Ofcom rules on Springer the Opera – No Breach

The programme as broadcast was not only clearly labelled and signposted, but was preceded by programmes which aimed to put the whole show in context. As always with matters of offence, the context is key. Whilst the show clearly had the potential to offend and indeed the intention to shock it was set in a very clear context as a comment on modern television. The strongest and most offensive language occurred well after the watershed: at 2230 onwards, with the most challenging material after 2300.

You can download the .pdf version here at Ofcom’s website. An html version of just the Springer ruling is viewable here for your convenience.

We will be monitoring closely the reactions of our favourite media would-be censors in the coming days. Should be fun!

16 Responses to “Ofcom rules on Springer the Opera – No Breach”

  1. Tania says:

    *Sticks tongue out at Stephen Green*

  2. Andy L says:

    Oh yeah. This’ll be fun.

    Congratulations to Ofcom for making the right decision.

  3. Tania says:

    Can’t wait to see the latest installment on the CV site totally slating Ofcom…who by the way have my total respect for their report on JSTO. Did anyone else read it? It put the religious fanatics right in their place.

  4. Scaryduck says:

    Well done Ofcom, I presume they’re fine with Our Lord Stephen Green consigning them to the fires of Hell.

  5. Tim Ireland says:

    Well done, Ofcom – and congratulations to John Beyer and Stephen Green for a huge waste of licence-payers’ and taxpayers’ money.

  6. g. Tingey says:

    What is this licence-payer?

    Licence for what?
    Telling the believers to stick their blackmail, perhaps?

  7. Tim Ireland says:

    g. Tingey: I get the feeling you missed my point. The people and the centre of these complaints blew the issue all out of proportion, which resulted in the BBC having to make a report before Ofcom made a more-indepth report than usual. These reports and the processing of the many (misguided and/or multiple) complaints was a waste of money.

    Slapping right-wing bullies down… well, that’s priceless, I agree.

  8. Christopher Shell says:

    Right wing?? Supporters of the Christian stance come from all parties. Ive never voted Conservative etc in my life, not that I rule anything out in the future – we shall have to see.

  9. tom p says:

    Doc – you were not leadingthe protests, were you?
    Stephen Green was one of the most voiceferous protestors (and one of the main benificiaries, gaining, as he did, huge public awareness for his previously unheard of fringe group), and he was former leader of the Conservative Family Campaign (that Conservative with a capital C, of course). Therefore, Tim was using the epithet ‘right-wing’ wholy appropriately

  10. Christopher Shell says:

    Yes he was. It’s only the ‘right wing loonies’ cliche (whihc is widespread) which I dont believe to be accurate. (Not that anyone shd pay any attention to cliches anyway.)
    I think that on family/moral issues most Christians are Conservative. I certainly am.
    On egalitarian/justice/poverty issues most of them are Labour. I certainly am.
    This simply reflects the biblical stance on these issues.

  11. tom p says:

    He actually said “right-wing bullies”, which is hardly a clichéd phrase. Indeed in this case (one of the main protagonists went on to blackmail a cancer charity) it is completely aposite.
    I’m always surprised at why christians are Tory on family issues (moral I can understand). After all, tory free-market and anti-worker policies do more harm to families than you would expect if they were actively trying to destroy families. They may preach pro-family rhetoric, but it doesn’t mean that they are.

  12. Christopher Shell says:

    Yes, I agree on that as well. But at least their actual beliefs on what family life should be (their blueprint) is certainly closer to Christianity than the Labour one.

  13. tom p says:

    It’s rhetoric, doc. they don’t mean it, it’s just to sucker well-meaning gullible souls like yourself in. see my posting of the oed definition of rhetoric a few sections above.

  14. Christopher Shell says:

    That’s a bit of a generalisation. But yes: I think they are a bit impotent in this area, & dont much listen to pledges any more, only to results.

  15. Christopher Shell says:

    I dont listen to pledges, I mean, not they dont.