Casualty
BBC1, 8 September 2007, 20:25

Casualty is a long-running hospital drama. In this episode, a junior doctor is confronted by the effects of a bomb explosion at a coach station on his first day at work. The doctor gives medical attention to several badly injured people, including a man whose stomach has been ripped open exposing his intestines, and another requiring an arm amputation.

Four viewers complained about the graphic and repeated imagery of the injuries sustained by the victims in view of the programme’s pre-watershed start.

Three complainants noted there was no specific warning about this content in advance of the programme.

The BBC responded that Casualty has been a staple of the BBC1 schedule for some time and has covered major incidents causing severe injuries in the past.

It considered that the pre-transmission announcement and clear build up to the scenes would have sufficiently prepared viewers for such images. In particular, it pointed out that the process of the arm amputation was explained to the junior doctor before it began, so giving the audience an opportunity to look away if they wished.

The broadcaster argued that the storyline warranted showing these injuries, as they were repeated in a series of flashbacks illustrating how the self-belief of the junior doctor had nearly collapsed.

Decision

Rule 1.3 requires that children must be protected by appropriate scheduling from material that is unsuitable for them.

Rule 1.11 states that violence, its after-effects and descriptions of violence...must be appropriately limited in programmes before the watershed…and must also be justified by the context.

Ofcom was concerned by the graphic nature of the images broadcast of two particular injuries (the exposed intestines and arm amputation), given that children may have been watching at this time on a Saturday evening. We recognise that Casualty is a well-established drama regularly shown before the watershed and that it often contains scenes of surgery. However, even taking into account these expectations of the audience, Ofcom considered this material to be unsuitable for children.

While appreciating the experiences of the junior doctor were integral to the storyline, Ofcom does not accept that the repeated images of injury were sufficiently brief and limited. Images were shown of the intestinal injuries of one victim in four separate shots all within one minute, with one shot depicting the injuries in close-up. In view of the duration and graphic nature of the injuries shown, the information provided before the programme was not, in Ofcom’s opinion, adequate to warn viewers about the images of the aftereffects of violence broadcast in the programme.

Breach of Rules 1.3 and 1.11

Dangerous Sex Games
Bravo, 25 August 2007, 23:00

Bravo is a channel in the entertainment sections of the Sky EPG which broadcasts content aimed at men aged between 18 and 44 years of age.

Ofcom received a complaint about explicit sex and full female nudity in Dangerous Sex Games, a film broadcast on the channel.

The broadcaster commented that they did not believe the content was equivalent to ‘adult-sex’ material. While Virgin Media TV acknowledged Dangerous Sex Games contained scenes of a sexual nature, it argued these were in the context of a plot and such scenes were not continuous throughout the film’s hour and a half duration.

It said the material was an “erotic thriller” and Virgin Media TV believed the sex scenes did not mean the programme should have been encrypted as it judged these scenes were not explicit or sustained.

Virgin Media TV said the film had been viewed prior to transmission by an experienced compliance executive who felt that no cuts or blurring were necessary to make the content suitable for broadcast. It said that while there was “little ambiguity” as to the adult nature of the sex scenes, the footage employed specific camera angles to avoid gratuitously explicit sexual interplay between the actors. The broadcaster therefore considered the film was not ‘hardcore’ but rather ‘erotica’, a genre it felt UK audiences were familiar with.

The broadcaster said the channel had become sufficiently well-established for viewers to be generally aware of the adult nature of its late-evening schedule. A warning was given prior to the film which stated it contained strong scenes of a sexual nature from the start,

Decision

Under the Code, content classified as ‘adult-sex’ material can be broadcast only under encryption (Rule 1.24) with appropriate protection mechanisms in place. Ofcom’s guidance on this Rule states that in deciding whether content is ‘adult-sex’ material Ofcom is guided by the definitions used by the BBFC and its reference to ‘sex works’. The BBFC defines a ‘sexwork’ as works…whose primary purpose is sexual arousal or stimulation.

Taking all the relevant factors into account, Ofcom has concluded that the material complained of was ‘adult-sex’ material as defined under the Code. We noted that the total duration of Dangerous Sex Games was approximately 90 minutes, of which around 30 minutes Ofcom assessed to consist of ‘narrative’ material linked to the plot. About 60 minutes of the material was dedicated to scenes of a sexual nature. While these scenes included some dialogue, their focus was predominantly the depiction of sexual activity.

The sexual scenes themselves showed naked actors – although genitalia were not seen – engaged in what appeared to be various sexual activities including oral sex, vaginal penetration and masturbation. The focus of the camera was on the actors’ bodies throughout. Taking into account all the circumstances (including the style and focus of the camerawork on the actors’ bodies, the considerable duration of the sex scenes, and the clear predominance of sex scenes compared to narrative scenes), the primary purpose of the film appeared to be the sexual arousal/stimulation of the audience. The content overall amounted in Ofcom’s view to a series of strong and prolonged sex scenes joined together by limited narrative. Material of this nature should only be broadcast under encryption.

We also concluded that the inclusion of such material on a channel situated in the general entertainment section of the EPG went beyond the generally accepted standards required by Rules 2.1 and 2.3 to be applied to the contents of such a channel. We recognise that Bravo is aimed at an adult male audience - and broadcasts programmes to attract that audience. Ofcom also acknowledges the film was broadcast late in the evening and preceded by an announcement which indicated the sexual content of the broadcast. However, this material was so strong as to be ‘adult-sex’ material. As a result it cannot be justified by the context – for example by means of information about content provided to viewers. ‘Adult-sex’ material should not be broadcast unless all the required protection mechanisms have been put in place. As Bravo is an unencrypted channel, this material should not have been broadcast at any time on the channel.

Due to the serious nature of this breach, Ofcom considered whether the matter should be referred to the Content Sanctions Committee for consideration of a statutory sanction. However, taking into account all the circumstances including the fact that this is the first time Bravo has breached the Code for the transmission of adult content, Ofcom decided not to take further regulatory action on this occasion.

Breach of Rules 1.24, 2.1, 2.3

Ofcom have fined a free-to-air adult channel £25,000 for transmitting sexually explicit material 15 minutes after the 9pm watershed.

The regulator ruled that Babeworld TV, an unencrypted channel available in the adult section of the Sky Digital satellite service, had committed "serious and repeated" breaches of broadcasting rules aimed at protecting under-18s from unsuitable material.

Babeworld TV also fell foul of Ofcom's code by inviting viewers to contact "off-screen" girls through premium-rate phone services that strayed outside the editorial content of programming.

Describing this programme, on February 12 this year, Ofcom said: The presenters were dressed provocatively in underwear and behaved in an extremely sexual manner, for example thrusting their breasts and buttocks directly at the camera and appearing to masturbate. They encouraged viewers to call them using explicit sexual language.

Just after 10pm, Ofcom noted, the presenters removed their tops and continued to act in a sexually explicit manner"

Ofcom said that the explicit sexual content ... both language and visuals was in breach of rules protecting under-18s.

The content was so explicit, and in particular the language, it was considered to be 'adult-sex' material, Ofcom said. This meant it should have been broadcast under encryption.

In deciding on a £25,000 fine, Ofcom's content sanctions committee - chaired by former Trinity Mirror chief executive Philip Graf - said it had taken into account that Connection Makers had a "record of poor compliance". Last year Ofcom twice reminded the company of its obligations to restrict the degree of sexual content on Babeworld and to separate advertising from programme content.

The police have been criticised for taking action against a television programme which exposed how some Islamic preachers use British mosques to spread a message of hatred and segregation.

Broadcasting watchdogs have cleared Channel 4 of wrongdoing over the controversial documentary about Muslim extremism.

The programme featured footage of preachers at a number of mosques, including one who praised the Taliban for murdering British soldiers.

West Midlands police rejected calls to take action against the preachers for stirring up racial hatred – and turned on the film-makers.

Three months ago, the police, backed by the Crown Prosecution Service, made a formal complaint to Ofcom, alleging that the way 50 hours of videotape had been edited was 'distorted'.

But The Mail on Sunday has been told Ofcom has backed Channel 4's claim that the film was fair and has criticised the police response.

The programme, Undercover Mosque, broadcast in January, featured TV footage of an Islamic preacher praising the death of a British soldier.

At a meeting in a Birmingham mosque, the cleric said: Do you know what was written in a newspaper? Hero of Islam! The hero of Islam is the one who separated his head from his shoulders!

Abu Usamah, a preacher at the Green Lane mosque in Birmingham, was secretly filmed saying: If I were to call homosexuals perverted, dirty, filthy, dogs who should be murdered, that is my freedom of speech isn't it?

The film prompted the Saudi Arabian government to complain directly to the Foreign Office. The Dispatches documentary claimed the Saudis recruited young Muslims in the UK, trained them in Saudi Arabia and sent them back to the West to spread a radical ideology of intolerance and bigotry" through British mosques and Islamic organisations.

Twenty years ago, a young black man walked into a pub in Bristol and ordered a drink. Behind him, a gang of white youths started a chant: Nig nogs on the starboard bow, starboard bow… Straightforward, everyday racism. Only this time, it was caught on camera and broadcast on BBC1.

Fast forward 20 years, and another young man walks into a mosque in Birmingham, one apparently committed to interfaith dialogue. The preacher, however, seems less than committed. Christians and Jews are enemies to Muslims, he says. What about a gay man? Throw him off the mountain. And women? Allah created the women deficient. Again, all caught on film, this time broadcast on Channel 4.

Two clear cases of antisocial, illiberal behaviour. But here's the difference. Twenty years ago, Avon and Somerset Police were full of praise for our undercover exposé; at last, people could see what they were up against, that racism wasn't the invention of an oversensitive race relations industry. How naïve we were to imagine that such a sensible reaction would follow the broadcast of Dispatches: Undercover Mosque.
advertisement

When the film was first shown, local politicians in the West Midlands were understandably horrified. The police went to court to obtain an order to go through our rushes, convinced there was enough to investigate a possible breach of the law, including the encouragement of terrorism.

We said they were wasting their time - what we had filmed was offensive, but we couldn't see that it broke any laws. It was just plain nasty, and clearly at odds with Green Lane Mosque's supposed commitment to moderation. This was the job of investigative journalism - to expose what was really going on, rather than what we were being told was going on.

So it was no great surprise that we heard nothing for months. We assumed it had all gone away. What we really didn't expect was a press statement out of the blue from West Midlands Police and the Crown Prosecution Service saying that not only did the featured imams have no case to answer, but that they had turned their attentions on us.

They had considered prosecuting us for inciting racial hatred, but decided there wasn't quite enough evidence, so had referred the case to Ofcom, the broadcasting regulator. A CPS lawyer, Bethan David, made one of the most damaging allegations: The splicing together of extracts from longer speeches, she was quoted as saying, appears to have completely distorted what the speakers were saying.

Well, we knew all along what Ofcom has now shown to be the case, that what was going on was the everyday television technique of editing, reducing material to broadcast length. Distortion? At no point in any of the diatribes we recorded, or broadcast from DVDs and tapes, did any of the preachers renege on the offensive statements they made in the film.

Context? No one from the West Midlands Police, the CPS or Green Lane Mosque has yet given us the correct context for the notion that women are born deficient, that homosexuals should be thrown off a mountain or that young girls who refuse to wear the hijab should be hit.

So what was the police's intervention about? Why did the police and the CPS feel entitled to act as television critics and, in effect, as potential censors of what we could watch? Clues to the motive, I think, lie in the slightly sinister phrase "community cohesion".

Anil Patani, the Assistant Chief Constable who reported the programme to Ofcom, is in charge of "cohesion" in the West Midlands force. He said he was worried that those featured in the programme "had been misrepresented".

His chief was worried that our alleged "distorted editing" would create an unfair perception of sections of the Muslim community in the West Midlands. Feelings of public reassurance and safety would be undermined. (The feelings of gays and women, apparently, were not so high on the agenda.)

But here's the strange thing. It emerged that, in the aftermath of Dispatches: Undercover Mosque, the West Midlands Police received no formal complaint about the programme. Not one.

I have now written to the DPP and the Chief Constable of the West Midlands Police asking for an explanation for the highly damaging allegations made in August - allegations that sought to undermine legitimate investigative journalism and that unjustly blackened the reputation of my company and my courageous and entirely honest team of programme makers.

The lingering suspicion must be that here was a police force over-anxious to placate local "community leaders" - and that those efforts took precedence over protecting free speech.

Questions must now be raised in Parliament about the behaviour of the West Midland police. By their actions, they have made the people of Britain signally less safe.

The Dispatches programme performed a public service in exposing sources of the kind of extremism that threatens the safety and security of this country. For the police to turn on this programme with patently implausible charges against it is deeply sinister and against the public interest. As Channel Four said after the ruling, the police action had given: legitimacy to people preaching a message of hate.

The West Midlands police appear to have turned themselves into a mouthpiece for Islamists trying to shut down legitimate and necessary debate. The idea that the police should believe that ‘community cohesion’ — aka the sensitivities of the Muslim community – should trump the need to identify those endangering not only the cohesion but the security of the whole country suggests that the police have totally lost the plot here.

There is also something badly wrong with a system which is unable to act against those identified on this programme inciting hatred in this way. Is this because of the pusillanimity of the CPS? Is it the inadequacy of the law? Whatever the reason, this is the way a culture offers up its own throat to the knife.

David Davis, the Shadow Home Secretary, said: Once they [the police] were clear that no criminal offence had been committed, it was, in my view, a serious misjudgment to continue to pursue the editorial team and risked impeding freedom of speech.

“The Dispatches programme raised matters of wide public interest, touching on security and community relations. The documentary handled inherently sensitive issues in a responsible manner. Having been advised by the Crown Prosecution Service that no criminal charges should be brought, there was no cause for a police complaint to Ofcom. That decision drew the police into scrutinising editorial decisions of a television producer, which is not an appropriate law enforcement function and risks deterring legitimate investigative journalism.

Don Foster, media spokesman for the Liberal Democrats, said: This whole case raises serious questions about West Midlands Police and the CPS in what appears to be an attempt to censor television, stifle investigative journalism and inhibit open debate.

The National Secular Society has demanded an explanation from West Midlands Police about why it conducted a witch hunt against the makers of Channel 4's Dispatches programme Undercover Mosque. But attempts by the NSS to force the W. Midlands force to explain their actions through the Police Authority and the Independent Police Complaints Authority have been dismissed.

The NSS has tried to discover what was behind the West Midlands (WM) police's pursuit of the programme-makers by initiating a formal complaint against WM Police and its Police Authority, and later appealing to the Independent Police Complaints Authority. As we suspected would happen, these have been ruled inadmissible – third party compplaints will not be entertained, even when there is a public interest at stake. We made the complaints to register our concerns and, if they were rejected, to draw attention to the inability in such circumstances to challenge the police.

Keith Porteous Wood, Executive Director of the NSS, said: We welcome Ofcom's adjudication. But it raises the uncomfortable question as to why the top echelons of West Midlands Police and their Police Authority were prepared to go to such extraordinary lengths to try to punish Channel 4 executives for exposing the truth about the situation in mosques.

The supervisory bodies — The Independent Police Complaints Commission and HM Inspector of Constabularies — although acknowledging the seriousness of the complaints, were powerless to investigate. The Police Reform Act should be amended to permit consideration of third party public interest complaints in serious cases. This is even worse than shooting the messenger. If the police had managed to bring a prosecution or their Ofcom complaint had been successful, it would have sent the clear signal that they had the power to silence journalists investigating issues that were inconvenient to them. This would have resulted in a disastrous increase in self-censorship.

A major investigation should be launched into whether regional police forces can be vulnerable to undue local pressure. The Government must also take some blame for creating an environment in which religion and race are conflated in the public sector thinking, and for creating a climate where religion is given a privileged position, and it seems, excused a great deal.

From the Guardian see full article

David Henshaw, the managing director of Hardcash Productions which made the Dispatches film Undercover Mosque , said he was still "very, very angry" and considering legal action

With the backing of Channel 4 he hoped to launch a libel action against the West Midlands police and a Crown Prosecution Service lawyer who was quoted in a joint press release accusing Hardcash Productions of "completely distorting" what some of the preachers were saying. The media regulator dismissed the complaint saying it was a legitimate investigation.

Hardcash's reputation has been severely damaged and it was a good reputation, Henshaw told the Guardian. The Ofcom judgment is great. But damage was done that day in August, huge damage.

Update: Award Nomination

6th February 2008

The Dispatches programme is nominated in the best current affairs category of the Royal Television Society Journalism Awards, to be announced on February 20.

Stewart Purvis has been appointment as the new Partner for Content and Standards at Ofcom.

The Content and Standards Group oversees regulation of television and radio quality and standards and compliance with the Broadcasting Code.

He’s a hard-bitten newsman who has a strong understanding of technology and the changes that it is bring to the world of media.

Purvis worked for many years in the news business, rising quickly through the ranks to the become Editor-in-Chief at ITN, and then their Chief Executive from 1995-2003.

Following that he became the first Chair of Television Journalism at City University, London in 2003 and News International Visiting Professor of Broadcast Media at Oxford University in 2005.

Tim Suter is leaving the same post at Ofcom to set up a media consultancy with former colleague Kip Meek.

Channel 4 has been cleared over this summer's Big Brother race row, in which a contestant used the word "nigger".

The media watchdog Ofcom ruled the broadcaster was right to show student Emily Parr using the term because the programme made clear that her comment was offensive and unacceptable.

The regulator also rejected viewer accusations of double standards over Channel 4's decision to evict Ms Parr while keeping in a housemate who used "homophobic" language.

Laura Williams twice used the term 'poof' on the show - but the first comment went unchallenged and the second earned her only a reprimand in the Diary Room.

Ms Parr's comment and subsequent departure prompted 450 complaints to Ofcom, while Ms Williams attracted 200.

A number of viewers complained the phrase Ms Williams used is just as offensive to gay people as Ms Parr's remark is to black people. But in a ruling published yesterday, Ofcom cleared the programme of discrimination and double standards.

In our view, it is not possible to establish definitively the degree of offence that use of the word 'poof'' can cause in all contexts, the watchdog said. For example, it is clear that within the gay community itself, the word can be used in a playful, affectionate or self-deprecating way. There is insufficient or no evidence to suggest that Laura Williams used the word complained of in a [derogatory] way.