Programme complaints bulletin
Standards & Fairness and Privacy
Issue number 16 23 August 2004 Ofcom programme complaints bulletin 23 August 2004
Contents
Introduction 2
Standards cases
Sanctions 3
Breaches 7
Resolved 11
Not in Breach/Outside Remit 14
Fairness and Privacy cases
Upheld/Upheld in Part 21
Not Upheld 22
1 Ofcom programme complaints bulletin 23 August 2004
Introduction
Some of the following complaints were received by the legacy regulators prior to the commencement of Ofcom. Under the terms of the Communications Act 2003, they became the responsibility of Ofcom on 29 December 2003.
The Communications Act allows for the Codes of the legacy regulators to remain in force until such time as Ofcom has developed its own Codes. Ofcom is currently consulting on its new draft Code. This can be found at http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consultations/current/broadcasting_code/
The new Code will be published at the beginning of 2005.
The Codes currently in force for programming are:
• Advertising and Sponsorship Code (Radio Authority)
• News & Current Affairs Code and Programme Code (Radio Authority)
• Code on Standards (Broadcasting Standards Commission)
• Code on Fairness and Privacy (Broadcasting Standards Commission)
• Programme Code (Independent Television Commission)
• Code of Programme Sponsorship (Independent Television Commission)
The cases have been considered against the above Codes.
• Some programmes will have breached the relevant code or been found to be unfair or to have infringed privacy without good reason (Upheld).
• Others will not have breached the code or been found to be unfair or to have infringed privacy without good reason (Not upheld).
• However, there may be occasions where Ofcom recognises that a broadcaster has taken appropriate action in response to an issue (for instance, the broadcaster may recognise that an error has occurred and taken responsible steps to rectify it). But even when such action has been taken, Ofcom may still consider it appropriate to find that the programme breached the Code due to the seriousness of the issues involved.
The layout of the report reflects these distinctions.
2 Ofcom programme complaints bulletin 23 August 2004
Standards cases
Sanctions
This decision was published on 27 July 2004
Xplicit XXX 8 April, 20:30
Introduction Digital Television Production Company Limited (‘DTPC’) is licensed by Ofcom to run the satellite service ‘XplicitXXX’, formerly Pout/Pout Uncut. It transmits adult material which, at the time of the offence, was encrypted and available only to subscribers after 22.00. On 8 April 2004 from 20:30 to 22:00, DTPC broadcast in a free to air slot, a repeating six minute loop of material promoting its encrypted transmissions (‘freeview’). The promotional material was itself sexually explicit. It showed semi- and near nudity in explicitly sexual situations; showed simulations of intercourse, oral sex, masturbation and orgasm; featured captions with explicit sexual language and captions promoting amongst other available films one entitled Anal Cream Pie. XplicitXXX had admitted and Ofcom had recorded the following breaches of the Programme Code: sections 1.1 (the General Requirement for Taste and Decency), 1.2 (Family Viewing and the Watershed) and 1.6 (Sex and Nudity). The matter was also referred to the Content Sanctions Committee (‘the Committee’) for consideration of a statutory sanction. The Committee heard representations from DTPC before deciding whether to impose a sanction.
Decision The Committee viewed the Code breaches as serious. Its greatest concern was the risk that a child could see such material. The material was also unsuitable for transmission in the period after the watershed (21.00). The material was not borderline, but very clearly breached the Code. Ofcom has a statutory duty to protect the young and apply overall standards with regard to harm and offence. The Committee noted DTPC’s representations that the Code breaches were inadvertent rather than deliberate. On that basis, the Committee concluded that the error was the result of management failure to institute adequate training and operational procedures necessary to avoid the risks of a child viewing this material and effectively to review transmissions as they were made in order to detect and immediately correct any mistakes. This was because, in the Committee’s view, DTPC had adopted an approach to its broadcast material that was excessively complacent, unfocused and insufficiently protective of the interests of children. Any broadcaster licensed to transmit adult encrypted material which is restricted to subscribers but has free to air
3 Ofcom programme complaints bulletin 23 August 2004
promotions, has an obligation to ensure that no sexually explicit material is shown even inadvertently in free to air promotions. Any such infringement is not to be tolerated.
The Committee took into account as aggravating the seriousness of the present Code breaches previous, recent, comparable infringements by DTPC in relation to XplicitXXX, and the fact that DTPC had been given a previous written warning from Ofcom that any further recurrence might result in a statutory sanction.
The Committee took into account as mitigating the breaches, DTPC’s frank admission that it had breached the Code and the contrition it expressed; the efforts it had made since the matter was brought to its attention to prevent any further recurrence, particularly the appointment of a channel manager with responsibility for compliance. The Committee nevertheless noted that there appeared to be a continuing lack of full formal compliance training and operational procedures to prevent or detect and correct such mistakes. The Committee also noted that Ofcom had received no complaint from any member of the public about the ‘freeview’ broadcast on the 8 April 2004. Ofcom became aware of the issue through an informal approach from a competitor of DTPC.
The Committee determined that the Code breaches were so serious that a sanction by way of a financial penalty was necessary. The applicable statutory maximum was a fine of £250,000, payable to Ofcom for forwarding to The Treasury. The Committee gave serious consideration to a fine in six figures which it considered may become the norm for such serious Code breaches. However, it took account of DTPC’s representations about its financial position and the compliance steps it had taken and concluded that on this occasion, a six figure sum would be a disproportionate penalty. It concluded that in view of the seriousness of the infringement and taking into account all the circumstances, an appropriate fine was £50,000.
4 Ofcom programme complaints bulletin 23 August 2004
This decision was published on 29 July 2004
Galaxy 102 16 October 2003, 08:15
Introduction A listener complained about an item broadcast by Galaxy 102 which was recorded from the previous day’s live show and repeated at breakfast time (08:15).
The pre-recorded item was a phone call to the station in which a male caller advocated physical harm to women, saying repeatedly that he slapped his wife at least once a week and recommended a regular slap to keep women in line.
The presenters whilst not condoning this themselves, spoke (albeit not seriously) of wishing to inflict violence on the caller and both the presenters and the caller used offensive language. A 12-year-old girl was then allowed on air live to comment on what
she had heard and herself used offensive language (“fucking
wanker”).
Galaxy describes itself as an ‘edgy’ station with an established
local target audience of 15-34 year olds but also with a significant
number of children (4-14 year olds) listening to the station overall.
Galaxy was found to have breached the following sections of the Code in failing to: maintain the general requirement for taste and decency (contrary to section 1.1), protect younger listeners at breakfast time (contrary to section 1.2), avoid offensive language being transmitted when a significant number of children were likely to be listening (contrary to section 1.3); and seeking to elicit views on air from a child on matters likely to be beyond her judgement (contrary to section 3.5). The matter was also referred to the Content Sanctions Committee (‘the Committee’) for consideration of a statutory sanction. The Committee heard representations from Galaxy before deciding whether to impose a sanction.
Decision Galaxy admitted it had breached the code and apologised for the failures in its editorial control which had led to the situation, but vigorously defended its distinctive position within its (local) market dealing with a wide range of hard and soft issues. However, the Committee noted that other discussion topics which the station claimed to cover were not as inherently ‘dark’ or difficult as the topic of domestic violence, arising in this case.
Whilst therefore acknowledging Galaxy’s views about the particular nature of its station, Ofcom considered that Galaxy’s decision to repeat the item early in the morning, when children were very likely to be listening, demonstrated a serious failure in its compliance procedures and a lack of editorial judgment.
5 Ofcom programme complaints bulletin 23 August 2004
The Committee considered that the station, in viewing itself in the way it did, had paid insufficient attention to its 4–14-year-old audience. It had taken a deliberate decision to broadcast a recording of the material at an inappropriate time in the morning when it should have been aware it was likely that a significant number of children would be listening.
The broadcasting of controversial and emotive subjects carried with it responsibilities. Galaxy had broadcast this material without having the necessary safeguards in place which would be expected around such a broadcast and without building into its compliance procedures and editorial judgements, due recognition of its child audience.
In light of the above, Ofcom decided that Galaxy was in breach of the Code and imposed a financial penalty of £2500.
6 Ofcom programme complaints bulletin 23 August 2004
In Breach
Hell’s Kitchen ITV1 (from 21:00) ITV2 (from 22:00) 23 May – 6 June
Introduction This ‘reality’ show featured ten celebrities being trained by the chef Gordon Ramsay. Viewers voted off those trainee chefs they thought did not make the grade.
The series attracted over a hundred complaints, mostly about the strong language used by Gordon Ramsay – mainly “fuck” and its derivatives. Five viewers singled out a particular phrase, “fucking Jesus”, in episode five. Eleven viewers thought Gordon Ramsay’s behaviour towards the trainee celebrity chefs endorsed bullying. Five viewers objected to the killing of lobsters.
Response ITV said that it took seriously the control of strong language in this series. Compliance protocols had been agreed on the level, nature and frequency of strong language, depending on the time of transmission and the editorial basis on which it could be considered justified. A transmission delay mechanism was employed on the live elements of all broadcasts. The programmes were preceded by a clear warning about strong language. Gordon Ramsay’s frequent recourse to strong language was well-known from previous television performances, and the media had made much of it in advance of the series’ broadcast.
However, the inclusion of the phrase “fucking Jesus” was a mistake which “slipped through under high pressure and against very tight deadlines”. There had been no intention to broadcast it in this edited section of the programme and ITV apologised for having caused offence. After the incident procedures were further tightened against recurrence, successfully.
Decision We believe that the broadcaster struck a reasonable balance between the requirements of reality television and the need to avoid offence. The swearing in the early parts of each ITV1 programme was bleeped. This had the effect of gradually exposing the viewer to the kind of language warned about in the pre-programme announcement. Similarly, Gordon Ramsay’s language and robust management style were well known from his previous performances and off-screen media coverage. The killing of the lobster was part and parcel of restaurant kitchen life, and we consider that it was not unreasonable to show it. These elements of the programme were not in breach of the Code.
7 Ofcom programme complaints bulletin 23 August 2004
This was a post-watershed programme and had been preceded by a warning about strong language. However, as we stated in Bulletin 13, research indicates that the combination of strong swearing coupled directly with holy names is found highly offensive by believers. Like the broadcaster, we believe that the combination of a holy name and a strong expletive could not be justified in this context.
The use of a holy name linked to a strong expletive was in breach of Section 1.5 of the Programme Code.
8 Ofcom programme complaints bulletin 23 August 2004
Experimental Channel 4, 7 May, 23:40
Introduction Experimental is a late night entertainment programme aimed at an adult audience. It involves pseudo-scientific experiments in which people behave in strange and humorous ways.
Two viewers complained about a comedy sketch in which two 12-year-old boys were encouraged to eat a large number of chocolate liqueurs to see how many it would take to bring them over the legal limit for driving.
Response Channel 4 said that it had consulted a doctor who advised that the children were unlikely to suffer any adverse effects from the small amount of alcohol in the chocolates. However he did advise that, as the chocolates were very sweet, and included a syrupy suspension, the children could become nauseous from eating too many in a short period. The doctor suggested that a trained First Aider should be in attendance throughout the filming and this was arranged.
The boys’ parents had fully consented and the children told that they could stop at any point they wished to. However, as the broadcaster also had a duty of care, the production team took the steps it did to obtain expert medical advice on the potential issues and made arrangements for medical assistance to be on hand in the unlikely event of minor discomfort arising.
As medical advice had been sought and followed, and the parents had consented, it was believed that the sketch could be included, the more so because the programme was to be transmitted post-watershed. The production company and the commissioning editor had not felt that the sketch was exploitative. In their view, the item had the effect of highlighting the adverse effects, in terms of chocolate induced nausea, of over consumption of such chocolates. None of the children involved had come to any harm.
The first child, who appeared to be vomiting, was actually spitting out his final sweet, having found that he could not swallow it. The second boy, who finally had a breathalyser reading over the alcohol limit for driving, did so because he had just finished eating the last sweet and the alcohol reading was of the vapour in his mouth, rather than in his blood stream.
9 Ofcom programme complaints bulletin 23 August 2004
Although the sketch concerned children and alcohol, it did not portray the link in any positive light, and the adverse consequences were plainly seen. Appropriate steps had been taken to ensure the children’s welfare and the children’s parents were present throughout the filming.
Decision The point of the sketch had been to see how many liqueur chocolates the 12-year-old children had to eat before they were over the legal alcohol limit for driving. We accept that Channel 4 had taken steps to safeguard the welfare of the children and that their parents had fully consented.
However, the educative effect of the item was not as clear as the broadcaster argued. While it made the point that eating too many chocolate liqueurs could make a child nauseous, the sketch was deemed a success when one of the children ‘exceeded’ the drink-driving limit. The other child was considered a failure when he felt sick and couldn’t continue. This did not sufficiently highlight that it was a potentially harmful activity and that it is illegal for children to purchase liqueur chocolates.
The Programme Code notes that children are involved in programmes in a number of ways and that programme makers must have due regard to their welfare at all times… “Under no circumstances may children be put at physical or moral risk…”. Although the children were not apparently harmed by the ‘experiment’, the decision to have a First Aider on set demonstrates that the broadcaster was aware that the children might require medical assistance. 12-year- old children are unlikely to make a considered judgement, when appearing on television, about stopping an activity at an appropriate point and it is conceivable that they would push themselves to their limit. We consider that it was unacceptable to use children in an item which potentially could make them unwell. The experiment could not be described legitimately as educationally valid, particularly as the subjects were under the legal age for driving, and the sole purpose was to produce a light-hearted sketch for the entertainment of an adult, late-night audience.
The sketch was in breach of Sections 1.1 (The General Requirement) and Section 2.10 (Involvement of Children in Programmes)
10 Ofcom programme complaints bulletin 23 August 2004
Standards cases
Resolved cases
Sonia Deol Show BBC Asian Network, 11 May
Introduction This radio discussion programme included a phone-in on “Inter-religious family life – does it really work?”.
A total of 17 listeners complained about a guest referring to the founder of the Sikh religion, Guru Nanak Dev, as a “shitaan” (Satan).
Response The BBC said that the production team had spoken to the studio guest on a number of occasions before selecting her for the show. She was selected as someone with experience of the topic, rather than someone with any authoritative views on Sikhism or Islam. The guest was also advised by the programme team that her personal experience of choosing one religion over another, rather than the relative merits of the two religious, would be the focus of her contribution. The guest had given no indication in the preparation process that she might say something offensive about Sikhs or Muslims during the broadcast.
The BBC said that the presenter had not specifically prompted the question that led to the offensive remarks, the question to which the guest was responding came from a caller to the show. However, as the discussion was moving in the direction of comparing the relative authority of the Koran and the Sikh Gurus, the BBC accepted that perhaps the potential risk of offence should have been recognised more quickly.
Immediately after the remark had been made, the presenter said that it was “…. highly offensive to people who follow Sikhism” and that such a view was not representative of either religion. She apologised at length, as did the guest who made the statement, acknowledging that she was not sufficiently well informed about either religion. The statement was also challenged by other callers to the programme, both Muslim and Sikh. Further apologies were made on air by the Head of the BBC Asian Network and in a press release. The Director of BBC Radio met leaders of the Sikh community and personally apologised to them for the offence caused.
11 Ofcom programme complaints bulletin 23 August 2004
Decision Given the sensitive nature of relations between the two religions, and the link to political sensitivities, particular care was needed with this item. The discussion had arisen as the result of an email from a member of the public, who was then invited onto the show as a guest. We acknowledge that the BBC had taken steps to prepare the woman for her participation.
We accept that the presenter did not specifically prompt the guest’s response and welcome the BBC’s immediate action and apology for the remark.
We consider that the matter has been resolved.
Complaints resolved
12 Ofcom programme complaints bulletin 23 August 2004
The Essential Selection – Pete Tong BBC Radio 1, 9 April, 18:45
Introduction A listener complained that a track contained the word “fuck”, which he found offensive.
Response The BBC told us that the track was played in error. The presenter had played the unedited version although an edited version had been played on other specialist shows on the network. Although the producer had played the track in advance, he had not noticed the offending line. Audiences for specialist shows tended to be more relaxed about strong language than those for other mainstream programmes. However, senior management had reminded staff of the need to be vigilant about playing edited versions when they were available.
Decision In view of the broadcaster’s action, we considered that the matter was resolved.
Complaint resolved
13 Ofcom programme complaints bulletin 23 August 2004
Other programmes not in breach/out of remit (20 July – 3 August)
Transmission No of Programme Channel Category date complaints 2CR Offensive 2CR 25/06/2004 Scheduling 1
A Cook on the Wild Side Discovery 04/07/2004 Violence 1
Aggro Sky One 19/04/2004 Violence 1
BBC News BBC1 24/06/2004 Offence 1
BBC News BBC1 07/07/2004 Offence 1
BBC News BBC1 19/07/2004 Offence 1
BBC Radio WM BBC Radio WM ― Offence 1
BBC Regional News BBC1 05/07/2004 Impartiality 1
Big Bang ITV 14/07/2004 Offence 1 Sexual Big Brother Channel 4 03/06/2004 1 Portrayal Big Brother Channel 4 25/06/2004 Language 1
Big Brother Channel 4 29/06/2004 Scheduling 1
Big Brother Channel 4 28/06/2004 Offence 1
Big Brother Channel 4 27/06/2004 Offence 1 Religious Big Brother E4 29/06/2004 1 Offence Big Brother Channel 4 29/06/2004 Offence 1
Big Brother Channel 4 21/06/2004 Language 1
Big Brother Channel 4 02/07/2004 Offence 1
Big Brother Channel 4 05/07/2004 Offence 1
Big Brother Channel 4 04/07/2004 Offence 1
Big Brother Channel 4 07/07/2004 Offence 1
Big Brother Channel 4 08/07/2004 Offence 1
Big Brother Channel 4 25/07/2004 Language 1
Big Brother Channel 4 11/07/2004 Offence 1
Big Brother Channel 4 12/06/2004 Offence 1
Big Brother Channel 4 12/07/2004 Offence 1
Big Brother Channel 4 09/07/2004 Offence 2
14 Ofcom programme complaints bulletin 23 August 2004
Big Brother Channel 4 16/07/2004 Offence 1
Big Brother Channel 4 19/07/2004 Offence 2
Big Brother Channel 4 22/07/2004 Language 1
Big Brother Channel 4 23/07/2004 Offence 1 Religious Big Brother’s Efourum Channel 4 28/06/2004 1 Offence Big Brother’s Efourum E4 09/07/2004 Language 1 Sexual Big Brother’s Little Brother Channel 4 03/06/2004 1 Portrayal Big Brother’s Little Brother Channel 4 29/06/2004 Offence 1
Big Brother’s Little Brother Channel 4 29/07/2004 Offence 1
Big Brother’s Little Brother Channel 4 24/06/2004 Language 1 Sexual Big Brother’s Little Brother Channel 4 08/07/2004 1 Portrayal Big Brother’s Little Brother Channel 4 16/07/2004 Language 1
Bo Selecta! Channel 4 23/07/2004 Offence 1 Sexual Bo Selecta! Channel 4 24/07/2004 1 Portrayal Sexual 1 Bodies BBC3 11/06/2004 Portrayal Britain’s Biggest Celebrity Sky One 07/07/2004 Offence 1 Mingers Britain’s Toughest Family BBC1 07/07/2004 Offence 1
Building the Dream ITV1 21/06/2004 Misleading 1
C3 News ITV1 30/06/2004 Offence 1 Religious C4 News Channel 4 27/07/2004 1 Offence C4 Promo Channel 4 12/03/2004 Language 2
C4 Promo Channel 4 14/03/2004 Language 3
C4 Promo Channel 4 24/03/2004 Language 1
C4 Promo Channel 4 16/04/2004 Language 2
C5 News Five 14/06/2004 Offence 1
C5 News Five 09/07/2004 Accuracy 1 Sexual Caught on Camera Men & Motors 05/07/2004 1 Portrayal Central News ITV 22/07/2004 Offence 1
Century FM Century 105 23/06/2004 Language 1
15 Ofcom programme complaints bulletin 23 August 2004
Channel 4 News Channel 4 16/07/2004 Offence 1
Channel 4 News Channel 4 17/06/2004 Offence 1
Channel 4 News Channel 4 23/06/2004 Misleading 1
Channel U Channel U 11/06/2004 Language 1
Chris Moyles BBC Radio 1 05/07/2004 Language 1
Chris Moyles BBC Radio 1 16/07/2004 Language 1
Classic FM Classic FM 21/06/2004 Offence 1
Coronation Street ITV 19/07/2004 Offence 1
Coronation Street ITV1 16/07/2004 Violence 1
Coronation Street ITV1 19/07/2004 Misleading 1
Coronation Street ITV1 26/07/2004 Offence 1
Coronation Street ITV1 26/07/2004 Language 1
Coronation Street ITV1 01/08/2004 Language 1
Derren Brown Séance Channel 4 31/05/2004 Offence 1
Dirt Busters ITV1 21/07/2004 Language 1
Dispatches Channel 4 29/04/2004 Misleading 1
Dumber and Dumber Five 20/07/2004 Offence 1
Dumber and Dumber Five 21/07/2004 Offence 1
Emmerdale ITV1 26/05/2004 Offence 2
Emmerdale ITV1 04/06/2004 Offence 1
Emmerdale ITV1 07/06/2004 Offence 1
Emmerdale ITV1 14/06/2004 Offence 1
Emmerdale ITV1 28/06/2004 Offence 1
Emmerdale ITV1 07/07/2004 Offence 1
Emmerdale ITV1 12/07/2004 Offence 1
Emmerdale ITV1 18/07/2004 Offence 1 Sexual 2 Emmerdale ITV1 21/07/2004 Portrayal Emmerdale ITV1 28/07/2004 Miscellaneous 1
Emmerdale ITV1 30/07/2004 Offence 2
16 Ofcom programme complaints bulletin 23 August 2004
Essex FM Essex FM 10/05/2004 Language 1
Fairy Godfathers Channel 4 29/04/2004 Scheduling 1
Fantasy Football: Euro 2004 ITV1 25/06/2004 Offence 1
Fear Factor Sky One 12/07/2004 Offence 1
Fear Factor Sky One 16/07/2004 Offence 1 Religious Footballers’ Wives ITV1 12/07/2004 1 Offence Frank Skinner Show ITV2 10/06/2004 Offence 1
Friends Channel 4 30/04/2004 Offence 1
Globo Loco ITV1 10/06/2004 Offence 1
Globo Loco ITV1 01/07/2004 Offence 1
Globo Loco ITV1 08/07/2004 Offence 1
GMTV ITV1 09/07/2004 Offence 1
Groundforce BBC1 19/07/2004 Miscellaneous 1 Sexual Holby City BBC1 06/07/2004 1 Portrayal Hollyoaks Channel 4 05/07/2004 Offence 1
Hollyoaks Channel 4 12/07/2004 Offence 1
Hollyoaks Channel 4 19/07/2004 Offence 1
Hollyoaks Channel 4 21/07/2004 Violence 1
Hollyoaks Channel 4 25/07/2004 Scheduling 1
Hollyoaks Channel 4 29/07/2004 Offence 1
How Clean is your House Channel 4 16/06/2004 Offence 1
Human Mutants Channel 4 17/06/2004 Miscellaneous 1
I Hate the Sixties BBC2 27/07/2004 Offence 1
I’m a Celebrity... 2 ITV1 09/02/2004 Offence 1
Imagine BBC1 30/06/2004 Language 1
ITV News ITV1 24/03/2004 Misleading 1
ITV News ITV1 18/06/2004 Offence 3
ITV News ITV1 26/06/2004 Offence 1
ITV News ITV1 29/06/2004 Impartiality 1
17 Ofcom programme complaints bulletin 23 August 2004
ITV News ITV1 25/06/2004 Offence 9
ITV News ITV1 24/06/2004 Offence 1
ITV News ITV1 25/07/2004 Offence 1
ITV News Channel ITV 11/03/2004 Impartiality 1 Religious Jonathan Ross BBC Radio 2 19/06/2004 1 Offence Kirsty’s Home Videos Sky One 19/05/2004 Offence 1
Law and Order Five 27/04/2004 Offence 1
Little Angels BBC1 29/06/2004 Language 1
Little Lady Fauntleroy Channel 4 28/06/2004 Offence 3
Littlejohn Sky News 19/02/2004 Impartiality 1
Living TV Living TV 14/03/2004 Offence 4
Location, Location, Location Channel 4 22/06/2004 Misleading 2
Loose Women ITV1 28/06/2004 Language 1
Loose Women ITV1 15/06/2004 Offence 1
Loose Women ITV1 06/07/2004 Language 1
Loose Women ITV1 03/07/2004 Offence 1
Loose Women ITV1 12/07/2004 Offence 1
Loose Women ITV1 22/07/2004 Offence 1
Ministry of Mayhem ITV1 26/07/2004 Offence 1
Model Club Motors TV 12/06/2004 Language 1 Religious Monkey Dust BBC 3 11/05/2004 1 Offence Movie Mistakes Uncovered Five 13/07/2004 Offence 1
My Parents Are Aliens ITV1 12/05/2004 Offence 1
Newsnight BBC2 23/07/2004 Offence 1
Nip/Tuck Sky One 16/03/2004 Offence 4
No Angels Channel 4 04/05/2004 Language 1
No Girls Allowed Five 03/07/2004 Offence 1
No Girls Allowed Five 10/07/2004 Violence 1
Oliver Beene Sky One 11/07/2004 Language 1
18 Ofcom programme complaints bulletin 23 August 2004
On the Edge HTV 06/07/2004 Offence 1 Playboy Sexual General 29/06/2004 1 Channel Portrayal Porn: A Family Business Channel 4 24/06/2004 Offence 1 Queer Eye for the Straight Religious Channel 4 18/06/2004 1 Guy Offence Radio 1 BBC 03/06/2004 Language 1
Radio 2 BBC Radio 2 16/06/2004 Offence 1
Radio 2 BBC 16/06/2004 Offence 1
Radio 2 Radio 2 23/07/2004 Offence 1
Radio 5 BBC Radio 5 Live 09/06/2004 Offence 1
Rail Cops BBC1 28/07/2004 Offence 3
Ready, Steady, Cook BBC1 27/07/2004 Offence 1
Revelation TV Revelation TV 10/05/2004 Offence 1
Richard and Judy Channel 4 07/06/2004 Offence 1
Richard and Judy Channel 4 01/07/2004 Offence 1
Richard and Judy Channel 4 16/06/2004 Offence 5
Ringmaster ITV1 18/07/2004 Miscellaneous 1 Religious Rose & Maloney ITV1 19/07/2004 1 Offence Rugby Six Nations BBC1 21/02/2004 Offence 1
Sarah Kennedy BBCR2 28/07/2004 Offence 1
Shellshock BBC2 15/07/2004 Offence 1
Sky Sports Sky Sports 18/06/2004 Offence 1
Sky Sports Sky Sports 1 10/07/2004 Scheduling 1 Religious Channel 4 10/10/2003 1 South Park Offence Steve Wright in the BBC Radio 2 18/06/2004 Language 1 Afternoon Still Game Scottish BBC TV 28/05/2004 Miscellaneous 1
Strictly Come Dancing BBC3 03/07/2004 Offence 1 Sexual T4 Channel 4 27/07/2004 1 Portrayal Talk Sport Talk Sport 14/06/2004 Offence 1
Talksport Talksport 20/07/2004 Offence 1
19 Ofcom programme complaints bulletin 23 August 2004
Tarrant on TV ITV1 05/07/2004 Offence 1
The Courtroom Channel 4 24/06/2004 Miscellaneous 1
The Day Mountbatten Died BBC2 18/06/2004 Offence 1
The Gadget Show Five 19/07/2004 Offence 1
The Long Firm BBC2 07/07/2004 Scheduling 1 Sexual The Long Firm BBC2 07/07/2004 1 Portrayal The Now Show BBC Radio 4 17/07/2004 Offence 1
The Secret Agent BBC1 15/07/2004 Impartiality 1
The Secret Agent BBC1 15/07/2004 Offence 6
This Morning ITV1 17/06/2004 Offence 2
This Morning ITV1 17/06/2004 Impartiality 1 Tonight with Trevor ITV1 28/06/2004 Impartiality 1 McDonald Tonight with Trevor ITV1 12/07/2004 Impartiality 1 McDonald Top Gear BBC2 23/05/2004 Miscellaneous 1
Top Gear BBC2 13/06/2004 Offence 1
Two Pints of Lager BBC2 19/07/2004 Offence 1
University Challenge BBC2 19/07/2004 Offence 2 Unofficial World Records Sexual Friendly TV 02/01/2004 1 of Sex Portrayal Virgin Breakfast Show Virgin Radio ― Offence 1
Waking the Dead BBC1 11/07/2004 Scheduling 1
Wife Swap Channel 4 29/06/2004 Language 3
Wife Swap Channel 4 29/06/2004 Violence 2
Wife Swap Channel 4 06/07/2004 Language 1
Wife Swap Channel 4 27/07/2004 Offence 1
Women Who Kill ITV2 31/05/2004 Offence 1 Wren the Man who BBC1 25/04/2004 Scheduling 1 Built London X-periMENTAL BBC1 05/07/2004 Offence 1
You are what you eat Channel 4 29/06/2004 Language 3
20 Ofcom programme complaints bulletin 23 August 2004
Fairness and Privacy cases
Where a complaint is upheld, a summary of the adjudication is included.
Where a complaint is not upheld there is only a note of the outcome. For a copy of the full adjudication in either case go to Ofcom’s website at www.ofcom.org.uk/bulletins/ or send a stamped addressed envelope to: Ofcom, Riverside House, 2a Southwark Bridge Road, London SE1 9HA.
Upheld/Upheld in part
Complaint by Mr Turki Al Faisal on behalf of the Royal Embassy of Saudi Arabia and the Government of Saudi Arabia Today BBC Radio 4, 12 November 2003
Ofcom has upheld a complaint about an item in this edition of Today. An ex- employee of a company responsible for arranging visas for Saudis in connection with a 1985 defence contract, made allegations in the programme about hospitality for Saudi officials. He also said that doing business with the Saudi Arabian Government required sweeteners for diplomats and staff. The Saudi Arabian Ambassador complained that this was unfair to the Saudi Arabian Government and Embassy because it was not true and the programme did not include any of the statement he had provided.
Ofcom was not in a position to say whether the allegations were correct or not. However, they were serious and it was unfair not to have included any of the statement supplied in the programme.
Unfairness – upheld
Complaint from Ms Claire Halliday Front Line BBC1, 5 May 2003
Ofcom received a complaint from Ms Claire Halliday, that her privacy was infringed without justification in both the broadcast and the making of Front Line, a programme broadcast by BBC 1 on 5 May 2003. The programme looked at the work of the ambulance service in Northern Ireland. It showed the aftermath of a road traffic accident involving Ms Claire Halliday, her mother and her sister, in which Ms Claire Halliday was seriously injured and her sister died.
Ms Claire Halliday could be identified from the broadcast. Her face was visible at points in the programme. She was shown, at particularly close range, being lifted off the rocks on a stretcher, seriously injured and in a state of pain and distress. The death of her sister made the accident particularly horrific for her. She could reasonably have expected privacy in these circumstances and it was not necessary to include these shots to highlight the work of the ambulance service.
Unwarranted infringement of privacy in the broadcast – upheld
21 Ofcom programme complaints bulletin 23 August 2004
Complaint from Mr Ivan Connor on behalf of Mrs Susan Halliday Front Line BBC1, 5 May 2003
Ofcom received a complaint from Mr Ivan Connor, on behalf of Mrs Susan Halliday, that her privacy was infringed without justification in both the broadcast and the making of Front Line, a programme broadcast by BBC 1 on 5 May 2003. The programme looked at the work of the ambulance service in Northern Ireland. It showed the aftermath of a road traffic accident involving Mrs Susan Halliday, in which one of her daughters died and the other was seriously injured.
Mrs Susan Halliday could be identified from the broadcast. She was shown lying injured and in a state of some distress on a stretcher. The death of her daughter made the accident particularly horrific for her. She could reasonably have expected privacy in these circumstances and it was not necessary to include these shots to highlight the work of the ambulance service.
Mrs Halliday did not realise she was being filmed at first and the film crew stopped when she asked them to. There did not appear to be any reason for her to be distressed by the knowledge that she had been filmed other than the prospect of the film appearing on television. Although the footage should not have been broadcast, the filming did not itself infringe her privacy.
Unwarranted infringement of privacy in the broadcast – upheld Unwarranted infringement of privacy in the making – not upheld
Not Upheld
Complainant Programme Date & Type of complaint Broadcaster
Dr Elihu Richter Correspondent: 28/29 June Unfairness and Israel’s Secret 2003 unwarranted Weapon BBC World infringement of privacy
Mr Arye Spiller Correspondent: 28/29 June Unfairness and Israel’s Secret 2003 unwarranted Weapon BBC World infringement of privacy
Mrs Patricia Glassop Infamous Fives 21 April 2003 Unfairness and E4 unwarranted infringement of privacy
Ms Tina Hutchence Infamous Fives 21 April 2003 Unfairness and E4 unwarranted infringement of privacy
Cllr Michael Talkback 25 November Unfairness McGimpsey 2003 BBC Radio Ulster
22