Ofcom Watch

After getting in trouble for not following ATVOD's overly restrictive and unviable child protection rules, Playboy TV decided to move the Playboy TV website (and Demand Adult website) offshore to Canada.

However ATVOD would not accept that Playboy had actually moved the editorial control of the website to Canada and felt that it should there continue to be subject to ATVOD rules.

ATVOD's reasons cited for their refusal to accept the move seem particularly spurious. From the Ofcom adjudication:

In particular, ATVOD noted the following features of the website as evidence that the Service remained within UK jurisdiction:

• a. The contact information (as at 14 September 2012) on the Service was for the UK address of the company Playboy TV UK / Benelux Ltd .
• b. Terms and Conditions on the Service refer to being governed by English Law .
• c. Domain registration data suggested that the Service is not registered in Canada, but in America.
• d. The overall design and layout of the Service had not changed since the apparent transfer to Canada.

ATVOD also noted an email of 10 September 2012, provided by the Service Provider, from the Head of Digital and New Media at Playboy TV UK / Benelux Limited to the Canadian Product Manager. ATVOD argued this email suggested that the UK Service Provider retained editorial responsibility for the Service.

Playboy decided to appeal to Ofcom about ATVOD's claim. Playboy responded to ATVOD's points:

In particular, Playboy noted that:

• a. The fact that the Services' Terms and Conditions referred to are bound by UK Law and payments taken by a UK company had no bearing on editorial control .
• b. The Services' American Domain registration, again, had no bearing on editorial control .
• c. The Montreal-based company had decided the current design of the Service was sufficient and the redesign of a website is a lengthy process.

In relation to the email of 10 September 2012 cited by ATVOD, the Appellant stated that ATVOD had misrepresented its position and that, in fact, it uploaded videos to the Service as they become available and, as such, no editorial decisions are taken in the UK.

Ofcom made a few enquiries about staff responsibilities and accepted that editorial responsibility had been transferred to Canada:

In relation to the points cited by ATVOD, Ofcom broadly accepts the Appellant's explanations for the features noted by ATVOD. In particular, although the features noted could be indicative, cumulatively, of a service editorial responsibility for which has not changed, it is not determinative and evidence that there had been a genuine reorganisation including redundancies in the UK and the taking on of responsibilities by staff in Montreal is persuasive.

Ofcom upholds the Playboy's appeal and substitutes ATVOD's decision with Ofcom's Decision, that the Playboy TV did not fulfil the criterion in section 368A(1)(c) of the Act as at 24 July 2012 and therefore was not the provider of an online video service subject to ATVOD regulation.

ATVOD whined:

The success of their appeal means that they [Playboy TV] can continue providing hard-core internet porn to UK consumers beyond the reach of British regulation.

Playboy TV Chat
28 May 2013, 00:00

Playboy TV Chat is a free to air babe channel. Viewers are invited to contact on-screen presenters via premium rate telephony services ( PRS ). The female presenters dress and behave in a sexually provocative way while encouraging viewers to contact the PRS numbers.

The licence for this channel is owned by Playboy TV UK/Benelux Ltd.

Ofcom received a complaint that a female presenter was simulating sex on the channel between 00:00 and 00:30.

Ofcom noted that during this time a sequence was shown in which the left hand side of the screen was filled by a door. The right hand side showed a table and a female presenter, partially obscured by the door. The presenter was lying on the table, sometimes on her front and sometimes on her back, with the bottom half of her body hidden by the door but with the naked top half of her body visible to the viewer. The presenter then simulated that she was having sex with an unseen partner behind the door. At one point, the female presenter knelt by the door and simulated that she was performing oral sex on an unseen man behind the door.

Ofcom considered Rule 4.2 of the BCAP Code:

Advertisements must not cause serious or widespread offence against generally accepted moral, social or cultural standards.

Ofcom Decision: Breach of Rule 4.2

On 4 February 2013, Ofcom published revised guidance on the advertising of telecommunications-based sexual entertainment services and PRS daytime chat services (the Guidance )1. The Guidance sets out what Ofcom considers to be acceptable to broadcast on these services post-watershed2. Ofcom has also made clear in a number of published decisions the type of material that is unsuitable to be broadcast in adult chat advertising content which is available without mandatory restricted access.

The Guidance states that broadcasters should at no time broadcast images of any real or simulated sex acts (these include vaginal or anal intercourse, masturbation, fellatio or cunnilingus).

Between 00:00 and 00:30 the female presenter adopted a variety of sexual positions with the clear intention of making viewers think that she was having sex with an unseen partner who was behind the door. The presenter was nude. For the most part she simulated that she was having sex by thrusting backwards and forwards while lying on the table. She also simulated that she was performing oral sex. At one point the impression was given that a man had ejaculated onto her breasts.

Ofcom noted the Licensee's argument that the level of nudity was relatively low. However, in Ofcom's view the intention of the producer and the presenter was to give the impression to viewers that the presenter was taking part in real sexual acts, which was clearly at odds with the Guidance. In Ofcom's view the broadcast of this material in adult chat advertising content was likely to cause serious or widespread offence against generally accepted moral, social or cultural standards.

Ofcom noted the apology provided by the Licensee and the assurances given to Ofcom that this was a one-off error which would not occur again. However, this material was clearly in breach of BCAP Code Rule 4.2.

Ofcom has recorded a number of breaches of the BCAP Code by this Licensee since we issued the Guidance. We are therefore requiring the Licensee to attend a meeting at Ofcom to discuss its compliance arrangements.

Ofcom has announced the appointment of three new members to its Content Board.

The Content Board is the committee of the main Ofcom Board with delegated responsibility for TV and radio content issues, including setting and enforcing quality and standards. It includes members who represent each of the four nations of the UK.

The new appointments are:

Andrew Chitty

Andrew is the founder and Executive Director of Digital Life Sciences, which uses online technologies to deliver better healthcare services.

Andrew Colman

Andrew served for 13 years as Head of News & Current Affairs for BBC Northern Ireland and as a member of its senior management board. He has extensive experience of radio and television production.

Lesley McKenzie

Previously Group Digital Officer at LOVEFiLM, Lesley is Chief Operating Officer for Engage Sports Media, a digital production studio specialising in sports programming and distribution.

The appointments take effect on 18 September 2013.

A member of the house of Lords has written to Ofcom complaining that the military magazine Der Landser publishes content that glorifies German soldiers in the 2nd World War.

Monroe Palmer feels that this should disqualify the magazine's publisher, Bauer Media , from holding a broadcasting licence for Absolute Radio, which it recently acquired.

His voice is adding to several others trying to indirectly censor Bauer's magazines. Banker Bruce Fireman and another peer, Greville Janner, are also supporting the complaints.

Deidre Berger, director of the Ramer institute for German-Jewish relations explained the opposition to Bauer in an interview. She claimed the magazine encouraged young people:

To have an affinity for world war two. They're glorifying the war, and leaving out completely any mention of Germany 's responsibility for the holocaust.

Der Landser is a magazine that writes about Germany's role in the war as if the people about whom it writes were not war criminals, and some of them were.

Bauer told the BBC that the magazine complied with German law. It neither trivialised nor glorified war crimes.

Update: Ofcom Investigating

7th September 2013. See  article from  independent.co.uk

Ofcom has announced it is in contact with German authorities as it investigates whether Kiss FM owner Bauer is a fit and proper broadcaster, after complaints that it publishes a magazine that is said to glorify German Second World War soldiers.

Ofcom has contacted Germany's Federal Review Board for Media Harmful To Minors, the censor responsible for monitoring issues such as coverage of war atrocities.

Bauer said none of its publications trivialise or glorify National Socialism or war crimes

Update: War Censors

14th September 2013. See  article from  express.co.uk

Bowing to international pressure, Bauer Media has announced it would stop publication of Second World War title Der Landser (The Squaddie).

The Simon Wiesenthal Centre has claimed that the magazine was making the Third Reich acceptable to a new generation of Germans.

Jewish leaders were appalled that the magazine included tributes to the brutal Waffen-SS. The director of Global Jewish Advocacy, Deidre Berger, claimed:

They encourage young people to have an affinity with World War Two. They are glorifying it and leaving out any mention of Germany's role in the Holocaust.

Bauer insisted it had been legal saying a German lawyer concludes that Der Landser complies fully with the stringent legislation in Germany and neither glorifies nor trivialises National Socialism. Its statement announced it has decided to cease publishing the series .

Britain's Got More Talent ITV2
13 April 2013, 20:35,
14 April 2013, 17:30
17 April 2013, 06:30 and 13:25

Britain's Got More Talent is the companion show to the ITV talent series Britain's Got Talent, which aims to find an unknown star from the general public to perform at the annual Royal Variety Performance.

A complainant alerted Ofcom to scenes of nudity in the episode broadcast on 13 April 2013 at 20:30.

Ofcom viewed a recording and noted a performance by Scarlet around 20:55, which included the following:

Scarlet unzipped, dropped and stepped out of her dress entirely, leaving her wearing only a necklace and with a feather boa to cover her body (which she picked up from a chair at this point). She turned to the audience to reveal her naked bottom, which she wiggled. This sequence consisted of: a two second close-up of Scarlet unzipping the back of her dress; a two second mid shot of her wriggling her bottom out of the dress; a one second close up of her bottom; a two second long to mid zoom showing Scarlet in wide shot with her naked bottom to the audience; a two second mid shot of Scarlet shaking her naked bottom to the audience; and a later one second shot of Scarlet shaking her naked bottom to the audience. The images were pixellated and intercut with shots of the audience and the judges' reactions.

At the end of the routine, Scarlet turned back to the audience, her feather boa covering her front, and presenter Declan Donnelly came on stage and handed her a dressing gown.

Ofcom considered Rule 1.3 of the Code, which states:

Children must...be protected by appropriate scheduling from material that is unsuitable for them.

Ofcom Decision: Breach of Rule 1.3

The performance in question was a burlesque act, which is a variety genre characterised by flirtatious comedy, mime, dancing and striptease. We noted that this performance as a whole lasted approximately 90 seconds and contained shots of Scarlet removing her dress and shaking her naked bottom at the audience (as set out in the Introduction). We noted that from the point when Scarlet removed her dress, there were five individual shots totalling around 10 seconds giving particular focus to her naked and pixellated buttocks.

As already pointed out Ofcom guidance states that: It is important to note that in pre-watershed content, Ofcom would not expect to see singers and dancers wearing clothing that does not adequately cover their bodies (in particular their breasts, genital area and buttocks) .

Ofcom considered in this latest broadcast that the nudity was more evident than the previous case due to the frequency and close-up nature of some of the images of the performer's naked buttocks. While we noted the nudity was pixellated, Ofcom disagreed with ITV and considered it was of limited effectiveness and did not sufficiently obscure the performer's naked buttocks.

Taking into account the level of detail in this sequence, Ofcom did not consider that the Licensee had taken adequate steps to limit the images of nudity. The frequency and detail of these images in context of a striptease in a burlesque act meant that on balance they were not suitable for children.

Breaches of rule 1.3

Censorship of the BBC could be moved from the BBFC Trust to Ofcom.

The Sunday Times has reported that the plans are seen as evidence of the government's anger at the scandal-prone corporation, most lately about recent generous payoffs to senior staff. Chris Patten and Mark Thompson are due to appear before the Commons Public Accounts Committee (PAC) tomorrow for a showdown about the payments.

Chris Heaton-Harris, a Conservative member of the PAC, said:

Whoever is telling the truth here, it is clear that the governance of the BBC by the Trust is broken. It has clearly failed to adequately scrutinise the way the corporation has been spending public money.

A senior source at the Culture, Media and Sport department said:

It is clear that the trust, which is both a cheerleader for the BBC and its regulator, does not work. There are contradictions.

Under the plans the BBC would be run on similar lines to Channel 4, which is publicly owned but censored by Ofcom. The corporation has been subject to Ofcom regulation on matters of obscenity, privacy and harm, since 2007, but has maintained its independence on questions of editorial impartiality. The plan would require primary legislation, and would take effect from the BBC's next charter beginning in January 2017.

Tessa Jowell, the former Labour culture secretary who set up the trust, said it should remain as the voice of the licence fee payer and warned that Ofcom might become too powerful..

A member of the house of Lords has written to Ofcom complaining that the military magazine Der Landser publishes content that glorifies German soldiers in the 2nd World War.

Monroe Palmer feels that this should disqualify the magazine's publisher, Bauer Media , from holding a broadcasting licence for Absolute Radio, which it recently acquired.

His voice is adding to several others trying to indirectly censor Bauer's magazines. Banker Bruce Fireman and another peer, Greville Janner, are also supporting the complaints.

Deidre Berger, director of the Ramer institute for German-Jewish relations explained the opposition to Bauer in an interview. She claimed the magazine encouraged young people:

To have an affinity for world war two. They're glorifying the war, and leaving out completely any mention of Germany 's responsibility for the holocaust.

Der Landser is a magazine that writes about Germany's role in the war as if the people about whom it writes were not war criminals, and some of them were.

Bauer told the BBC that the magazine complied with German law. It neither trivialised nor glorified war crimes.

Update: Ofcom Investigating

7th September 2013. See  article from  independent.co.uk

Ofcom has announced it is in contact with German authorities as it investigates whether Kiss FM owner Bauer is a fit and proper broadcaster, after complaints that it publishes a magazine that is said to glorify German Second World War soldiers.

Ofcom has contacted Germany's Federal Review Board for Media Harmful To Minors, the censor responsible for monitoring issues such as coverage of war atrocities.

Bauer said none of its publications trivialise or glorify National Socialism or war crimes

Ofcom published the following statement in the latest complaints bulletin:

Violence in pre-watershed programmes

Ofcom reminds television broadcasters of the need to ensure that all material broadcast pre-watershed which features violent scenes is appropriately limited. Broadcasters should consider whether individual acts of violence within a programme are suitable, as well as where the overall tone is malevolent, menacing and threatening, that this also remains suitably limited.

Given the lack of recent detailed studies specifically into viewers' attitudes to violence on television, Ofcom has commissioned new independent research on this subject. This research will further inform us about the level of concern about violence included in television programmes scheduled before and immediately after the watershed, and any areas of particular concern to viewers e.g. specific types of violence or genres of programme. The research should be complete this year and Ofcom plans to publish the results as soon as possible in 2014.

The statement was related to Ofcom's censure of a fight scene in Hollyoaks.

Hollyoaks
Channel 4, 19 March 2013, 18:30

Hollyoaks is a long running British television soap drama set in a fictional suburb of Chester called Hollyoaks. It features a large cast of characters primarily aged between 16 and 35. Its main target audience is teenagers and young adults. The programme is broadcast each weekday evening on Channel 4.

Hollyoaks regularly deals with controversial storylines such as sexual abuse, domestic violence and drugs. A complainant alerted Ofcom to a scene in this programme, in which one of the main characters was violently killed by a speeding train. The viewer considered this scene was unsuitable for broadcast before the watershed, particularly as children might have been watching. The scene in question marked

The scene in question marked the conclusion of a long running revenge storyline between two characters: the former undercover policeman, Walker, and the former drug dealer, Brendan. Walker believed Brendan was responsible for the death of his brother Cam, who had died from taking drugs supplied by Brendan. This scene was broadcast at 18:54. From the point at which the characters first made physical contact with one another to the immediate aftermath of the train collision was one minute and nine seconds in duration.

Although the intention was clearly to show an intense fight between these characters, Ofcom particularly noted that, overall, where punches and kicks were exchanged the movements of arms, fists and legs were tightly edited to avoid showing any shots of the actual impact and the use of fast paced music gave the scenes a stylised tone.

In addition, there were no images depicting the impact of the train as it hit Walker, or its aftermath.

Ofcom considered, however, that the cumulative effect of the violent fight scene taken together with Walker being hit by the train, broadcast well before the watershed, raised issues warranting investigation under:

• Rule 1.3: Children must...be protected by appropriate scheduling from material that is unsuitable for them.

• Rule 1.11: Violence, its after-effects and descriptions of violence, whether verbal or physical, must be appropriately limited in programmes broadcast before the watershed...and must also be justified by context.

Ofcom Decision: Breach of Rules 1.3 and 1.11

This episode featured a particularly aggressive fight sequence, ending with one character being pushed into the path of an oncoming train and so to his violent death. The fight sequence itself was carefully edited not to show the actual point of impact of most of the numerous punches and kicks. However, it was clearly intended to leave viewers with the impression that both characters experienced violent punches to the head and the body, as was evident from the blood on their faces as a result of these blows, the impact sounds of the physical contact between the characters, and the groans and moans from the characters as a result of the violence.

In this case it is Ofcom's view that this scene was both violent and shocking and had the potential to distress younger viewers as well as raise concerns about the level of violence amongst parents watching with their children regardless of the editorial context presented or the signposting provided.

For all these reasons Ofcom considered that it was unsuitable for children. Ofcom then went on to consider whether this material was appropriately scheduled. We have set out above in some detail the nature of the violent content in this programme that Ofcom considered unsuitable for children. Ofcom also assessed the nature of the violent scenes as part of its consideration of whether they were appropriately scheduled.

In summary, Ofcom's view was that while the fight sequence was limited in duration it was intense and the climactic scene where Walker was pushed into the path of a speeding train was both shocking and unexpected.

Ofcom acknowledged that the Licensee took steps in attempt to ensure that this sequence complied with the Code. These measures were however on balance insufficient. Ofcom concluded that cumulatively the violent content in this sequence exceeded viewers' expectations for a drama transmitted long before the watershed when young children were available to view and in this case were watching in large numbers. Ofcom, therefore, concluded that the episode was in breach of Rule 1.3.

In summary, Ofcom's view was that the cumulative effect of the violence in the final scene was not sufficiently limited for this time of the evening, nor was it justified by context given that a significant number of younger children were viewing and available to view. Ofcom therefore concluded that this episode was in breach of Rule 1.11.

Breaches of Rules 1.3 and 1.11

Comment: Mediawatch-UK soundbite

29th August 2013. See article from telegraph.co.uk

Vivienne Pattison, director of Mediawatch-uk, said there was a concern that because of the success of late-night dramas such as The Fall and Ripper Street, which deal with serial killers, there were signs that violence was beginning to be seen as more acceptable before the 9pm watershed. She added:

I think it is good that Ofcom are coming in now and reminding broadcasters that violence is not acceptable, but I just hope that when broadcasters are found in breach Ofcom can show its teeth

Noor TV

Al Ehya Digital Television Ltd in respect of its service Noor TV has been fined £85,000 for inciting violence.

The programme Paigham-e-Mustafa was found to be in breach of Ofcom's Broadcasting Code rules:

• Rule 3.1: Material likely to encourage or incite the commission of crime or to lead to disorder must not be included in television or radio services.
• Rule 4.1: Broadcasters must exercise the proper degree of responsibility with respect to the content of programmes which are religious programmes.

Noor TV is a digital satellite television channel that broadcasts programmes about Islam in a number of languages, including English, Urdu and Punjabi. It can be received in the United Kingdom, Europe, Africa, the Middle East and Asia.

The Finding related to the programme Paigham-e-Mustafa, broadcast on 3 May 2012. The programme featured a presenter, Allama Muhammad Farooq Nizami who answered questions about a wide range of issues and personal conduct relating to Islam and Islamic teachings.

At approximately one hour and 18 minutes into the programme Nizami answered a question from a caller, who was identified as brother Yasir Hanif who asked: What is the punishment for the individual who shows disrespect for Prophet Muhammad? Nizami responded:

There is no disagreement about this [the punishment]; there is absolutely no doubt about it that the punishment for the person who shows disrespect for the Prophet is death. No one [among the Islamic scholars] disagrees about this. No one disagrees about this. The Koran, hadeeth [orally transmitted quotes of Muhammad], the actions of the companions of Prophet Muhammad, all testify to this [punishment] and there is no room for doubt in it. Whoever shows disrespect for Prophet Muhammad will be given death penalty. The procedure for carrying out the death penalty is that if there is an Islamic government operating in a country, then the Islamic government will carry out the implementation of this punishment to the one who shows disrespect for the Prophet. However, if there are no Islamic laws [implemented], if Islamic Law is not being abided by, if the Islamic Law is being shredded and is in tatters, and this environment prevails in Pakistan, then [drops the sentence]. You saw a few months ago, a man specifically said that the Islamic law which was especially designed to protect the sanctity of Prophet Muhammad, whom Allah praises and protects, was a black law. By saying so, he slighted the law and committed insolence against Prophet Muhammad. Then what happened? You saw what happened. The man who did it [killed the Governor] is Mumtaz Hussein. He is a Ghazi and we can absolutely not say that his act was a wrong act [because] the Koran and hadeeth [orally transmitted traditions], testify that the punishment of the one who shows disrespect for the Prophet is death.

Ofcom considered the breach of Rule 3.1 in this case was particularly serious given the wide audience reach of the channel and the fact that the statements were delivered to a Muslim audience, in a religious programme, by a presenter who was held out to be an expert on Islamic teaching; a person who holds a position of authority and respect within the Muslim community, speaking direct to camera. Taken together, these factors would have given the comments extra weight. The seriousness of the breaches was further compounded by the fact that the Programme made no condemnation of any killing or violent action by individuals in response to a perceived insult to, or perceived blasphemy against, Mohammed.

The potential for these comments to be acted upon is demonstrated by evidence of a number of very serious threats and attacks having been made in Western countries against individuals or entities perceived as insulting or making pejorative remarks about the Prophet Mohammed. Dutch filmmaker Theo Van Gogh was murdered by Muhammad Bouyeri in 2004 following the condemnation of his film Submission by Islamic clerics, and in the same year Danish cartoonists received death threats following the publication of illustrations which included depictions of the Prophet Mohammed. In November 2011, there was a fire bomb attack on a magazine in Paris for publishing a satirical cartoon of the Prophet Mohammed.

Takbeer TV

Takbeer TV Ltd has been fined £25,000 for breaches of Ofcom's Broadcasting Code:

• Rule 4.1: Broadcasters must exercise the proper degree of responsibility with respect to the content of programmes which are religious programmes.
• Rule 4.2: The religious views and beliefs of those belonging to a particular religion or religious denomination must not be subject to abusive treatment.

Two programmes, both of which were broadcast in Urdu:

Global Khatm-E-Nabuwat Movement – Broadcast on 9 June 2012 at 22:00, this was a two and a quarter hour ‘phone-in’ programme in which a panel of four people answered telephone callers’ questions on issues of Islamic theology;

Ofcom noted that:

• members of the Ahmadi community were described in words that amounted to abusive treatment of the Ahmadiyya religion and the Ahmadi community more generally. For example, they were described as having monstrous intentions and being both lying monsters and worthy of elimination by Allah, by using worms and vermin ;
• one of the panellists and a caller made statements that were highly abusive to members of the Ahmadi community and their beliefs, by, for example, equating such beliefs to having piles and agreeing that Ahmadis require operating on ... without ... anaesthesia ; and
• two callers made sustained, repeated and derogatory references to Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani, founder of the Ahmadiyya religion , stating, for example, that the whole world knows... Mirza died in a shit cubicle.

Khatm-E-Nabuwat – Broadcast on 3 July 2012 at 22:00, this was a two hour
programme that showed the proceedings of a symposium4 on Islamic themes held in  Luton.

Ofcom noted in particular that the presenter:

• stated that Ahmadi holy books were: replete with filth ;
• said the word 'Qadiani' is ... detestable ; and
• described the Ahmadi religion as filth .

Sangat TV is a general entertainment satellite broadcaster that broadcasts in English and Punjabi. It is based in Birmingham and broadcasts via the Eutelsat 28A, Sky UK satellite to the Sikh community. The licence for Sangat TV is held by Regis Ltd.

Ofcom had already found Sangat TV to be in breach of Ofcom rule 3.1 in finding published on 21 January 2013 in Broadcast Bulletin 2224. Rule 3.1 states:

Material likely to encourage or incite the commission of crime or to lead to disorder must not be included in television or radio services.

The Finding related to a programme about the attack on Lieutenant-General Brar, which was broadcast on 1 October 2012. This was broadcast almost entirely in Punjabi, was approximately half an hour in duration and comprised eight panellists, including a presenter, who discussed issues surrounding the attack. It had been reported that on a date shortly before the broadcast, while on a visit to London, Lieutenant-General Brar and his wife had been attacked in a central London street by four men. Despite suffering knife injuries, Lieutenant-General Brar survived the attack. In the Finding, Ofcom noted that, in relation to the attack, two men of Sikh origin had been charged with wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm.

Ofcom found that the programme was likely to encourage or incite the commission of crime. We considered that, cumulatively,  statements in the programme were an indirect call to action to members of the Sikh community to take violent action against Lieutenant-General Brar, other members of the Indian armed forces who had taken part in Operation Bluestar (the Indian Army's controversial military operation against the Golden Temple at Amritsar in June 1984)7 or those who supported this military operation.

Ofcom decided it was appropriate and proportionate in the circumstances to impose a financial penalty of £30,000 on the Licensee in respect of the breach of Rule 3.1. In addition, Ofcom decided it should issue a direction to the Licensee to broadcast a statement of Ofcom's findings, on a date and in a form to be determined by Ofcom.

Murder Files: The Sketchbook Killer
Channel 5, 11 December 2012, 20:00 to 21:00

Murder Files: The Sketchbook Killer was an episode of the factual documentary strand Murder Files, which explores how the police have caught suspects in major criminal investigations.

A complainant alerted Ofcom to violent themes and imagery in this programme, which the complainant considered unsuitable to be broadcast before the 21:00 watershed when children might be watching.

This episode featured the crimes of the eponymous Sketchbook Killer, John Sweeney. The episode opened with actual footage, dating from 2001 and filmed from a police helicopter. It was described in the commentary as showing the horrific discovery of holdalls located in the Regent's Canal in London in 2001 which were found to contain ten parts of the dismembered body of Paula Fields. The programme went onto explain how a similar discovery of a dismembered body, later named as Melissa Halstead, in a Rotterdam canal some 11 years previously, was, after many years of investigation linked to the same murderer, John Sweeney. The programme explored: Sweeney's life before he met his first murder victim, Melissa Halstead, and his violent relationship with her; the subsequent violent relationships he formed with two other women, Delia Balmer and Paula Fields; and the events leading to his arrest for the murders of the two women found in the canals.

Ofcom noted that the programme included the following example:

A series of reconstructions using actors, darkly lit and in soft focus and largely consisting of a series of brief shots tightly edited together, of the violence inflicted by Sweeney on Melissa Halstead and Delia Balmer. These included, at the times indicated:

20:14: an attack by Sweeney on his first victim, Melissa Halstead, in a hotel room in Austria which had taken place prior to Melissa Halstead's murder. This reconstruction was introduced by the narration: ...it's here that Sweeney's savage nature brought him right to the brink of murder. The reconstruction which followed showed a man and woman arguing, the man pushing the woman onto the bed, a brief shot of a hammer being picked up, and the man moving his arm up and down violently, accompanied by the thumping sound effect of a hammer. The voiceover continued over the reconstruction: It's never been established what prompted this attack but it left Melissa with a fractured skull and other injuries which needed emergency surgery . This final image of the male actor wielding the hammer continued, until the British Detective Inspector, Steve Smith, who investigated Sweeney's crimes, appeared saying: he [Sweeney] was convicted of attacking her [Melissa Halstead] with a hammer. He was imprisoned in Vienna...but Melissa...petitioned the judge and asked for clemency. The visuals then returned briefly to the actor playing Sweeney using the hammer and the accompanying hammering sound effects, before this sequence concluded with a final comment from the detective

Ofcom considered Rule 1.3:

Children must ... be protected by appropriate scheduling from material that is unsuitable for them.

Ofcom Decision: Breach of Ruler 1.3

While Ofcom acknowledges that the use of reconstructions and real life police footage and photographic evidence is central to murder investigation documentaries like Murder Files, this particular episode included a number of reconstructions throughout the programme (as detailed above), some of which were repeated albeit in an edited form. In our opinion these reconstructions when assessed individually were reasonably limited, showing for example, no detail of the head wounds inflicted with the hammer on Melissa Halstead, the attack with the axe on Delia Balmer, or the dismembering of the body of Melissa. The images used in Ofcom's view implied the horrific violence perpetrated rather than explicitly depicted it.

Ofcom was of the view that the overall effect of the (albeit limited) reconstructions, accompanied by detailed commentary on Sweeney's savage acts and the menacing music, resulted in material which would have been more suitable for an adult audience. We noted how the British police footage and Dutch police photographs, anatomical drawings and photographs were combined with relatively explicit descriptions of the dismembered body parts. In Ofcom's opinion these factors, taken together, meant that this programme was unsuitable for children.

Breach of Rule 1.3