Balls of Steel was broadcast on Channel 4 and featured two men known as ‘The Pain Brothers’ who inflicted pain upon each other in the name of comedy.  In each episode, different acts compete with each other to prove who has the greatest nerve or ‘balls of steel’.  The Pain Men are regulars on the programme and deliberately inflict extreme pain on themselves or each other with acts which have included stapling a piece of paper to the tongue, applying a wire brush drill to the buttocks and pressing raw onions into the eyes.

Unsurprisingly, when these programmes were first transmitted Ofcom received plenty of complaints but the programme was found not to be in breach of the Broadcasting Code and so the complaints were not upheld.

 

 

We took legal advice and were advised that, consensual or not, this was illegal.  We wrote to Channel 4 asking them to justify their broadcast. They were unable to do, and the matter was referred to the police. Unfortunately the police decided it was not in public interest to prosecute. 

We asked the police to recommend to Ofcom that that the broadcasts be removed from Channel 4’s website owing to their dubious legality.  No response was received, so we asked Ofcom directly that these programmes be removed from so that children would not be able to access them.

 

Ofcom said ‘’material which has been previously broadcast on television without regulatory intervention is, by definition, not ‘…material which might seriously impair’”.  Ofcom considered that the parental controls available meant it would be unlikely that many children would be able to watch this content. 

 

Mediawatch UK cannot agree; as it stands, unless parents have specifically opted into the control scheme – and Ofcom’s research shows us that only approximately one third have – there is nothing meaningful to stop children accessing the broadcast.  Ticking a box to confirm age is easily done and may even encourage curious children to access this material.

Also, it would be naïve to suppose that children are only able to access VOD sites through computers in the family home.  Children can get online by using devices such as games consoles and smart phones as well as in net cafes, libraries and other people’s homes.  In this environment it’s almost impossible for parents to police their children’s viewing and, in our opinion, it is the part of the role of the regulator to offer protection.

In November 2009 six pupils were taken to hospital after drinking ethanol the day after watching similar scenes in the BBC drama Waterloo Road, despite this drama showing the consequences of drinking ethanol.  Children are immature and impressionable and do not have the fully developed skills of logic and empathy of adults.

Ofcom deemed that, because the performers were obviously in pain, it would be unlikely that any children would seek to imitate these ‘stunts’.   The reaction of the performers and audience in these broadcasts clearly showed that the stunts were painful but, quite apart from the emotional distress which may be suffered by children viewing them; this does not mean children won’t emulate their stunts.

Ofcom told us that in reaching their decision, they took account of the broadcaster’s right to freedom of expression, and the audience’s right to receive information and ideas (as contained in Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights).   It would appear that they disregarded the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child which states that the best interests of children must be the primary concern in making decisions that may affect them. All adults should do what is best for children. When adults make decisions, they should think about how their decisions will affect children. This particularly applies to budget, policy and law makers

Ofcom also informed us that there are currently no review or appeal procedures in relation to VOD-related complaints so our only recourse would be to seek judicial review which is sadly beyond our means.