Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Phantom FM

  • 08-04-2006 2:00am
    #1
    Time Magazine
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,452 ✭✭✭


    As some of you may well know at this stage, Phantom FM were given confirmation that they may go ahead and enlighten our airwaves.

    This is in light of the rejection of their competitors Zed FM's appeal to the Supreme Court that Phantom's licence warrented judicial intervention on several grounds.

    The most interesting of these grounds was that Phantom FM benefitted from illegal activity.

    Phantom used to be a pirate radio station. It would appear that they twice commenced pirate broadcasting after rejection of temporary licences from the Broadcasting Commission of Ireland (BCI). Despite this, the BCI still supported Phantom's licence, because it is their policy to try to bring pirate broadcasters into the mainstream market.

    The S.C. found 2-1 in Phantom's favour: the view of the majority and the view of the dissenting Kearns J.

    Right, let's get some things clear. I love Phantom. I look forward to listening to them as I commute; and ultimately I welcome their licence. But the dissenting judge raises some good points. He argues that Phantom made (at least) three references to their pirate history in their submission [they made references in a positive light; established fan-base, etc.] and that this only helped their application.

    Should such activity be condoned? Should their past fall in the favour or be to their detriment? Does it encourage other broadcasters to break the law? Doesn't such a precedent hold dangerous consequences in other areas of law? Is the BCI right to try an adopt the policy of bringing pirates in line? Was it parliamentary intention to allow pirates get some benefit of doubt; or is it out of line for the judiciary to interfere with a regulatory body's policy?

    As an interesting aside, given that Phantom are great, is this rough justice? :D.


Comments

  • #2
    hullaballoo
    Administrators, Entertainment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 18,774 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭hullaballoo


    Oooh aaare, that's a good question me hearty.

    I don't know if I have it in me to actually bother reading the case, so can you offer some sort of a synopsis? It seems like there's probably some sort of a trade-off between nurturing small business, and protecting people against pirates.


  • #3
    Eru
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,357 ✭✭✭Eru


    hullaballoo wrote:
    Oooh aaare, that's a good question me hearty.

    I don't know if I have it in me to actually bother reading the case, so can you offer some sort of a synopsis? It seems like there's probably some sort of a trade-off between nurturing small business, and protecting people against pirates.

    Have to agree with the second part, I distance myself greatly from the lame pirate impersonation :p

    I also agree that its dangerous to look on illegal activity in a positive light but on this occasion I suspect common sense was applied in great amounts.


Advertisement