Mean Streets, ITV, 11 December 2000

A complaint from two men who featured in a programme about a conspiracy to smuggle drugs into the United Kingdom was upheld in part. The programme included surveillance footage of Stephen Bond and Colin Gurley, from which they were identifiable. Both men had been acquitted of conspiracy charges at a criminal trial. The BSC partly upheld two separate complaints of unjust or unfair treatment and unwarranted infringement of privacy from both men. It rejected one from Mr Bond alone about a trailer for the programme, broadcast on nine occasions between 2 and 7 August 2000.

The BSC considered that, although there was no explicit reference to their acquittal, the commentary had given sufficient indication that they had been found not guilty of conspiracy and found no unfairness to either man in this regard.

However, the Commission considered that the programme had implied that both men had been involved in criminal activity and created an impression that they had knowingly been involved in the conspiracy. It found that this had been unfair.

The BSC did not consider that the commentary generallycontained inaccurate statements which were unfair to the men. However, it found that the programme’s inaccuracy surrounding a meeting at a roadside café had created an impression that they were involved in smuggling drugs, which resulted in unfairness.

The Commission found that the inclusion of surveillance footage of Mr Bond and his aircraft in the programme trailer was not unfair.

It considered that, although both men had been identifiable from the surveillance footage, the details of the case and their identities were already in the public domain. It therefore found that their privacy had not been unwarrantably infringed in the broadcast.

Lucy Sullivan is Getting Married, ITV, 1 – 8 January 2001

Complaints from 16 viewers about the content of various editions of a series dealing with a naïve young woman’s search for fairytale romance and her disappointments and betrayals along the way were upheld in part. Nine complained of the inclusion of a lesbian story line and kiss in the edition of 8 January. Others believed that the sexual content, swearing and tasteless material were inappropriate for the time of transmission (before 6.00pm). LWT said that the series had originally been intended for broadcast after the 9.00pm watershed but was withdrawn when it failed to attract the young adult audience at which it was aimed. The underlying tone and structure of the series was not dissimilar to that of the tea-time soaps and, given the wider audience available at that time, it was substantially edited and revoiced to make it suitable for the slot. However, the series failed to perform well in the earlier slot and was withdrawn.

A Standards Panel watched the programmes and acknowledged that they had been re-edited for an earlier time slot. Nevertheless, it was concerned by the general nature and tone of the content, in particular, the sexual themes in the 8 January edition which it considered were likely to have exceeded the expectations of the majority of the audience at a time when a large number of children would be available to watch it. That aspect of the complaints was upheld.

A viewer’s complaint about the use of a gun in a sketch in this children’s programme was not upheld. The sketch, which LWT said was designed to be both topical and over the top and featuring an actress from EastEnders, was based on the then current "who shot Phil Mitchell?" plot. The gun was clearly a plastic toy and the whole sketch had been farcical and unreal. Nevertheless, LWT said that they appreciated the viewer’s concern following the terrible events at Dunblane.

A Standards Panel watched the programme and, while it understood the Complainant’s concern, it took the view that the contents and the farcical nature of the sketch robbed it of potential offence of the danger of imitation.

Edge, Channel 4, 2 February 2001

The BSC did not uphold a complaint from a viewer that this programme portrayed drug taking as normal and acceptable and was dismissive of the dangers of drug use.

Channel 4 said that the programme was a weekly review show that looked at some of the shows from its digital entertainment channel, E4. It catered for a late-night audience. The extract complained of had been taken from Drug Nation – Cocaine Nights, a hard-hitting appraisal of drug use amongst young people. Channel 4 said that the programme had not contained or glamorised the use of drugs but allowed individual drug users to explain why they used drugs and the potential dangers to which they exposed themselves. Channel 4 explained that the clip in question featured a young woman who, as well as explaining why she took cocaine, acknowledged the seriousness of the potential criminal penalties and of the risks to her health. Brief footage of the young woman and her friends taking drugs had been included in order to demonstrate the excessive quantities of drugs they were taking but had not been so detailed as to be easily imitated.

The BSC took the view that, although the young woman featured explained why she enjoyed taking cocaine, she also acknowledged the dangers to her health and the risk of prosecution to which she was exposing herself. It considered that the programme had not glamorised drug taking and the footage was unlikely to lead to imitation. It concluded that the programme had not exceeded acceptable boundaries for broadcasts late at night on a minority channel.

The Broadcasting Standards Commission upheld in part a complaint of unfair treatment and unwarranted infringement of privacy from Mr Andreas Olofsson about Folkhemmet which was broadcast by TV3 Sweden on 3 May 2001. The programme featured a report on the Engelbrekt network and its links with parts of the youth association of the Christian Democrat Party.

The programme stated that the Party was linked to various extreme right groups, and the Swedish journal Expo was due to produce an exposé on this issue. It also stated that the Engelbrekt discussion site on the Internet had become a "battleground for Nazis" and that this site had been hosted by the service provider, Andol, which is owned by Mr Olofsson.

The Commission found that the reference to Mr Olofsson’s company having previously hosted the Engelbrekt’s website (which was true) was not unfair as it did not imply that he was part of the network.

However, the Commission did find that the programme’s failure to provide Mr Olofsson with an opportunity to explain his position was unfair, in particular, in relation to the deliberately ambiguous references to both Engelbrekt and the Christian Democrats.

The Commission concluded that there was no infringement of Mr Olofsson’s privacy as the material used was already in the public domain and was not of a private or personal nature.

The Broadcasting Standards Commission upheld a complaint about footage, from the American Vampires documentary, of people drinking human blood and performance artists being "crucified" and cut in order to assist blood loss.

Channel 4 said that the documentary aimed to explore the mythology of modern day vampires in America. The film provided viewers with a rare insight into this alternative community through a series of interviews with members. During these interviews, the members told how the rituals fulfilled both physical and spiritual needs. The scenes depicting these rituals were necessary to support the members’ views. The film made clear that the blood ‘drinkers’ and ‘donors’ have made an informed lifestyle choice and they knew that consensual blood-letting and drinking involved numerous health risks.

Graphic scenes of blood-letting and a mock crucifixion were balanced with detailed explanations by the performance artists of their significance. Channel 4 also stated that the film emphasised the dangers of blood-letting and drinking and at no time were the pastimes portrayed as attractive or problem-free. In addition, the programme was preceded by a clear warning containing information of the programme’s content in order to allow viewers to decide whether or not to watch it.

The Standards Commission watched the programme and acknowledged Channel 4’s justification for a serious documentary about such sub-cultures. The Committee, however, was concerned by the prolonged scenes featuring people drinking blood and the apparent gloating nature of the individuals depicted in the programme. The Committee also felt that the use of music and the general presentation of the programme contradicted any serious intent behind the making of it. Despite the programme’s late-night transmission (10:30 pm) the BSC concluded that the programme’s content had exceeded acceptable limits.

Six viewers complained about various aspects of this programme. These included a sketch of a sexual nature featuring a child, a joke about AIDS, jokes about the death of children and references to masturbation.

Channel 4 said that the programme was preceded by a clear warning informing viewers of the programme’s content. The programme was intended to examine the media’s and society’s attitude to sex. The programme makers were aware of the sensitivity of the topics that were featured, including that of death and sexual abuse. In addition, Channel 4 emphasised that great care was exercised at every stage of the casting and filming of the young child actors. Channel 4 believed that, given the programme’s reputation for being at the cutting edge of satirical humour, the viewers who chose to watch the programme would have been able to understand the irony behind the sketches.

The Standards Commission watched the programme and noted the sketches that had been complained about. It concluded that the majority of the viewers watching the programme would have understood that the jokes were intended to satirise the hypocrisy of the media, rather than to trivialise the serious issues concerned. The content of the programme had not exceeded the acceptable limits for broadcast and, therefore, the complaints were not upheld.

Eleven complaints were received about this particular episode of the popular soap opera, EastEnders. All the complaints believed the content of the programme had been unsuitable for the time of broadcast. The majority of the complaints related to an apparent incestuous kiss between a dying woman (Barbara) and her son (Steve). Other complaints related to issues concerning the treatment of a storyline involving an unwanted pregnancy, the encouragement of irresponsible behaviour and an obscene gesture.

The BBC explained that the episode had involved two stories portraying different family relationships and both were depicted in the usual EastEnders’ tradition of presenting adult stories in a format suitable for a general audience.

The story between Barry and Natalie emphasised the gulf between them as they struggled to come to terms with the prospect of their imminent parenthood. The storyline identified that a lack of communication between them could lead to very serious consequences and the programme touched on the issue of suicide.

In contrast, the focus on Steve and Barbara’s confrontation was the past. Her kiss was the culmination of many attempts to upset him. The BBC commented that the scene was not intended to contain any sexual element. The Standards Commission watched this particular episode and did not consider that its content was likely to cause widespread offence among the audience. The soap opera has consistently employed sensitive storylines and its audience was well used to these. In particular, the Commission did not think that the scenes complained of exceeded the expectations of the majority of the audience and that the issues depicted had been handled in a responsible manner. Accordingly, the complaints were not upheld.

Source: Broadcasting Standards Commission Reports

September 2002