Log In

Reset Password

HOTT warned over ads

Popular radio station HOTT 107.5 has been ordered to remove adverts that violate Political Broadcasting Directions.

The Broadcast Commission, headed by lawyer Elizabeth Christopher, decided last night HOTT was violating the law, which stipulated that employees of radio stations should not take part in a political broadcasts unless they are a MP or a candidate and they take part in a broadcast in that capacity.

Last week the United Bermuda Party complained that HOTT was running Progressive Labour Party adverts with the voices of its popular personalities Thaao Dill, Kristy Burgess (Miss Thang) and Jamel Hardtman.

The Broadcast Commission stated: "In this regard and pursuant to Section 8 of the Broadcasting Commissions Act 1953 as amended, the Commissioners have directed that these identified spots and any spots featuring employees of a broadcasting undertaking be removed from any programmes intended for broadcast by HOTT 107.5 or any other broadcasting undertaking."

UBP Chairman Shawn Crockwell said his party was pleased with the decision.

"I am pleased the Broadcast Commission is fulfilling their obligation and our complaint has been upheld," he said. "We have no interest in preventing anyone from successfully operating their business but during this crucial time it is imperative that all broadcasting companies operate within the regulations."

The owner of the HOTT 107.5, PLP MP Glenn Blakeny, was not aware of the ruling until The Royal Gazette informed him yesterday evening. He decided not to comment on the finding.

Mr. Dill, who has spoken out about his station's decision to run the ads, also declined to comment.

But on Saturday he participated in a discussion about his station's political adverts on Bermudarocks.com a popular blog.

In his lengthy postings he wrote: "As I've said on the air, the legislation limits free speech. Not profane speech, not libellous speech, just the expression of opinion."

He added that he found the regulations "wilfully repressive and potentially unconstitutional".