Legal stuff (again gaaaaaah!)

[Entropy Balsmalch]

Right, this is for the third time of posting due to the sites recent problems.

Appologies if you've already posted a reply, but could you do it again as I've still not seen any answers to this question.

What ever happened to the many legal actions supposedly beign taken over Chris Morris related material.

A few I can think of, Jimmy Savile suing over Boxing Day death, Petula Clarke angry about "young girls" edit, Phil Collins lawyers' fury over BES.

Did these get anywhere?

Did Talkback settle out of court?

Where their any judgements againts them?

Cheers.

[Tibetan Singing Bowl]

Good question!

Also, what happened about the MP in "Drugs" asking questions in the House about Cake?

[DuncanC]

Someone did manage to get themselves excised from the 2001 repeats and DVD of Brass Eye, didn't they?

[Bernard]

Who then?

[Neil]

Sir Graham Bright...  Amess let his go through as long as they put that frame up on the end.  Oh on Phil Collins, I've a theory that they came to an agreement there and that his bits were largely cut out of the BES.  Can't remember all my reasoning behind this but basically it was to do with the credits being changed at the last minute, and Collins' bits being pretty much completely confined to the end credits.  

EDIT:  The ITC Report:

Brass Eye: Channel 4 Wednesdays 5 and 19 February, 5
March: 9:30pm

Brass Eye was an innovative satirical series which
parodied television factual programmes. One of its
techniques was to invent unlikely propositions and
then persuade well-known public figures that they were
serious. A number made on-camera statements endorsing
these propositions.


ISSUES:
(i) The edition of 5 February concerned a spoof
anti-drugs campaign about a bogus drug called 'cake'.
It gave rise to two complaints, both from individuals
who had made statements in support of the campaign.
Sir Graham Bright MP complained that the programme had
sought to make a laughing stock of the subject of drug
taking and of contributors like himself who would now
be very suspicious of any further approaches. It would
take time, energy and money to check people out. He
felt also that the programme was in bad taste and had
damaged the efforts made to dissuade the young from
taking drugs. David Amess MP complained that he had
been "set up" with invented facts about drugs and had
agreed only to take part in a video aimed at young
people. He had made it clear to Channel 4 subsequently
that he did not wish his interview to be used in this
programme.

(ii) The subject matter of the 19 February edition was
television treatment of sexual behaviour and it gave
rise to 17 complaints from viewers. They were all
particularly concerned about an opening scene
simulating sexual intercourse, crude slogans on a set
wall, a spoof interview with a small girl about the
death of her parents while "making sex", and a parody
American news item about a senatorial candidate
masturbating in public.

(iii) The final edition of 5 March contained a slogan
lasting one fiftieth of a second, not visible to
viewers, referring offensively to the Chief Executive
of Channel 4.


ASSESSMENT:
(i) The Commission was satisfied that the legitimate
targets of the satire in the edition of 5 February
were media treatments of subjects such as drug-taking
and the role of public figures. The programme implied
that it might be possible for a public figure to be
hi-jacked by any anti-drugs organisation, however
uncertain its origins or intentions. The Commission
was satisfied that it was neither the purpose nor
effect of this program to trivialise drug-taking. It
noticed that most of the individuals who were
approached to make statements about the fictitious
drug 'cake' declined to do so, for example because of
early suspicions that it might be a spoof, or because
the supposed anti-drugs group lacked any bona fides.
Both MPs had been made aware that their statements
might be included in a television programme. However,
the Commission agreed that neither contributor was, in
the terms of the ITC Programme Code Section 3.8, "made
adequately aware of the format, subject matter and
purpose of the programme".

(ii) The Commission had a greater concern about the 19
February edition, and, notwithstanding a warning
before the programme, agreed with viewers that aspects
of the content made it inappropriate for transmission
as early as 9.30pm.

(iii) The Commission accepted that Channel 4 had been
entirely unaware of the inclusion of the offensive
slogan prior to broadcast. It noted that Channel 4 has
since taken appropriate action against the individual
responsible.


CONCLUSIONS:
On the basis of the breach of Section 3.8 referred to
above, the Commission upheld the complaints of Sir
Graham Bright and Mr David Amess. It could be
concluded also that the editions of 19 February and 5
March respectively breach the Code requirements
relating to taste and decency and images of very brief
duration. However, the Commission found the series in
general amusing and innovative and had no criticism of
the overall programme concept. It acknowledged that
risks were attached to making innovative programmes
and felt that Channel 4 should not be discouraged for
that reason from seeking to make such programmes. It
proposed to take no further action against Channel 4.


CATEGORY:
Various


COMLAINTS FROM:
i) 5 February: 2 viewers (upheld)
ii) 19 February: 17 viewers (upheld)
iii) 5 March: no complaints received

[Bernard]

Oh that.

Thanks Neil.

I saw a short play once (at the Etc. Theatre in Camden Lock) where the character was called Neil. He did a funny joke about his name and it went something like this.

"Neil do that, Neil do this, Neil fetch me a cup of tea, Neil... down and su -"

Well I enjoyed it.