Big Bother…Ofcom receives 1,225 complaints about racist abuse and Parliament receives 1 from Keith Vaz

Read more UK TV and Radio News at MelonFarmers.co.uk

See article from parliament.uk See also article from  guardian.co.uk

Keith Vaz has had a whinge about Big Brother via an Early Day Motion in Parliament. It has only attracted 5 signatures so far.EDM 382: Racism in the Big Brother House That this House: strongly condemns recent abusive comments made in the Big Brother house in the Channel 5 television programme Big Brother, some of which have been perceived as racist; notes, in particular, that a total of 1,225 complaints were made by members of the public following those comments, 1,108 of which followed one specific, particularly severe comment; further notes that Big Brother has been warned in the past about racist comments made in the Big Brother house; and calls on Ofcom to ensure that Big Brother enforces its rules more effectively.

Big Brothers Dave and Nick Blather in the Face of a Public Backlash…Government spout bollox trying to defend their nasty and massive snooping capability

Read more UK Government Watch at MelonFarmers.co.uk

See article from telegraph.co.uk

There is a growing backlash against the proposals to let the security services monitor every email, phone call and website visit by politicians from both coalition parties. Chief among the Conservative rebels was Jacob Rees-Mogg MP, who suggested the proposals were hypocritical given the Prime Minister’s previous stance against the control state. In a 2009 speech Cameron said: Faced with any problem, any crisis, given any excuse, Labour grasp for more information, pulling more and more people into the clutches of state data capture. Rees-Mogg said: The Government ought to remember why it favoured liberty in opposition. The powers it creates may in future be used by less benevolent administrations. David Davis, the former Shadow Home Secretary, said the plan was an unnecessary extension of the ability of the State to snoop on people. What this is talking about doing is not focusing on terrorists or criminals. It’s absolutely everybody’s emails, phone calls, web access. Senior Liberal Democrats are also planning to rebel. They want the Government to clarify whether the legislation will allow GCHQ to access information on demand and without a warrant. The party passed a motion at its spring conference banning communication interception without named, specific and time-limited warrants. Tim Farron, the President of the Liberal Democrats, wrote on Twitter: We didn’t scrap ID cards to back creeping surveillance by other means. State mustn’t be able to trace citizens at will. Big Brother Clegg tries the angle that there is no central database See article from telegraph.co.uk While there will be no database, providers will be required to record all activities of their customers so they can be accessed if needed. Nick Clegg said he was against the idea of a central database and the government reading people’s e-mails at will. He claimed: I’m totally opposed as a Liberal Democrat and as someone who believes in people’s privacy and civil liberties. But in fact if the proposal is a rehash of what the police etc wanted under Labour, then they wanted the ISP’s to provide access to their local databases so that the police could actually use it like a central database (albeit a little bit slower on database searches). Clegg also claimed that the government will not ram legislation through Parliament. He said the proposals would be published in draft first to allow them to be debated. Meanwhile Theresa May has been suggesting that the capability is primarily for tracking down terrorists and paedophiles. But of course that has always been the stated case, and it has never stopped the capability to be used for trivial snooping eg to help councils investigate all sorts of low level nonsense. LibDems have been fed some blather trying to get them on the government track See article from privacyinternational.org An internal Liberal Democrat briefing on Home Office plans to massively expand government surveillance was today passed to Privacy International. The document contains significant evasions and distortions about the proposed Communications Capabilities Development Programme (CCDP), and is clearly intended to persuade unconvinced Lib Dem MPs to vote in favour of the proposal. …Read the full article Comment: Obsessive control-freakery See also Letter to MP by Phantom on the Melon Farmers Forum The very reason I loathe Labour with a passion is because of the obsessive control-freakery they displayed during their years in power. With their being voted out, it seemed we were rid of these big brother tendencies. Now it appears some in government have been infected by much the same virus. … Kindly tell the Home Secretary where to stick her proposals for yet greater surveillance of communications. …Read the full Letter to MP

Fucking Vague TV Censorship Rules…Ofcom bans strong language after the 9pm virtual watershed, perhaps having to wait until the 10pm actual watershed

Read more Ofcom Watch at MelonFarmers.co.uk

See Complaints Bulletin [pdf] from stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk

Big Brother Channel 5, 23 and 30 September 2011, 21:00 A complainant alerted Ofcom to the broadcast of the words fuck and fucking in the opening sequence in an episode of this well-known reality show broadcast on 23 September 2011. Ofcom noted a similar incident in the eviction show broadcast the following week. Both episodes began at 21:00 with clips of notable events in the Big Brother house from the previous week. Each pre-title sequence contained two instances of the word fuck or fucking. In the case of the episode transmitted on 23 September 2011, Ofcom noted the word fucking was broadcast at eleven seconds and again 16 seconds after the 21:00 watershed. On 30 September, the word fuck was broadcast 18 seconds and the word fucking 31 seconds after the watershed. Ofcom considered Rule 1.6: The transition to more adult material must not be unduly abrupt at the watershed … . For television the strongest material should appear later in the schedule. Channel 5 said that Rule 1.6 does not prohibit an ‘abrupt’ transition to more adult content nor does it specify…that strong language should not be included in programmes until a certain set time – for example, 9.05 or 9.10pm. The Licensee added that the use of duly (in Rule 1.6) in its view incorporated elements of the transition to adult content being improper, inappropriate and/or without editorial justification?. Channel 5 said that the use of strong language in these programmes was completely editorially justified and therefore the transition to strong language was not unduly abrupt. Ofcom Decision: Breach of Rule 1.6 Rule 1.6 is not prescriptive. It does not stipulate a certain set time after the watershed when broadcasters may start to transmit the most offensive language. What constitutes an unduly abrupt transition to more adult material depends on the context: for example, factors such as the editorial content of the programme, the time it is broadcast and the expectations of the audience. Clearly however, bearing in mind that there is an absolute prohibition on the most offensive language immediately before 21:00 (Rule 1.14), a broadcaster would need very strong reasons to justify starting to broadcast the most offensive language in the period immediately after the 21:00 watershed. Ofcom noted that the episode broadcast on 23 September featured housemate Rebeckah saying are you fucking crackers? 11 seconds after the watershed and less than six seconds into the programme. The second use of fucking was 16 seconds after the watershed. The episode on broadcast 30 September featured housemate Harry shouting stay the fuck out of other people?s business 18 seconds after the watershed, and another housemate used fucking 31 seconds after the watershed. We therefore did not accept Channel 5?s argument that the programmes did not include strong language immediately? after the watershed. Ofcom did not consider there was sufficient editorial justification to include repeated use of the most offensive language in these programmes so soon after the watershed. The two uses of the word fuck or fucking in each programme in the period directly after the watershed did in Ofcom’s view constitute an unduly abrupt transition to more adult material at the watershed. Rule 1.6 was therefore breached.

Slow Witted…Oops Channel 4 were slow to notice that the word ‘retard’ has been hyped into a major no-no

Read more Ofcom Watch at MelonFarmers.co.uk

The English language is littered with insulting terms that fall out of use as their jokiness gives way to political correctness. Now one more to add to the the list. But there’s plenty more words where that came from. Based on article from ofcom.org.uk

(Celebrity) Big Brothers Big Mouth E4, 29 January 2010, 23:05 Big Brothers Big Mouth (BBBM) is the sister programme to Channel 4s main Big Brother series . It is transmitted live and is broadcast post-watershed and looks at events in the Big Brother House with a studio audience and celebrity guests. It provides a platform for fans to voice their views, put questions to the evicted housemates and discuss the latest events in the house. Viewers are able to contribute to the programme by phone, e-mail, textpolls, or by leaving a message on the 24-hour Mouthpiece rant line. This episode was broadcast the same night as the CBB series finale and followed the Channel 4 coverage of the event. The programme was presented by Davina McCall. It was preceded with a warning which stated: First on Four, with strong language, adult humour and flashing images, the Big Mouth on a big event, Celebrity Big Brother. One of the guests on the programme was Vinnie Jones, who came third in the competition and had been evicted from the CBB house that night. During the programme a member of the studio audience asked Jones how he had known instantly that the person who came into the house disguised in a chicken outfit was Ms McCall and not fellow housemate Nicola Tappenden. In response to the question, Jones said: she was walking like a retard, she was walking like this [he then demonstrated walking with difficulty] and our Nicky walks lovely. Ms McCall then responded by saying: I do not walk like a retard. Ofcom received eight complaints about the programme. In summary, all of the complainants were offended by the use of the term walking like a retard by  Jones, and the demonstration he gave after saying the comment. Seven of the complainants were also offended by the response from the presenter, Ms McCall, who had repeated the phrase. Four of the complainants also raised concerns that Ms McCall had appeared to enjoy the joke and did not reprimand Jones for the comment. In line with Ofcoms procedures, the complaints were initially considered by the Executive without representations being requested from Channel 4. On 18 February 2010, Ofcom wrote to Channel 4 informing them that eight complaints had been received but not upheld. Ofcom stated that it was mindful of the overall context of the programme and decided on balance that there was not sufficient evidence to conclude that the word was necessarily intended to be offensive to anyone with learning difficulties. Two of the complainants requested a review of this decision. Ofcom considered Rule 2.3 of the Code (which requires material that may cause offensive must be justified by the context). Ofcom Decision: Resolved The Committee first examined the language used in this case in order to assess the potential it had for causing offence. In doing so the Committee recognised that the use of discriminatory language of this nature can be profoundly offensive to some viewers as it singles out a minority in society. Ofcoms own research (-3-) into offensive language identified that the word retard is quite polarising. Those people who consider it offensive do so because it is a derogatory term that refers to a disability. In the Committees opinion, the comments made by both Jones and Ms McCall in this programme were clearly capable of causing offence. In reaching this view, the Committee noted that the use of the word retard by Jones, although arguably intended as a joke and not aimed at an individual with learning difficulties, could be seen as being a comment on people in society with a particular disability. This was reinforced by Jones demonstrating walking with difficulty when imitating the way in which Ms McCall had walked. Jones then unfavourably compared the walk with that of fellow housemate Nicola Tappenden, which he described as lovely. It was the Committees view that his use of the word retard was capable of being understood not as merely a passing reference directed towards Ms McCall, but also as ridiculing those with a physical or learning difficulty, emphasised by his attempt at imitation. The Committee was particularly concerned that not only was Jones comment not corrected but that it was repeated by the presenter, Ms McCall, without any apparent recognition of its potential to cause offence. The Committee, while acknowledging this was a live show, considered that in this instance the action of Ms McCall had the potential to heighten the offence to viewers. The Committee was also concerned that the programme makers took no action during the programme to seek to mitigate the offence that would have been caused by the comments. The Committee noted Channel 4s admission that it would normally respond to a comment of that nature by asking the presenter to admonish the person responsible and if appropriate, apologise to the audience. It said that, due to human error, it had failed to do so on this occasion. In the Committees opinion that failure suggested a lack of understanding during the live broadcast of how offensive the comments had been. However, the Committee concluded that, on balance and in the circumstances of this particular case, there was insufficient context to justify the offence that was likely to be caused by the comments made during the programme. Therefore the broadcast breached generally accepted standards. The Committee then went on to consider whether Channel 4 had taken immediate and appropriate steps to remedy this breach of generally accepted standards. The Committee noted the action taken by the broadcaster in response to the complaints made about the programme. In particular Channel 4 had voluntarily removed the comments from the Video on Demand (4OD) version of the programme after an internal review (albeit this was in response to a complaint several days after broadcast by an individual who is also a complainant in this case), and had apologised in writing to the complainant. The Committee also noted the measures taken by Channel 4 to ensure this does not happen again. The Committee considered these measures appropriate to remedy the breach of generally accepted standards and therefore considered the case resolved.

A Bum Rap…Ofcom dismiss complaints about bullying in Celebrity Big Brother

Based on article [pdf] from ofcom.org.uk

Celebrity Big Brother Channel 4, 2 to 23 January 2009 Celebrity Big Brother is a reality based television show where 11 celebrity contestants are confined together in a controlled environment. Ofcom received 527 complaints about Celebrity Big Brother 2009. The majority of the complainants considered that Housemates were bullied or were responsible for bullying other Housemates. In particular, the American rap artist Coolio was the focus of many complaints for the manner in which he behaved towards some female Housemates, most notably singer Michelle Heaton. Complainants were concerned that he made misogynistic and sexist comments and subjected them to bullying and boorish behaviour. However, Ofcom also received complaints that Coolio was negatively stereotyped as an aggressive black man. Ofcom Decision: Not in Breach Ofcom did not receive any complaints from any of the participants in Celebrity Big Brother 2009. Ofcom noted that, in particular, the relationship between Coolio and Michelle Heaton became fractious. It appeared clear to viewers that Coolio enjoyed baiting and teasing female Housemates. However, when Coolio teased Michelle for allegedly having feelings for another Housemate (Ben) she became very upset. Sensing he had hit a nerve, Coolio continued to tease her about it. It was at this point that Channel 4, through Big Brother, talked to both Coolio and Michelle separately in the Diary Room about what had developed between them. Michelle appeared comforted by her conversations with Big Brother, and some of the other Housemates, and Coolio, when told that his behaviour could be seen as intimidating, appeared to be genuinely disconcerted that this could be the case. Ofcom noted that Big Brother and fellow Housemates managed to get Coolio and Michelle to resolve their issues and their “feud” was amicably resolved when Coolio and Michelle apologised to each other for their behaviour. In Ofcom’s view Coolio was a larger than life character in the House, playing the role for many viewers of the villain of the piece where such a role, after 10 years of Big Brother, is generally expected by the audience. He exhibited an acerbic wit; was clearly at times quite bored; baited female Housemates; and, was at times, generally unpleasant, making statements and references that appeared calculated to be potentially offensive and provoke a reaction. Ofcom acknowledges that Celebrity Big Brother is the type of programme in which controversial matters will inevitably be raised and emotional and offensive exchanges occur, as the characters of the participants are revealed. Given this, what is broadcast may contain language and behaviour which is capable of causing offence to viewers. Viewers therefore expect the broadcaster, through Big Brother, to challenge such behaviour appropriately and for it to be in context. When Ofcom viewed this series it noted that there was indeed friction between a number of celebrity Housemates: tempers frayed, emotions at times ran high, personalities clashed and name-calling abounded. The Housemates did however work towards defusing tense situations themselves and, where necessary, Channel 4 through Big Brother, intervened. Big Brother for example called Housemates to the Diary Room to talk through their behaviour to resolve more highly charged situations and to discuss how behaviour could be improved. As a consequence Ofcom did not consider that compliance with the Code had been brought into question by Channel 4′s handling of the conduct exhibited in this particular series. It concluded therefore that this series complied with the Code because any potentially offensive content that was shown and the manner in which the friction and the arguments were handled and presented by Big Brother on behalf of Channel 4, were adequately justified by the context.