Chris Moyles
BBC Radio 1, 17 January, 14 and 20 February 2006, various times
Introduction
17 January 2006 , approx 08:42
A listener objected to an item in which the presenter discussed people who urinated in the shower. He considered that the presenter’s reference to women who did this as “dirty ladies of the night” was unacceptable at this time of the morning.
14 February 2006 approx 08:21
A listener objected to a guest’s use of the words “wee wee” and “ the act of slapping someone on the top of their forehead” during an interview.
20 February 2006 approx 09:52
Four complainants objected to the use of the word “loving_fini” by the presenter during a conversation with a listener who had called in. The presenter was heard to say: “You’ve got some kids from some loving_fini….” He immediately realised his mistake and made a number of apologies for his language.
Response
The BBC assured us that since these programmes were broadcast, new procedures have been introduced by Radio 1. In future, presenters who accidentally swore or used other offensive language on air would be subject to disciplinary measures. Should this happen twice within twelve months, the presenter would suffer a financial penalty. Programme teams had also been reminded of the existing guidance on how to deal with offensive language from contributors, which included the possibility of persistent offenders being taken off air.
The BBC said that the Controller of Radio 1 has raised the issue of language with this presenter, who had given an assurance that his use of language would be more carefully managed. The Controller would continue, as part of his wider communication with presenters and staff, to emphasise the need to maintain a careful balance between creating an entertaining and authentic service for young listeners and using language that might cause harm and offence to others.
In specific reference to two of the three programmes in question, the BBC said:
14 February 2006
The BBC pointed out that the presenter had rebuked the guest for his language.
20 February 2006
The BBC wished to apologise for the offence caused by the language. It was made clear to the presenter and the executive producer immediately after the programme that such language was not acceptable. The presenter was himself upset and angry that he had made such a slip.
Decision
17 January 2006
The presenter invited female listeners to text in and say whether they urinated in the shower. A large number of texts were received and the presenter said: “Thank you very much ladies, I shouldn’t really say ladies – you all pee in the shower, you dirty ladies of the night.”. Although its use was clearly meant to be light-hearted, this is a word which research suggests is found offensive, particularly by women. Its use, while intended to be humorous, was inappropriate for a breakfast programme that attracts a child audience and in breach of Rule 1.5.
14 February 2006
The use of the words “wee wee” and “slap someone on the forehead” was not altogether suitable in this context, when children were particularly likely to be listening. However, we acknowledge that the presenter had asked the guest not to swear. We also welcome the reminder given to production teams about how to deal with language from contributors. We consider the matter resolved.
20 February 2006
While the use of the word “loving_fini” was clearly a slip of the tongue and was followed by a number of apologies, it was nevertheless unacceptable, given the context and that audience figures suggest, as it was still half-term for some schools, 46000 children were still listening to the programme from 09:30-10:00. This was in breach of Rule 1.14.
Breach of 1.5, resolved and breach of 1.14 (respectively)
Scott Mills
BBC Radio 1, 2 February 2006, approx 16:48
Introduction
A listener complained about a ‘wind-up’ call that was made by the co-presenter for the stated purpose of gaining ‘revenge’ on behalf of a listener. On this occasion a listener had nominated his partner for a ‘revenge’ call after she mistakenly threw away his football tickets. The co-presenter rang the woman at home and pretended to be from an after-school club that her son was due to attend. He then outlined what he said were the “rules of the club” which included: “Rule 1: I don’t take any ****” and “Rule 2: Shut the **** up” and referred to the woman’s son as a little ****. As the exchange continued, the co-presenter called the woman an idiot and she became increasingly angry and upset. The co-presenter finally revealed his identity and explained that the woman had been ‘set up’.
The complainant objected to the call on the following grounds:
* the co-presenter frequently swore during the call, which was inappropriate for this time of day even though this was bleeped for broadcast;
* the co-presenter’s manner was hectoring and aggressive;
* it was inappropriate for the co-presenter to pretend that he was calling from an after-school club and make offensive remarks when it was clear that a child was in the room.
Response
The BBC said that a senior manager responsible for the show heard the item and immediately rang the studio to make clear to the team that it was unacceptable. As a result of this incident, the broadcaster had re-evaluated what was acceptable for Radio 1 to transmit at this time of day. While on-air ‘pranks’ would continue to be a feature of the show, it had been made clear to all concerned that they will not in future include large amounts of strong language, even if bleeped, and that this particular call had crossed the line.
The BBC also accepted that it was not appropriate to treat a member of the public in this way and wished to apologise for any offence the item caused.
Decision
We asked the broadcaster to comment on the item with reference to the following rules of Ofcom’s Broadcasting Code:
1.5 Radio broadcasters must have particular regard to times when children are particularly likely to be listening .
2.3 In applying generally accepted standards broadcasters must ensure that material which may cause offence is justified by the context. Such material may include, but is not limited to, offensive language, violence, sex, sexual violence, humiliation, distress, violation of human dignity, discriminatory treatment or language (for example on the grounds of age, disability, gender, race, religion, beliefs and sexual orientation). Appropriate information should also be broadcast where it would assist in avoiding or minimising offence.
Wind-up scenarios are a common feature of many radio stations’ programming output and they are generally good-natured.
On this occasion, the co-presenter called the woman pretending to be from an after-school club that her young son was due to attend. When the co-presenter said that he had called to explain the club’s rules, understandably, she was keen to ensure that she understood the rules that her son would have to abide by. She went off to get a pen to write the rules down. Then the co-presenter started to speak in an overtly aggressive manner, swearing (although this was bleeped for broadcast) and using offensive language to describe the rules of the club, which included: Rule 1: ‘I don’t take any poopy [bleeped]’; Rule 2; ‘Shut the giraffe up [bleeped]’. At this point he told her that she might want to pass that particular rule onto her ‘little angel [bleeped]’. The woman was shocked and clearly objected, particularly as her son was in the room (at one point she could be heard asking her son to go into another room).
Given the circumstances, the call made for, at the least, very uncomfortable listening. Although the swearing was bleeped, the frequency and severity of the language was clear. Furthermore, the tone of the call was aggressive and unpleasant. Ofcom had not received a complaint from the mother, and so whether permission was given by her to broadcast the conversation was not a matter of this investigation. Nevertheless, she clearly appeared at the time of the broadcast to be distressed, angry and upset. The item was not suitable for broadcast when children were likely to be listening and was therefore in breach of Rules 1.3 and 1.5 of the Code. Moreover, we consider that the treatment of the woman in this way caused offence and breached generally accepted standards and was therefore in breach of Rule 2.3.
While we welcome the steps taken by the broadcaster to address the issues raised by this item, we were nevertheless concerned that adequate production procedures were not already in place to identify that this pre-recorded item was clearly unsuitable for broadcast.
Breach of Rules 1.5 and 2.3
We consider that the above broadcast resulted from a serious misjudgement. It is the latest in a number of findings against Radio 1. During the last year, we have published five findings concerning swearing and/or inappropriately scheduled content. Two cases were in breach of the relevant Code. A further three cases were resolved due to action taken by the broadcaster. We appreciate the wide choice of content that is broadcast by the station, but we have concerns about the number and, in some cases, the seriousness of compliance issues that have arisen. We recognise that Radio 1 aims to produce imaginative and innovative programming but the station also attracts a wide-ranging audience, including large numbers of children. It is, therefore, important that the station’s compliance reflects this. Any future similarly serious compliance issues may result in the consideration of further regulatory action.
