Mediawatch-UK Watch

Claims that Daniel Bartlam's horrific crime might have been inspired by a Coronation Street storyline has fuelled nutter calls for TV soap opera bosses to show more restraint.

The scene in which John Stape murders a colleague with a hammer was found on the teenager's computer along with a montage of violent scenes from other soap operas including Hollyoaks and Emmerdale, horror films and TV crime dramas.

Nutter group Mediawatch-UK has pleaded with producers to take greater responsibility, stressing the dangers sensational storylines pose to young impressionable fans.

In the past five years 18 murders have been committed in the UK's three main soaps and TV watchdog Ofcom is reported to be seeking assurances from broadcasters about the levels of violence being shown.

Ofcom have a regular whinge at strong language that slips out before the watershed. Broadcasters usually explain the accidental slip up. The latest examples are;

Road Wars
Pick TV, 11 January 2012, 18:00

Road Wars is a fly-on-the-wall documentary featuring the work of traffic police squads in the UK and USA. The licence for Pick TV is held by British Sky Broadcasting Ltd (Sky or the Licensee).

Ofcom was alerted to offensive language in this broadcast by two complainants. During this episode, a man was arrested on suspicion of possessing Class A drugs and taken to a police station. On the way to the station, the man became violent and during an altercation that followed he used offensive language. The words fuck or fucking were broadcast five times.

Ofcom considered Rule 1.14 of the Code, which states:

The most offensive language must not be broadcast before the watershed....

Sky apologised for any offence caused to viewers by the broadcast of offensive language in this programme. The Licensee said that upon discovering the incident it launched an immediate investigation and concluded that the broadcast of this post- watershed version of Road Wars resulted from human error.

Hanging Up
Sony Entertainment Television, 29 January 2012, 20:00

Hanging Up is a comedy drama in which three dysfunctional sisters clash over who should take on the burden of looking after their ailing father. The film has been given a 15 certificate rating by the BBFC.

A complainant alerted Ofcom to the use of the word fucking in this broadcast of the film. Approximately 40 minutes into the film there is the following interchange between sisters Maddy and Eve:

Maddy: I've told you a million times, stop talking to me as if I'm like you!

Eve: Oh, fuck you! [turns to another character] And fuck you!

Sony said that the unedited version of this film carried a restriction that should have automatically prevented it from being scheduled before 9pm, but that a software upgrade on 5 November had disabled a block automatically preventing this post-watershed content from being scheduled before the watershed.

Ofcom concluded in both cases that the words 'fuck' and 'fucking' broadcast before the watershed were a clear breach of Rule 1.14.

Ofcom Warning to Broadcasters

Ofcom also found Swedish channel TV6 in breach of its rules for an episode of Vampire Diaries shown at 19:00. In this case it was violence that was considered too much for the pre-watershed hour.

Ofcom further decided to publish a general warning to broadcasters against 'fucking' accidents

Ofcom has recently noted a number of cases where material which was originally produced for a post-watershed timeslot has been transmitted unedited or inappropriately edited for transmission pre-watershed or when children are particularly likely to be listening. This material often contains unsuitable language or violence. In such cases broadcasters frequently explain that such failures have occurred as a result of transmission and/or human errors.

All broadcasters are reminded that they are under a clear duty to ensure that robust procedures are in place, supported by a sufficient number of appropriately qualified and trained staff, to ensure full compliance with the Code.

All broadcasters must check their compliance procedures regularly to confirm they are effective enough to fulfil this requirement. Failure to have adequate procedures in place to ensure compliance with Ofcom's codes is a serious matter.

Ofcom recently made clear that it expects broadcasters to exercise particular care in relation to the protection of children and the compliance of material broadcast before the watershed on television, and on radio when children are particularly likely to be listening.

Broadcasters are put on notice that any serious or repeated failings in this area are likely to result in Ofcom taking further regulatory action, for example, the consideration of the imposition of statutory sanctions

The Daily Mail prodded Vivienne Pattison of Mediawatch-uk for a sound bite:

I'm really glad that Ofcom is taking it seriously because it is something we have brought up with them.

What I would really like to see is for them to show teeth and rather than a rap on the knuckles I would like to see some serious censure. We need real and meaningful sanctions.

I think what people want is a regulator with teeth that can show some leadership and be taken seriously.'

6 million people tuned in to BBC1 to watch Birdsong, a raunchy adaptation of Sebastian Faulks's First World War novel.

And an hour into the love story, audiences were given lashings of simulated sex as the two main characters got down to it. Well after the TV watershed though.

Clean-up telly campaigners claim that although the hot scenes were screened after the watershed, they will still be available for young people to access.

Vivienne Pattison, of pressure group Mediawatch UK, said:

It is all too easy for them to get hold of it on BBC iPlayer if they want to.

All they have to do is tick a box to say they're 16 and they're away. We are concerned about children's access to TV programmes on the internet. It's not enough to just put a warning at the start of a programme and make sure it is after the watershed.

A spokesman for Ofcom said they had received just a handful of complaints about the sex scenes but the BBC had not received any.

The International Union of Sex Workers is delighted by the unanimous verdicts of not guilty on all counts in the trial of Michael Peacock that concluded at Southwark Crown Court on Friday 6th January.

Michael's courage and determination in pursuing this case was the first challenge to the Obscene Publications Act 1959 for many years. Understandably, most people charged with offences under this Act plead guilty as an innocent plea followed by a court case that returns a guilty verdict will result in a harsher sentence. This has the effect of leaving police and CPS opinion of what is obscene untested.

The DVDs that were the subject of this prosecution were sold through Michael's website, sleazymichael.com, and on Craigslist. They contained scenes of male fisting, urination and BDSM. Michael was charged with six counts of publishing obscene articles likely to deprave and corrupt. The jury saw a substantial amount of the content which the police and CPS deemed illegal and required less than two hours deliberation to return unanimous not guilty verdicts on all counts. Therefore material showing the activities depicted is no longer defined as obscene in law.

It's time to decriminalise sex between consenting adults. Lady Chatterley trial of 1960 (R v Penguin Books) is still quoted as precedent in obscenity trials; the jury's response in R v Peacock shows public opinion has clearly moved on considerably.

Catherine Stephens, activist with the International Union of Sex Workers, says:

In a week that has also seen the collapse of the Sheila Farmer trial for brothel keeping, it is time to decriminalise the sexual activities of consenting adults, whether or not they are in front of a camera. These two trials were an appalling waste of public resources: the law as it stands does nothing to enhance the safety either of the general public or those who work in the adult industry and often actively increases the dangers we face.

Michael Peacock says:

Responsible treatment of pornography would allow adults who want to access sexually explicit materials freedom to do so and protect those who are underage or do not wish to view such content. The current legal framework fails to do either of these things. I give my thanks to my legal team at Hodge Jones Allen, the judge who heard my case and the twelve people who served on the jury whose maturity and commonsense has changed the law.

Hazel Eracleous, Chair of Backlash comments:

Backlash is delighted that a jury decided it is no longer appropriate to prosecute people based on consensual adult sexual activity. We support the rights of adults to participate in all consensual sexual activities and to watch, read and create any fictional interpretation of such in any media. We will continue to raise awareness of the unseen consequences of these draconian laws, provide legal advice and defend those same consenting adults caught up in the Extreme Pornography and Obscene Publication laws.

Myles Jackman, solicitor at Hodge Jones Allen with a specialist interest in obscenity cases states:

This case shows the Obscene Publications Act is no longer effective in the age of the internet.

See also Obscenity trial: the law is not suitable for a digital age from guardian.co.uk by Myles Jackman.

See also Interview with Myles jackman: Freedom Fister from vice.com

Jerry Barnett, Chairman of the Adult Industry Trade Association (AITA), says:

We congratulate Michael Peacock on his victory. The idea that depictions of consenting adult sexual activity can be deemed obscene is a throwback to an earlier age. The adult industry continues to develop and adopt technologies that prevent children from accessing sexual content. We see no need for adults to be protected from it -- a free society should protect the rights of adults to participate in any consenting sexual act they choose.

In the Press

The judgement seems to have captured little attention from the newspapers with the exception of the Guardian/Observer which has published several items about the news.

See article from guardian.co.uk

Feona Attwood of Sheffield Hallam University, who lectures in sex, communication and culture, and who attended the trial, said:

I think the law does not make sense. All the evidence that was heard was about whether the material had the ability to harm and corrupt. The question now is, what does that actually mean? What is significant is that the jury understood [the issues at stake].

Attwood, like others experts in the field, believes that the law has been overtaken by new understandings of the way in which people think about sexuality and the depiction of sex including whether a process actually exits that leads to moral corruption.

Others who have been deeply critical of the attempted prosecution include solicitor and New Statesman legal blogger David Allen Green. Writing during the case he said:

Obscenity is a curious criminal offence, and many would say that it now has no place in a modern liberal society, especially when all that is being portrayed in any obscene material are the consensual (if unusual) sexual acts between adults.

See also It's time to abolish the obscenity law from newstatesman.com by Nichi Hodgson

Other Comments

See also Obscenity trial ends from sexonomics-uk.blogspot.com by Dr Brooke Magnanti

See also An end to Obscenity Law? from janefae.wordpress.com by Jane Fae

See also 'Obscenity Trial Of The Century' Ends In Acquittal from strangethingsarehappening.com

See also The End of the English Obscene Publications Act from allvoices.com by Mike Freeman

And from the not so delighted

Few nutter campaigners have commented so far.

From article at bbc.co.uk.

The BBC prompted a few words from Vivienne Pattison

Mediawatch-UK said the Obscene Publications Act needed to be tightened up. Its director Vivienne Pattison says the case illustrates the problem with the act:

There is not a list which says what is obscene and what is not. It makes it incredibly difficult to get a conviction on that.

As a society we are moving to a place where porn is considered as kind of fun between consenting adults, but porn is damaging.

Cherry Healey: Like A Virgin will air on BBC 3 on Thursday 12th January at 9pm.

The BBC publicity material reads:

Losing one's virginity is one of those life-defining moments that can be intimate, exciting and nerve-wracking all rolled into one. But good or bad, Cherry Healey wants to find out if that one simple little act really does have a lasting impact. From a girl's first time in the back of a Fiat Panda to a guy who has popped his cherry three...

The Daily Express claims that the BBC is under 'pressure' to axe the documentary about teenage sex that the corporation accepts is not educational. The programme includes the word 'fuck' and discussions about oral sex & sex aids.

Vivienne Pattison, of the nutter campaign group Mediawatch-UK, said:

The show is terrible, almost a freak show. It's also irresponsible, inappropriate, disturbing and even exploitative towards some of those featured in it.

For a programme clearly aimed at a teenage audience it is extremely irresponsible not to include any discussion of safe sex.

Pattison plans to lodge an official complaint with the BBC and Ofcom. She is scathing about the lack of sex education in the show:

If this programme is designed to be educational it clearly fails. If however it is designed as entertainment then it is prurient and exploitative.

It is extraordinary that in following a teenager getting ready to lose her virginity, a bikini wax is filmed as an essential part of her preparation but condoms are not even mentioned.

The programme promises 'essential truths amongst the tales of sex and debauchery, to see if losing your virginity is about more than just 'having sex for the first time'.

However, it delivers an inconclusive mix of titillating detail and voyeuristic confessional. This represents a real missed opportunity for discussion on an important subject and information to help viewers make informed choices.

Ex government minister Ann Widdecombe chipped in:

The BBC should not screen this programme. It seems to me that they are just trying to set new boundaries and to do this at 9pm when a lot of young people will still be up is horrendous.

It is difficult to see how parents and teachers have any chance at all of getting young people to behave responsibly if this is the sort of stuff the BBC is promoting.

It will not help with efforts to reduce teenage pregnancy rates in Britain, which are the highest in Europe.

However, Philip Davies, Tory MP for Shipley and a member of the Commons Culture Select Committee, said:

If people have a problem with it they can switch their TV off.