries about risk at all.

It sounds as if it's not a huge time commitment for someone else. And you'd doubtless help them too, sounds like it would be more about them being the official figure in charge.

As you say we vary in our tolerance of risk. But my own risk tolerance level is also very low for different reasons.

If this was something I was doing and I was really keen to keep it going, I'd work through it some more, try out the tool, try to contact Ofcom, go through the assessment process which seems likely to be pretty simple for something like you.

I'd expect it to count as the lowest possible level of risk they have for something like what you do.

And I'd expect never to hear from them after submitting my assessment except form letters to say they received it and that it's okay.

But I would ask for help from Ofcom and other advice available to me to be sure :). I wouldn't rely on someone like me to advise me.

So, hope that helps. And if not that's fine and once again not trying to change your decision at all. Just hopefully helping with access to information you may not have encountered yet.

Thanks.

Okay. There is a process and though it's optional surely with a small organization with only one person working for a few hours per month - first - highly unlikely they ever get to you given limits on their time and much higher profile cases like Facebook, Twitter etc. But if they do - then the normal process would be to talk first and find a way to comply and some action plan for how to comply. At that point if the action plan is too onerous then just shut down [never likely to reach this point]. Then warning letters and only after the warning letters are ignored and something very serious is going on especially causing harm to kids, and being ignored - then they would fine and only consider criminal action if it was very serious indeed.

That is what one would expect of the process. All this WOULD NEED TO BE CHECKED.

But it would be astonishing if they were to spend time fining never mind a court case to imprison someone who does this voluntarily a few hours a month.

I think your risk is likely zero but of course understand wanting to be certain of that. I can't provide the certainty but perhaps Ofcom or someone else can and I hope you find the answers you need.

It's okay - I don't mind what you call this. It is just something I think may be worth you following up if you haven't already.

I think my first comment was a bit confused, this may be clearer. If this is of no interest to you that's fine :).

.1. I was drawing your attention to what Ofcom say on their penalty page, since the concern seemed to be a small risk of a huge penalty of £18 million.

QUOTE While a body with a larger turnover might face a larger penalty in absolute terms, a body with a smaller turnover may be subject to a penalty which is larger as a proportion of its turnover

https://www.ofcom.org.uk/about-ofcom/corporate-policies/penalty-guidelines/

It never suggests it would impose a penalty larger than the turnover. Indeed it seems pretty clear that the penalty would still be a proportion of the turnover even if larger as a proportion for a company with a smaller turnover.

Naturally I can't clarify this further for you. But Ofcom may be able to do so.

.2. Compliance may turn out to be easier than you expect when you go through with the tool. You won't know until it is available.

Then the usual procedure is

1. starts with a complainant or whistleblower or you yourself raising an issue with Ofcom. If that never happens then you don't get investigated.

2. Ofcom considers various factors to see if it will proceed with the case at all. Such as seriousness and strategic significance.

3. optionally it engages with you to try to get it fixed without an investigation.

4. optionally it sends warning letters.

5. may decide to widen the investigation to the industry generally to see if there is some solution

That's from their document here page 11 https://www.ofcom.org.uk/siteassets/resources/documents/online-safety/information-for-industry/illegal-harms/online-safety-enforcement-guidance.pdf?v=387566

So - again it may ease your concerns to ask someone at Ofcom to clarify the procedure.

I can't say myself as I am not Ofcom.

But based on what I found out it seems plausible that [OF COURSE NEEDING CONFIRMATION]

. 1. (NEED TO CHECK). You are likely far too small to be of interest to Ofcom who will focus on the likes of Twitter, Facebook, Google, TikTok first. They most likely never follow up such small websites as ones where the owner only puts a few hours work into them a month.

.2. (NEED TO CHECK) On the remote chance they follow it up, they likely to talk to you over a period of time to help you to comply before considering fines. You could shut down at this point if the process of complying is too much hassle for you.

.3. (NEED TO CHECK) on the very remote chance they go as far as to fine such a small provider as you, the total for any fine is likely to be less than your annual turnover, so if the fine is too much to keep going at that point, you pay the fine, from your assets for the business and donations for that year and then close it down,

.4. (NEED TO CHECK) enforcement doesn't seem to involve court action or legal fees on your part so long as you pay any fine.

Depends on how keen you are to keep it going but if you are this may be useful information. Or maybe not. At any rate that's all I have :).

No. I am just a voluntary fact checker who helps scared people. All I have is what I shared, those quotes from Ofcom's own website.

How I know about this is just that this story is spreading virally on the internet. I fact checked it for scared people who worried it meant small businesses and voluntary organizations would have to shut down.

And after fact checking it I thought as a courtesy I'd post back here in case my fact check was useful to Velocio as they don't seem to be aware that the penalty is limited to a fraction of the turnover.

If the main concern is a penalty of £18 million it is pretty clear this simply can't happen. Indeed if the turnover is £0 not sure they can even do any fine. But the text doesn't explicitly say "any fine has to be less than the turnover". So to confirm that, I'd recommend contacting someone from Ofcom if available.

So anyway hope this helps :). Just going the extra mile to help someone in case it helps.

First Offcom haven't yet released the tool you use to assess the harm. It may be worth waiting until they do that and you can go through it to decide how difficult it will be to comply or not.

The tool will be here:

https://www.ofcom.org.uk/Online-Safety/check-how-to-comply/

Then on your worry about liability, I know it says 10% of annual turnover or £18 million whichever is greater.

However it does NOT say they can impose a higher penalty than your annual turnover. That seems very implausible as it would be an impossible requirement on people like you.

I think if your annual turnover is less than £18 million the max is less than the turnover. They just haven't thought to mention that.

This seems to clarify that:

QUOTE STARTS

A relevant factor in securing this objective of deterrence is the turnover of the regulated body subject to the penalty. Penalties should be set at levels which, having regard to that turnover, will have an impact on the body that deters it from misconduct in future and which provides signals to other bodies that misconduct by them would result in penalties having a similar impact. That is, it must be at a level which can also change and correct any non-compliant behaviour, or potential non-compliant behaviour, by other providers.
...
This is not to say there is a direct linear relationship between the size and turnover of the regulated body and the level of the penalty. While a body with a larger turnover might face a larger penalty in absolute terms, a body with a smaller turnover may be subject to a penalty which is larger as a proportion of its turnover, for example. We will impose the penalty which is appropriate and proportionate, taking into account all the circumstances of the case in the round together with the objective of deterrence.
https://www.ofcom.org.uk/about-ofcom/corporate-policies/penalty-guidelines/

It doesn't say explicitly that the penalty is always less than the turnover but it doesn't make sense in the context of the rest of it for it to be higher. A penalty more than annual turnover would be enforced closure of the business for many businesses and force bankruptcy. That makes no sense given that the aim is to get them to comply not to get them to close down.

So at most you'd risk losing a fraction of your turnover.

Also from what you say then the risk is surely low. It will be easier to know once the tool is available but nothing in your description suggests a high risk of harm to kids or even medium. Surely the risk to kids is very low.

Also the focus would be on large businesses first. They may never get around to businesses as small as yours.

Also if they do, they would give you warning first and give you a chance to comply as that is the point in it - not to close websites down but to get them to comply with the requirements.

If you feel you can't you could close your site down at that point after talking to them, explaining you can't do what they ask of you, get their feedback and then if you still can't comply you can explain that to them. The worst happens at that point is that you have to run the site with not enough income from it due to the fines whatever they are and it might be that members of your site would club together to keep it going.

There is no way they just give you a fine out of the blue forcing you to close down the business without first discussing with you to try to find a way forward for you to achieve compliance.

I'm not sure what the next step would be, perhaps contact Offcom but maybe they are too busy. I expect you tried?

But maybe wait for the online tool to be available, go through it, complete the assessment and send it to them and take it from there. You surely would assess the risk as low. And then see if you can ask them questions about your concerns at that point.

How does that sound?